Deseret News | Intro change in Book of Mormon spurs discussion

Reader comments
Intro change in Book of Mormon spurs discussion

245 comments | Read story

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3
4
5

Search/Pray | 9:33 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007

Those of you who do not believe that the Book of Mormon is true have not read it. I haven't read the dictionary all the way through but, I believe it be correct. You can not know if the Book of Mormon is true if you don't read it. Add some humble prayer and open mindedness and you just might be enlightened. Don't judge what you know nothing about!

Spock | 10:22 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007

All this nonsense reminds me of a Star Wars convention, arguing the merits of a piece of fiction. The true believers are going to believe no matter what the truth is.

To say that Joseph Smith could not have written that piece of claptrap is also nonsense. He (or one of his cohorts) copied a good deal of it from the Bible--another piece of claptrap.

There is no scientific evidence of Moses and the jews wandering in the desert for 40 years either. It is ALL made up folks!

What will it take? | 10:53 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007

Recent DNA science says (something like) there is no evidence of Hebrew DNA among the Native Americans.

Mormons get all stirred up over this because their founder (and many successors) claimed otherwise.

So what would it really take for a Mormon to become convinced "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that their founder and successors were really wrong about this? Mormons, what are your criteria?

By contrast, what would it take for those of us who believe in science to become convinced that the research is wrong and Joseph Smith was correct? Rationalists/empiricists/scientists, what are your criteria?

Comments continue below

hopeful believer | 11:24 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007

Before making any hasty judgements, one way or the other, it is well to educate oneself. I am an active LDS who has also had to deal with these issues related to the BofM over many years. I have come to believe in the plausibilty of the truthfulness of the BofM. The jury is out when it comes to resolving BofM issues and/or BofA issues with strictly physical evidence.

The fact is, however, that there are some interesting things to look at in regards to Lehi's migratory routes through the old world, chaiasmus and Hebraisms in the BofM, and such.There are enough "evidences" to act as logical reasons to accept the possibility that the BofM is what it purports to be.

A one word change really doesn't bring the whole house of cards down at all. The issues related to "principal ancestors" have been tossed around and discussed for many years.

There are some great articles dealing with DNA issues and limited geography in the BofM over at the FAIR site. If you haven't read them, it may be well to do so before jumping to conclusions.

Deus Ex Machina | 11:28 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007

Do we believe the science or the charismatic spiritualists?

Search/Pray | 9:33 a.m.
You reveal the classic fallacy in religion.

Imagine if I told you that I am God. How would you know if that was true?

Would you accept YOUR OWN ANSWER (paraphrased):

"Those of you who do not believe that [I am God] have not [known me]. I haven't read the dictionary all the way through but, I believe it be correct. You can not know if [I am God] if you don't [know me]. Add some humble prayer and open mindedness and you just might be enlightened. Don't judge what you know nothing about!"

Does that work for you? When you are righteous enough, then come on over and worship me. I have some special sacrifices I want you to carry out!

;-)

Knebr. | 1:03 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

I don't need science when I have the Holy Ghost to witness what is right.

Who knows? | 1:07 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

No DNA match between Native Americans and Hebrews?

The Lord moves in mysterious ways.

mark | 1:11 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

You have got to be kidding me, Monitor. You will not post my comment? Why? It was not abusive, offensive, misrepresentative and far less then 200 words. It was directly on-topic. But you would not post it? Unbelievable!
Was it because it was critical of the LDS Church Leadership? Of course. Why else?

Markus | 1:52 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

I just looked up the word 'principal' at dictionary.com. It means, among other things, first, chief, or foremost. It does NOT necessarily mean 'the most'. When many people read about Book of Mormon people being the 'principal ancestors', they assume it means they are claimed to be the largest contributors of DNA. Since the DNA evidence does in fact show that at least 3% of Southern and Latin Americans have DNA from the Mediterranean or Mongolia, despite the false claims by some on this post that there is zero DNA evidence, the word 'principal' seems to them to be an inaccurate claim when they incorrectly think it means 'the most.' The word change does not change anything about the Book of Mormon, but rather helps protect ignorant people from their own ignorance.

