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."

[DelphiUser]

“I’m playing catch up, I won’t hold it against you. It’s pretty common wording though from you, please refrain.” And since you are a protected species at FR, I will not even try to answer further.

Protected Species? ROTFLOL!

MHG, I know you like smileys, that's why all my group hugs have been smileys so far, here, try this one on for size...

[sevenbak]

You seem to forget that this was NOT any 'command'!

Command? Since all that believed were together and had all things in common, do you think they all independently came to the same conclusion about having all things in common? Or do you think Peter had instruction from God to do such, and they all accepted his word as the direction from the Lord. I suspect the latter, but it's certainly possible they all received revelation individually. That is after all a component of the gospel.

Why do you think it happened so?

[Utah Binger]

Thanks for noticing. Charity takes many forms. Bright individuals really can see the big picture without all the street fighting that sometimes occurs.

[Old Mountain man]

I join you in the group hug.

[sevenbak]

You’ve already conceded that the BoM lifts parts of Isaiah & plants them in the BoM wholesale.

The Book of Mormon peoples had records that contained the OT prophecies. The ones they (Lehi, Nephi, etc.) included in the text of the BOM are the ones that are relative to the mission of Jesus Christ and the last days. This is why the BOM was written, brought forth, to be another witness of Jesus Christ. How many people just gloss over Isaiah? The Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah, and then explains it, in pure and simple language.

Here is a BOM prophet's own words on why Isaiah is so important.

2 Nephi 25:

4 Wherefore, hearken, O my people, which are of the house of Israel, and give ear unto my words; for because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy. But I give unto you a prophecy, according to the spirit which is in me; wherefore I shall prophesy according to the plainness which hath been with me from the time that I came out from Jerusalem with my father; for behold, my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn.
5 Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.
6 But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews; but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about; and I have made mention unto my children concerning the judgments of God, which hath come to pass among the Jews, unto my children, according to all that which Isaiah hath spoken, and I do not write them.
7 But behold, I proceed with mine own prophecy, according to my plainness; in the which I bknow that no man can err; nevertheless, in the days that the prophecies of Isaiah shall be fulfilled men shall know of a surety, at the times when they shall come to pass.
8 Wherefore, they are of worth unto the children of men, and he that supposeth that they are not, unto them will I speak particularly, and confine the words unto mine own people; for I know that they shall be of great worth unto them in the last days; for in that day shall they understand them; wherefore, for their good have I written them.
9 And as one generation hath been destroyed among the Jews because of iniquity, even so have they been destroyed from generation to generation according to their iniquities; and never hath any of them been destroyed save it were foretold them by the prophets of the Lord.

And Christ Himself tells us to study Isaiah:

3 Nephi 23:

1 And now, behold, I say unto you, that ye ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah.
2 For surely he spake as touching all things concerning my people which are of the house of Israel; therefore it must needs be that he must speak also to the Gentiles.
3 And all things that he spake have been and shall be, even according to the words which he spake.
4 Therefore give heed to my words; write the things which I have told you; and according to the time and the will of the Father they shall go forth unto the Gentiles.
5 And whosoever will hearken unto my words and repenteth and is baptized, the same shall be saved. Search the prophets, for many there be that testify of these things.

[sevenbak]

Thanks for the pings DU. It’s rather refreshing! ;-)

[sevenbak]

LOL! That one’s a keeper.

[sevenbak]

I second the motion. Here's a warm fuzzy.

[sevenbak]

No one is revising anything. You are clinging onto a single reason that we pay tithing.

That should be the last reason we do it. For it is the most self serving reason.

It’s like the principle of obedience in general. There are 3 basic reasons one obeys God.

1. Fear (You fear you will burn in hell if you don’t keep the commandments)

2. Obedience for obedience sake (you obey because it’s expected of you, like the pharisees)

3. Love (you love God and are willing to do all things for Him and His kindgom’s sake)

[Old Mountain man]

I like the third reason the best!

