From Deseret News archives:

Intro change in Book of Mormon spurs discussion

Published: Friday, Nov. 9, 2007 12:24 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
A one-word change in the introduction to a 2006 edition of the Book of Mormon has reignited discussion among some Latter-day Saints about the book's historicity, geography and the descendants of those chronicled within its pages.

The book is considered scripture by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and many lifelong members grew up believing that American Indians are direct descendants of ancient people in the book called Lamanites, who the book says built a civilization in the Americas between about 600 B.C. and 400 A.D.

Past LDS Church leaders, particularly former church President Spencer W. Kimball, have made such statements, which have been supported by the introduction page in the Book of Mormon. Past editions of that page say all of the people chronicled in the book "were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction reads much the same but says the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

The change was made in the second edition published by Doubleday, a hard-cover book that eliminates the footnotes Latter-day Saints see in their church-published books. The Doubleday edition is designed to be "reader-friendly" for non-Latter-day Saints who encounter the book for the first time.

Story continues below
Last year's change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," according to church spokesman Mark Tuttle. "The change will be included in the next edition of the Book of Mormon printed by the church."

He said the introduction page in current LDS-produced books "was not part of the original text translated by Joseph Smith Jr.," adding it was written and published in 1981. The church declined comment on who wrote that version of the page.

Andrew Corbin, a senior editor at Doubleday, said the one-word change was specifically requested by the church for the second edition, published in October 2006. "It's been out for quite a while, so if there are other questions about the text, the church can better answer that."

The change is significant for those who have questioned the book's claim to be a historical record of people who migrated to the Americas from Jerusalem, rather than a creation of LDS Church founder Joseph Smith, who said he translated it from plates given to him by an angel from God.

Claims in recent years by LDS anthropologist Thomas Murphy and former LDS molecular biologist Simon Southerton regarding the lack of a genetic connection to Hebrew blood in American Indians have caused spirited debate in some quarters about the book's origins.

Recent comments

aAnne, I know you have an honest heart and want to still believe,...

Goodgeye | Dec. 19, 2007 at 11:47 p.m.

If you believe, you'll continue to believe.
If you don't, you never...

Misha | Dec. 18, 2007 at 6:45 a.m.

I think that these changes were simply because of incorrect English....

Anne | Dec. 17, 2007 at 12:12 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

When Boozer was shooting the free throws, why Sloan didn't substitute Mathew...

Letters: Global warming a lie

actions, I will be forced to be accountable for them. I refuse. I am an...

What's with the Utah fans flashing the double L sign?

@mark: So Sam da Ham... you were just making it up?" I'm a climate...

Utes excited to go to San Diego

"I have no idea why BYU fans are talking smack about bowl opponents. Even if...

TCU versus BSU unpopular

You say to "quit whining and play somebody." Isn't that what everyone is...

BoM translation remarkably consistent

Reading these comments, I start wondering-- Whatever happened to faith? Why...

Utes excited to go to San Diego

All those numbers when all you reall need to know is that BYU has beat Utah...

BYU eager for crack at Oregon State

All thos numbers when all you reall need to know is that BYU has beat Utah...

So Sam da Ham, when you said this: "Not so. Al Gore is poised to make...

Advertisements