I've Read It...... | 2:03 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

Some people above say "just read the BOM you will know"....I've read it multiple times and it gives me a good feeling. I am also an avid book reader and I find many things give me "good feelings" and help me go beyond the world and myself. I also believe it is "true" in that sense. But do I have to believe that a book is literally true to be a good person? My answer is "no." It is really sad to think that everything in religion has to be literal. Many people in the world have beliefs that differ, but that inspire. Religion will slowy stop being so arrogant by saying that their religion is the only "true" one. I know this with all my heart. Enjoy the BOM, enjoy many good books, enjoy many religious teachings around the world and don't worry if they're literally "true."

Anonymous | 2:11 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

The BOM is supposed to set Mormons apart from the rest.
With this new controversy, I would say they are definitely set apart.

I've Read Many Writings | 2:28 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

That a religion would say "sets it apart". It is arrogant to believe that a book or set of beliefs makes one religion "set apart" or better than another. I very much like other writings on religion and Christianity. I also read things like "Why Christianity must change or die" and many beautiful things about Jesus and how to make thoughts of religion wonderful, yet not literal.
The BOM is just one writing...it is good and fine for some, but there is much more that many people enjoy.

Mary | 3:14 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

I would like to know why my comment was not printed. I am a Lamanite and so is my mother and her family according to the Church. I am LDS and 50 years old. One word is a big deal!Were all the Prophets wrong?? Puzzled...

John | 3:29 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

I have never read so many comments by people so ignorant of the Book of Mormon as the ones that appear in this column. Just remember that there will only be one who will do the judging of what is true and what is untrue and caution would indicate that a person actually know what they are talking about. Rather than quoting other people and their opinion they should actually take the time to read the book, then, if they believe that God answers prayers if they will pray with a desire to know the truth they will know it. Most disgruntled Mormons are unfortunately people who dismiss the doctrine because they are not willing to try to live it and to improve their relationship with the Supreme Being who created them.

Anonymous | 3:31 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

To Markus | 1:52 p.m.

Then why did your Church leaders change the word?

Brooke | 3:44 p.m. Nov. 10, 2007

Just saying this word change is "trivial" does not make it so.

Amazing how many comments by believers ignore what others are posting. Repeatedly, believers are telling others to "read the book" and stop criticizing what you have not read!

But I can count scores of comments by people (like me) who are saying they HAVE read the Book of Mormon!

Let's try this one last time: WE HAVE READ THE BOOK OF MORMON. WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS TRUE.

Get over yourselves, Mormons, and quit persecuting those who don't believe as you do.

Angela Wolfe | 8:09 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

If the changing of just one measly word in the intro to the BoM is really insignificant and no big deal, then why change it?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

OnceWasLost | 10:41 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

I would suggest that the Mormons take a look at the Movie ï¿½DNA versus the BOMï¿½ and ï¿½Bible versus the BOMï¿½ and then you will know why these continual changes or ï¿½revelationsï¿½ keep being made to the BOM. You can view these movies online via the living hope ministries website privately in your own home. I was once where you are for many years, but now our family is free of dos and donï¿½ts. A relationship with the God of the Bible is all we need, not a religion.

Search your hearts and realize that Gods word, the Bible is the only True Inspired Infallible Word of God that he has left for us, seek no other. For once I was blind, but now I see.

Trust in his Word today and the truth will set you free.

Anonymous | 12:04 p.m. Nov. 11, 2007

If God wants to change the word of a scripture, he can. If God wants to start a new religion, he can. If God wants to raise a man from the dead, he can. If God wants a book to comr forth by his power, he can do that, too.

But I have yet to have God tell me any of this has happened. Only men have told me these things, and I don't trust men. The world is filled with men who will tell you all kinds of stories like this to convince you to join them, or to pay them money, or to vote for them.

These are all scams and scandals. No man speaks for God!

Anonymous | 2:56 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

Actually, I don't see the big deal of changing one word because...
...those who are against the LDS church wouldn't change their position anyways.
...those who are members will still believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
...those who are interested to figure what out the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church is is all about will still read it and find out for themselves.

It's Not That Simple.... | 9:28 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

It's not that big of a deal the "changing of one word" you are right. But there are more groups than the few you mention above. It's interesting that people in religions like the LDS feel that anyone that doesn't agree with them are "against" them. I don't agree with your religion, but I'm certainly not "against" you. We don't have to separate ourselves this way. In the end we are all part of the human family, children of whatever "God" we believe in and all want a better world.
You need to stop with the "picked on" syndrome. And we certainly need to stop the this arrogant thinking that if someone isn't "with us they must be against us" type thinking.

