Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ (Post 148047)

The double-bind here is that, on the one hand, the 1981 wording in the Introduction to the BoM has been used to bludgeon people who have divergent views. "The prophet approved of it's inclusion, he knows better than you," etc.

Now that the wording has been changed, these folks want to sing a different tune. "It wasn't a big deal, who cares, nit picking," and so on.

It's the same double bind on the level of the text that is sometimes thrown at those who wanted the wording change. If there had been no wording change, defenders of the 1981 wording would talk about how it's been there for years and years with the prophet's knowledge, and so those of you who want a change are wrong. Now that there has been a change, the tune changes to, "So, you think you knew before the prophet did?"

If that isn't sour grapes, what is?

It's the absurdity of closed-mindedness. Those who pay attention, who ask questions, and who look for answers in this area are simply aware of the advantages of a wording change. They are completely justified in finding some satistfaction in the change (and therein in the leaders who made it), but that won't stop anti-intellectuals from raining on the parade. That's right, the "ingrate intellectual crowd" is pleased with something Church leaders have done, and the fundies can't help but criticize them for it.

There's a wording change in the Intro to the BoM and many of the scholarly and intellectual types in the Church are enthused. Why are they enthused? Because they care about the BoM and feel affirmed in their study of it. And the fundies are the ones, who, in the face of a change to the introduction of scripture, are in "nothing to see, move along" mode. They have little room in their dogma for change, and so they seek to minimize its significance when it comes along. They are the ones, frankly, who could really benefit from paying attention to these things.

I value scripture. I value how it's introduced. I've been wanting a change to this very wording for years. Right now, I'm pleased as punch with my leaders who went forward with this. Like Adam, I suspect that it has something to do with turnover in the highest quourms and presidencies of the Church.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 147633)

It is not that he hadn't gotten around to telling his apostles and prophets yet Tex. It is that they weren't listening because they are somewhat prideful as natural men and don't want to admit they screwed it up in the first place. You get enough fresh blood that isn't emotionally tied to the mistake and it changes.

Originally Posted by BYU71 (Post 148072)

How would you all like to have grown up when I did. Grown up when all this stuff that is now changing was taught as strict doctrine.

My problem with the honor code was when I went to BYU I loved the honor code. I loved the fact girls had to wear dresses. I loved the fact that men couldn't wear levi's.

I loved the fact that boys and girls couldn't kiss on campus even if they were married.

How shattering do you think it was for me to see those stalwarts of values, honor and integrity done away with. Shattering I tell you, shattering.

However, I still was able to hold onto the great truths like black people were fence sitters, the Catholic Church was the "great whore" and the Indians were the decendents of the Lamanites. Please don't tell me any of these things are not held to be truths anymore.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 148068)

I think Indy has made the point before that it's not so much the questions, but the tone. It's not, "Gee, I think the language in the Intro is stronger than it needs to be, based on the DNA evidence we have. They might want to look at that. Maybe they know something we don't."

Instead, it's:



I'm sure you can see the difference.

With respect to bludgeoning, I don't know that I have ever bludgeoned anyone on this particular issue. I honestly don't see the big deal in the change. If there's one thing I have strict confidence in, it's the origin of the Book of Mormon. It's not as though the introduction was dictated by revelation like the D&C, though I concept it is only one step removed from it.

Originally Posted by creekster (Post 148130)

WHy does this need to be about sides among believers? THe change was important enough to make. The change does not alter the primary message of the book. Perhaps the change was overdue, perhaps not. THe Deseret News article someone linked makes the point that Richard Evans spoke in 1957 in a book of the nephites and lamainites as among peoples in the new world. These are all ideas worth discussing, but why don't we just discuss it rather than polarize into groups?

Originally Posted by creekster (Post 148130)

WHy does this need to be about sides among believers? THe change was important enough to make. The change does not alter the primary message of the book. Perhaps the change was overdue, perhaps not. THe Deseret News article someone linked makes the point that Richard Evans spoke in 1957 in a book of the nephites and lamainites as among peoples in the new world. These are all ideas worth discussing, but why don't we just discuss it rather than polarize into groups?

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 148224)

A few weeks back I believe Indy or Tex were asking when the last time a Prophet led you astray.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 148224)

Ok, so in the future when I continue to call for the Church to cut the misleading and nearly universally misinterpreted excerpts from WW's conference addresses out from behind the D&C and you tell me I'm wrong, you are really not saying I'm wrong, but just that I should ask for the change in a nicer way. Good to know.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 148224)

I think this change is huge. It is an admission of a mistake made by Apostles and Prophets as approved by the First Presidency and sustained by the membership by the raising of the right hand.

Now I already knew that Prophets and Apostles make mistakes, and not just theoretical or little ones, but sometimes big public ones too. But those who believe that "the prophet will never lead the church astray", if they are honest, are smacked in the face by this.

A few weeks back I believe Indy or Tex were asking when the last time a Prophet led you astray. We all can now answer that we were being clearly lead astray regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 148224)

Also, if this wasn't a big deal, would it be a big deal if they take out the WW quotes?