Book of Mormon Intro Modified

[creekster]

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?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by creekster

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?

The only thing this stuff means to me is evidence that people who quote GA's as if everything they say is scripture are "mullah's".

I love to yank on there chain as symbolically getting even for all the false crap people taught me when I was young.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by creekster

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?

There could be consequences for the way people approach Mormonism.

Everyone seems to be having a decent discourse here at CG, so I think we're doing OK.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

Actually, I asked what was the most controversial/evil thing the Prophet has asked you to do.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Not exactly. As in most things, there is a line. There is a realm of discovery where revelation and science can both live in peace, and I think this change exists in that realm.

However, if you very politely and nicely say that you think the church should come out and admit the Book of Mormon is a complete hoax, I'm going to disagree on more than just your tone.

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

And this is where we part company. I'm okay with others thinking this is of bigger impact than I do, but in essence, it doesn't affect the doctrine or the fundamental claims of the Book of Mormon at all. It's just a clarification that moves the needle from somewhere north of 51% to "who knows" percent. Hard to see how this led anyone "astray."

Maybe the truly tough part of this conversation is what constitutes "astray." We have prophetic mistakes going back as far as the Kirtland Safety Society and the 116 pages. The church and those who remained true to its leaders stayed right on course.

Originally Posted by Adam

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

To you, perhaps. Was it a big deal when they added the JST excerpts? Doesn't seem to have improved the intellectual community's opinion of them.