Thomas | 12:38 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

To the "Christians" who post here gloating over Latter-day Saint discomfort with the implications of science on the foundations of their faith, I say your (invariably) Creationist pot is calling the kettle black.

On Saturday, I had the fascinating experience of visiting the Cabazon Dinosaurs -- an old 1960s-vintage roadside attraction on I-10 west of Palm Springs, consisting of bigger-than-life models of Tyrannosaurus rex and Apatosaurus. The Apatosaurus was built with a museum and gift shop inside (which my kids loved more than my wallet did).

The attraction used to be dedicated to classic paleontology. A few years back, it was bought by a bunch of evangelical Protestants who, like many eastern Californians, definitely take their religion neat. The museum is now dedicated to explaining why the earth is only 6,000 years old, that dinosaur fossils are the result of Noah's flood (which involved "catastrophic plate tectonics) and that dinosaurs actually survived into medieval times. (The diorama of toy knights jousting with T-rex is especially cute.)

If any of you believe any of this nonsense has the slightest validity, you are complete and total hypocrites for purporting to be "just following the science" as to DNA and Mormonism.

Enough... | 3:45 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

The prophets of the LDS church can and do receive revelation, but not every word out of their mouth is the word of God. So, just because something that was said by a church leader turns out to be false, does not mean the church is not true. It means a church leader spoke incorrectly as all humans do from time to time.

Thank you "enough" | 4:42 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

Well said. And I would like to add that just because others don't agree with the LDS church doesn't make their feelings false. I find lots of good things in a variety of religions and don't believe any one is "true". This belief comes from lots of soul searching and a deep feeling. I give respect for all and I expect that respect back.

no change | 5:40 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

Bogus stuff then
Bogus stuff now

Skeptic | 6:03 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

Science is deliberately self-correcting by being built on a foundation of skepticism.

Religious claims (ie, revelation) abhor skepticism (as sin) and require "faith."

Faith is subject to a number of logical fallacies, and especially the confirmation bias.

Faith in those who claim to receive revelation (Enough...| 3:45 p.m. above), especially when it is contingent, is a recipe for confusion.

Under what conditions are these prophets speaking "the word of God" and under what conditions are they not? If prophets can speak incorrectly (as all humans do), then we can get that kind of performance from those who do not claim to be prophets - mere humans.

In the long run, only a scientific skepticism can protect us from being exploited or led astray. The history of the West is proof of that.

Rationality | 6:16 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

Rationality | 6:15 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007
Those who already believe will continue to believe despite this word change. These comments demonstrate that, with testimonies being declared repeatedly by many.

The frustrating thing for the unbelievers is when they hope to engage in a dialogue about an important topic. Imagine how frusrating it is when your interlocutor avoids the substance of the discussion and resorts to "testimony echolalia."

In this case, the consequences are mild. But imagine trying to have a rational dialogue with an Islamic fundamentalist who refuses to engage in reasonable and substantive discussion and, chanting his/her "testimony", proceeds undeterred to slam the jet into the skyscraper!

That is how it appears to us nonbelievers - we feel we are being held hostage by your esoteric knowledge, and reason is ruled out of bounds from the beginning.

Thank you " Rationality" | 6:42 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

This is how I feel and you said it so well!

To Rationality | 10:15 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007

That's interesting ("Imagine how frusrating it is when your interlocutor avoids the substance of the discussion and resorts to 'testimony echolalia.'"), but I've more often seen it the other way around.

Many people who feel that they have to discuss religion with the LDS are basing their information and questions on materials developed by people with an "anti" agenda.

Attackers often don't want to find out what church members really believe. So no matter how "rational" you see yourself, if you approach in a way or with words or topics that LDS have learned over time are associated with attacks on the church, they may resort immediately to "testimony echolalia" as you so elegantly put it.

And furthermore, the LDS people I know (in general, not in every case) tend to know more about the Bible and their religion than members of other churches. However their ability to debate with a "rational" truth seeker may vary widely.

And finally, why would you label the tenents of our faith as "esoteric?" Any discipline, once you get past the Cliff Notes version, has its own language and theories. Psychology, philosophy, genetics, history, sports.

Your use of language betrays your bias.

Rationality | 10:18 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007

cientific inquiry adjudicates between conflicting claims of "truth" by peaceful public discourse and systematic testing according to mutually agreeable principles.

By contrast, religions either refuse to adjudicate between conflicting claims of "truth" altogether, or do so through economic, political, and military warfare.

