Single Word Change in Book of Mormon Speaks Volumes

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | November 8, 2007 | Peggy Fletcher Stack

[Colofornian]

The LDS Church has changed a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon, a change observers say has serious implications for commonly held LDS beliefs about the ancestry of American Indians.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe founder Joseph Smith unearthed a set of gold plates from a hill in upperstate New York in 1827 and translated the ancient text into English. The account, known as The Book of Mormon, tells the story of two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as the Nephites and Lamanites.

The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing."

The change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday.

It also steps into the middle of a raging debate about the book's historical claims.

Many Mormons, including several church presidents, have taught that the Americas were largely inhabited by Book of Mormon peoples. In 1971, Church President Spencer W. Kimball said that Lehi, the family patriarch, was "the ancestor of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea."

After testing the DNA of more than 12,000 Indians, though, most researchers have concluded that the continent's early inhabitants came from Asia across the Bering Strait.

With this change, the LDS Church is "conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them," said Simon Southerton, a former Mormon and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church.

"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."

LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.

On the church's official Web site, lds.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."

Mormon researcher John M. Butler and DNA expert further argues that "careful examination and demographic analysis of the Book of Mormon record in terms of population growth and the number of people described implies that other groups were likely present in the promised land when Lehi's family arrived, and these groups may have genetically mixed with the Nephites, Lamanites, and other groups. Events related in the Book of Mormon likely took place in a limited region, leaving plenty of room for other Native American peoples to have existed."

In recent years, many LDS scholars have come to share Butler's belief in what is known as the "limited geography" theory. By this view, the Nephites and Lamanites restricted their activities to portions of Central America, which would explain their absence from the general American Indian genetics.

Kevin Barney, a Mormon lawyer and independent researcher in Chicago, welcomes the introduction's word change.

"I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon's] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture," said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."

[Old Mountain man]

If you knew anything about us, you would know better than that. Watch out, your ignorance shows.

[DelphiUser]

But we DO 'know' what your organization has published over the ytears.

Of course given any sufficiently large body of work, you can find a a quote, or just excerpt from one and say anything you want. That does not make it true.

Elsie, I have never consciously tried to take your words or any of your scripture quotes out of context, can you say the same?

[DelphiUser]

I Said: Here are my two questions: 1) I understand that you do not believe my interpretation, but what does it mean to a non Mormon that the believers held all things in Common?

I Said: Why do you keep insisting we 'explain' our postion; when you continue to ignore the Scripture?

I can and do read very well thank you. I have read and understand the scripture from my perspective, and according to my beliefs, I am simply trying to understand your perspective which you now seem unwilling to share. I remember a scripture about a light and a bushel... Oh well, if your beliefs are to shaky to be published on an open forum, I guess I will not embarrass you by asking you, then again, unless you have multiple logins, I didn't, did I?

[DelphiUser]

You are being fed an accurate and loving view of us by some posters here.

ROTFLOL! No stop, that's the best joke I've seen in years!

[DelphiUser]

I Said: Many there are who will pay their tithes and not go to the highest degree, the first example I can think of is myself, for I know my own sins more intimately than anyone else I know...

You Said: Then a smart person would save his money!!

You go right ahead and and do what makes sense to you.

(For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.)

[DelphiUser]

You're kidding; right??

You have found me out, there is always an element of humor when dealing with Anti Mormons, and when doing technical support.

Who knows what PEBKAC means... (grin)

in this case its more PEBBAP...(It's a techie thing)

[DelphiUser]

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

It's too bad you don't 'believe' this:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin,"
Rom. 3:20

There you go again, claiming to know what I do and don't believe...

[DelphiUser]

Getting a reward for good works is not the same as earning your salvation through them. Pretty basic difference.

So why do you guys keep misstating our belief since you claim to knwo the difference.

Since you have already figured out that I am having fun with you guys, lets try it this way can you accurately state teh Mormons belief on Works and faith? Com on, this is your chance to show you actually understand, if you get it right, I promise to stop posting for at least four hours, if you get it wrong, you have to go get some sunlight for four hours (I know it hurts the eyes, but it really is good for you) Deal?

You can even ping in some other Mormons like sevenbak, or Grig if you don't think I will be honest, they will keep me on the "Straight and narrow", come on, try.

[DelphiUser]

Who knows what PEBKAC means... (grin)

For those who Give up... the answer is here

[DelphiUser]

Yawn...

****************BBL8R****************

[DelphiUser]

PEBKAC video here then I really am going to take a break...

[MHGinTN]

Doubtless now, you see to what I was referring.

[Elsie]

Watch out, your ignorance shows.

Saddly; you are right.

You don't, however, need to worry; for yours is well hidden.

[Elsie]

That does not make it true.

It doesn't make it false; either.

[Elsie]

I have read and understand the scripture from my perspective, and according to my beliefs, I am simply trying to understand your perspective which you now seem unwilling to share.

No, this is untrue.

You have READ it; you just don't BELIEVE it.

[according to your 'perspective'.]

[Elsie]

There you go again, claiming to know what I do and don't believe...

There YOU go again; showing by your ACTIONS what you REALLY believe!

Nice fruits!

[Elsie]

For those who don’t care; keep reading...

[Religion Moderator]

Several threads have already been locked for "poor behavior."

LISTEN UP!

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

[DelphiUser]

I Said: That does not make it true.

You Said: It doesn't make it false; either.

I cannot help but notice your conversation with Old Mountain Man, and note that you are having one of the most juvenile arguments about who is more ignorant that I have witnessed on this forum in some time.

I offer my mothers advice to you "It is better to remain silent and have people wonder if you are stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

I will state that to argue with someone about what they actually believe is to begin an argument that simply cannot be won, discretion in this case is truly the better part of valor and in this case would be wise as well.

I do not expect you to take this instruction from me, I expect you will make some wisecrack and probably sign it "Mormon Dude". Well, at least you are consistent, and predictable.

[MHGinTN]

Read post #298 regarding ‘making it personal and being nasty ... unless Mormons are immune from censure, in which case carry on, we will figure it out.