Book of Mormon Intro Modified

[SeattleUte]

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?

[creekster]

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

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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?

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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

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?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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....

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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....

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 ...

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Was it a committee effort or not?

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?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

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.

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.