Book of Mormon Intro Modified
 

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990

P.S. I didn't realize SeattleUte's name was Peggy Fletcher Stack. Speaks volumes.

Heh. "Speaks volumes" seems to be the phrase to use when you have barely enough to say to fill a small pamphlet.

Impressive, exUte.

Some interesting and heated comments after the article. It looks like many an anti just waits for something like this to come out and then pounces on it.

Nice work Adam. BYU71's response cracked me up. Introductions to scriptures may change, but BYU71's contempt for the honor code never will.

LOL, I didn't even notice that.

Death, Taxes, and BYU71's contempt for the honor code .... kinds rolls off the tongue.

I agree the change to the change was long overdue. BRM made the mistake and the Church is simply correcting the mistake.

The comments by the detractors were certainly over the top.

I've been wanting a change like this for years. Kevin Barney has this exactly right.

I agree.

The problem with many anti's is that their rhetoric is so bad, it makes some of the bad rhetoric of the apologists look good. If we had thoughtful observations and criticisms it would force believers to be more thoughtful and better in our articulations.

The comments attached were so aaronshaflike as to not merit any response.

This is true. It takes somebody like Ed Decker or Bill McKeever to make some of the rhetoric of LDS apologists look good.

This just proves again there is no such thing as "Mormon doctrine." It's all folklore. Just like any folklore, contradictory and internally inconsistent versions are passed around over generations that defy synthesis or reconsiliation or authoritative accounts, though some will try and fail to synthesize, reconcile or give the authoritative account. If someone disagrees, tell me where I can find Mormon doctrine?

NOTE: Just because it's all folklore doesn't mean it's unworthy of your adoration. That's the Mystery.

Does this mean Adam is a prophet? I worship thee Adam.

I never knew McConkie wrote that introduction. Boy, is his reputation in tatters or what?

Perhaps in honor of this event Mike has removed the hyperbole from the title of this very site.

Glad that this gave you a chance to step onto your bully pulpit but even if someone had attempted to define doctrine prior to the change they would not have looked to an introduction to the BOM.

He wrote the 1981 introduction as he was on the Committee that revised the Topical Guide and other documents during those revisions and re-compilations of the English Scriptures.

Wherein do you gather that an introductory note ever could be doctrine?

If it was a committee, then should we be blaming Elder McConkie for the word in question? I realize the inborn human need for scapegoats and the convience that it provides....

I believe he selected and chaired the committee. So if that belief is correct, he shoulders the blame.

Given his past works, MoDoc and the Seven Deadly Heresies Speech, I'm not too shocked he would come up with erroneous stuff.

Was it a committee effort or not?

God had already told some people here that word was wrong. He just hadn't gotten around to telling his apostles and prophet yet.

Last to know, first to go ...

Are you suggesting we find out who else was on the committee and blame them too? I actually don't know that anyone deserves blame for this. It is quite apparent that it was a widely-held belief that Native Americans were descended from Lamanites, and this intro was a reflection of that. That doctrine has changed recently as we've discovered it to be false.

If a Mormon can't consider the introduction to the Book of Mormon doctrine, what can he consider to be doctrine? Did President Kimball not approve its inclusion? Are the verses contained in the triple combination the only thing a Mormon should accept as doctrine? What, then, is the point of having a prophet today?

False? Even with the revision, the claim is still being made that there is Lamanite heritage in the native peoples. The only thing that was changed was a word which would indicate in the vaguest of terms the proportion that hertiage represented.

Yes, false. It is objectively false that the Lamanites represent anything close to the "principle ancestors" of Native Americans. If they are ancestral at all, or ever existed at all, supportive evidence is still absent. That Lamanite blood is still present in some Native Americans isn't entirely disprovable, but the old doctrine of principle ancestry is and has been.

I thought you were saying that claiming ANY Lamanite ancestry was false.

Nope, it's not something that can really be proven false, but it does seem very unlikely. I put it in the same category as any other fantastical idea that isn't disprovable.

Given the numerous journeys that occurred throughout the world over time, from the "landbridge", to the 15th Chinese explorations, and other voyages, you find unlikely that peoples from the Middle East also migrated here at one time in the distant past?

I find unlikely they didn't. Seafaring peoples are likely to have stumbled over here. Now whether we have a record of one of those groups falls into the unprovable category, but that doesn't make it fantastical. I find nothing about ancient peoples taking to the seas as fantastical.

You should see the meager craft Polynesians traverse very dangerous seas in. It is quite amazing.

The crafts that we speculate that certain peoples may have used to cross the ocean on kelp forests many thousands of years ago were quite meager, so no, I don't find it unlikely in principle.

This is a change of subject though. A specific group of people from a specific place building a specific kind of boat and crossing the ocean at a specific time and for a specific reason is unlikely. People were quite nomadic back then, so it's entirely possible that some of those who crossed over had at one time passed through the middle east. That isn't what we're talking about here.

You made it sound as if ancient Middle Eastern people traveling across the seas was fantastical. That in my mind, shows your bias, and the fact that peoples for thousands of years have been crossing the seas, by design in the case of the Chinese explorations in the early 15th Century, and by many other peoples.

Now you state, because you disbelieve it all, that it is fantastical that Middle Eastern people in the materials available at that point in time couldn't have done it. What, they weren't smart enough?

I agree it is unprovable whether the BoM is an ancient record of one of these journeys, but your claim that the basic journey is highly improbable for such naive and ignorant persons, I dispute.

Have you ever seen the distances Tahitians travel in outriggers? Would want to make the same journey? I'm not certain I would.

If the claim is plausible, that ancient peoples constructed craft watersafe enough, a small number could have bumbled across one or both seas. In most circumstances they would have landed elsewhere, but given the vast numbers that probably tried, some would have succeeded. We have Skandavian successes, Portuguese, Chinese successes and why not others? I imagine the Egyptians or Aryans from the Indic Valley or other peoples traversed the seas in small numbers and landed on the new continent.

I think you missed the point, but I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. I just acknowledged that all sorts of people may have traveled across the ocean at varying times, including people that may or may not have once lived in the middle east, so I don't know why you're listing examples and making contrary accusations.

You intend this as a criticism? Apparently, some of the evil "free-thinkers" here actually got it right.

Please tell me you don't intend this as a dig at those who "criticize" the church leaders for perpetuating incorrect information.

Trying to see if you will back from your silly claim that a group of travelers migrating from the MidEast to the Western Hemisphere is fantastical. It may not have happened or we may not have the record, even though many believe otherwise, but just trying to get you to back down from your overstated claim.

How dare we get it right! That's an outrage.

They weren't listening. But you were. That thought brings me great comfort.

In no small part because Adam had been reading all those academic journals on mitochondrial DNA studies of Native American and Meso-American peoples in 1980.

I swear you have terrible reading comprehension. I never made that claim. If you think I did, you're wrong.

I really don't think that's what he's saying. We "evil free-thinkers" figure things out through other means and point out contradictions between religion and reality. At some time in the future, religion generally catches up. That doesn't make us prophets.

Truth will out.

Woot also wrote:

Right... and did you miss the extremely explicit context in which I very clearly and repeatedly explicated that I was referring to the specific story, and not some overarching theoretical concept, or did you just choose to ignore all that so that you could pretend to have caught me in a bad position?

You don't exactly have a stellar history with comprehending my posts.