8-)

[sevenbak]

That goes without saying! I meant to add that we need to check our motivations and ask ourselves why we are obedient to the commandments. I thought the statement was there underlying the post, but this makes it clear.

Thanks!

[sevenbak]

“I’m playing catch up, I won’t hold it against you. It’s pretty common wording though from you, please refrain.” And since you are a protected species at FR, I will not even try to answer further.

I find it hard to fathom that you won’t even try to engage in this discussion without having to resort to tactics that will close a thread, so you just give up.

Let me give you one last go at that post, for there are some items in here that are most relevant.

___________________________________________________________________________ Now, on to the subject... Of course Ananias and Sapphira lied! That is obvious. So did Peter about the Christ. God didn’t kill him though, did he? He was made the head of His church. In fact, he revealed to Peter that he would kill Sapphira. It’s much more than a lie, it’s a breaking of covenants.

But, you do make an excelled point as to the necessity of works. Ananias and Sapphira were believing Christians, and yet God held them accountable for their actions. Thanks for pointing that out.

The “all things in common” was practiced by the saints, and all that believed practiced together. I believe that Christ himself set the example here in Matthew:

Matthew 19:21

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

The LDS believe that not only did the early Jerusalem Christians have all things in common, but so did the Nephites, after Christ’s appearance to them in the new world. We also believe the residents of the City of Enoch also had all things in common. The early LDS church also tried it, and in some aspects, it was successful, but it ultimately failed due to the pride, which we all have. In a perfect world, as I suspect will happen during the millennial reign of Christ, we will love each other more than ourselves, and practice “all things in common” once again.

Cheers.

[sevenbak]

Well, I tried to find popcorn eating huggers, but alas, we'll have to settle for the three stooges.

[sevenbak]

Hey, all this hugging and agreeing is a good thing! I suspect once we get past the suspicions and fear of our religion, we would find that we hold much in common. Not just politically... after all we are all here on FR.

[sevenbak]

Hey, my warm fuzzy was hijacked!

[Old Mountain man]

Have another one from me!

[DelphiUser]

I'm not sure that with you and me and OMM posting back and forth that posting a pic of the three stooges was wise, wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean? know hat I mean?

So here's a Group hug with a star in it:

And a static hug:

[DelphiUser]

"know hat I mean?" should be "know what I mean?"

Some times spell check just isn't enough, Sigh.

[MHGinTN]

“The LDS believe that not only did the early Jerusalem Christians have all things in common, but so did the Nephites ...” We have the historical evidence that Smith apparently believed this also, since he wanted other men to share their wives with him. As to whether I am responsible for your thred being closed, read your operator tracer’s comments and get back to me. Or better still, don’t bother ... wouldn’t want him to be successful in getting this thread closed too.

[Colofornian]

From my understanding, the Catholics think you and I and everyone who is not Catholic are going to hell until recently.

Allow me to pull a common LDS tactic/trick: That's not official Catholic doctrine...checked off by The First Popery and the Quorum of 12 Archbishops and 70 General Authorities (otherwise known as nuns, the true behind-the-scenes leaders :) and unanimously sustained by every Roman Catholic everywhere & then printed in the Roman Catholic new scriptures, "Roman Catholic Doctrines & Covenants"...

There are also Plenty of protestant churches with equally damning statements about anyone who is not e member of their church, I have yet to see you broadside any of them, care to ping me to a few posts in say the last month where you do? If so I will publicly apologize for misjudging you.

But seriously, there is one "serious" note of distinction in my graph above, one that also applies to your "Protestant" church reference here (tho I don't personally know of what Protestant churches you even reference...I mean pulling that response out of a hat is like me citing some obscure LDS break-off group & then tying that to LDS). Anyway, here's the big difference: What I reference is LDS "Scripture." What you reference re: Catholics is informal Catholic beliefs...and perhaps a few past Pope statements that would amount to no more of a doctrinal level than Brigham Young's blood atonement or Adam-god doctrine. And the same is true of whatever Protestant churches you refer to: What scripture are they citing?