I invoke the history of Western civilization to testify that science is an overall more peaceful and civil approach to adjudicating between truth claims than religion has ever been.

As such, with the track records of both religion and science cited as witnesses, it seems clear that the leaders of the LDS Church have decided to change this word in deference to the superior knowledge obtained by scientific inquiry. Kudos to them. We can only hope that the significance of such a change is not lost on the LDS members who should have a new respect for science and its contributions to peace and civility in human societies.

Superstition | 10:19 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007

When you believe in things that you don't understand - then you suffer.

Superstition ain't the way.

Paul | 11:07 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007

I wished Solomon Spalding was still alive today. He would have all the answers to the real version of the BofM. Take off your blinders and see the truth. We are all the Body of Christ and we all need to act like.

temple quarry | 1:10 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007

it's all a ridiculous mythology regardless of how it's introduced.

Change Is Always Needed | 2:03 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007

There are better things to change in the L D S church. No one really cares about a simple book of Mormon change.... Give me a break people! Whats all the fuss about? Why don't the members of the church become a bit more humble instead of being so darn arrogant!!! It seems to me, to be way out of control nowadays. Including too many members who are too judgmental of everyone. I'm surprised to see that so many high and mighty members of the L D S faith are now so much smarter than GOD. This is beginning to sound like Salem and the witch hunts. Hey guys!...Get-Out-Of-The-Dark-ages.... It's long past!

Arrogance is always BAD | 3:42 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007

We also need less judgment of others within the church. None of us are Gods and should not try to take on the role of a God. There is too much arrogance in the church today. I even wonder why some members claim to be LDS. I think perhaps they are at church for other purposes rather than worshiping our Savior. Because, as soon as they leave church on Sunday, they are out creating chaos in the lives of others. Its getting worse all the time. Heretics, liars and hypocrites come a dime a dozen.

I support all church changes. The Book of Mormon is a minor change. It will not change or affect the church in any way. However, the LDS people need some VERY BIG CHANGES!

LDS Endorse Science | 10:23 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007

This wording change IS significant. It constitutes an endorsement by the LDS Church leaders of the scientific way of knowing.

Dr. Robert Pennock of Michigan State University said,

"[Believers] have always had the same kind of rhetorical strategy. One is to put themselves forward as science, the other is to say science itself is a religion. And the terminology that would be used would be to liken scientists to the priestsï¿½to say that evolution is dogma, to say that scientific materialism is the established religion of the 20th century. This is just a false charge. If you understand the difference between science as a way of knowing ï¿½ science as a methodology ï¿½ it doesn't make dogmatic claims, either theistic or atheistic. It sets those aside."

But wise religionists (such as the LDS Church leaders) recognize the validity of the scientific way of knowing, else why change the word in the Introduction?

LDS Endorse Science | 11:19 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007

Religious groups have historically had difficulty accomodating scientific advances. It reflects well on the leaders of the LDS Church that they recognize "principal" is scientifically unsupportable, whereas "among" is less apt to be disproven by further DNA research. This is a safer theological position for them to take than the bold claims of their predecessors.

John | 10:52 a.m. Nov. 14, 2007

Maybe they should change the name of the BofM while they're at it to the Book of Solomon Spalding. That's who really wrote anyway. Do the research...

JB | 5:43 p.m. Nov. 14, 2007

We fell out of the Most Commented section. Does this mean we aren't going to get any responses to the "pro-science" dudes? I would like to see a response that makes sense.

Victoria | 9:02 p.m. Nov. 14, 2007

In 1871 George A. Smith wrote - "If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be weak." An interesting statement in view of the controversy being discussed. Another one I love - "If my faith is based on truth - then the truth will not destroy my faith." I have for 50 plus years based on faith on what I thought was truth. Turns out I was wrong. Faith has to be based in truth for it to be logical. Do a little research into what your faith is based on. Start with the first vision. Everything is on the web or many many well documented books.
As to Joseph's lack of education. He studied at his parents side and knew the Bible backwards and forward. Read some of his writings and speeches. He was brilliant and articulate. In my estimation, a genius. Many men in history have done extraordinary things with very little education. Do a little honest reading, you might be surprised at what you learn to be truth.

Wise Men | 8:33 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007

A wise, inspired religious leader once said,

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truthï¿½in a word, to know himselfï¿½so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."

And another wise, inspired religious man added,

"Sacred Scripture and the natural world proceeding equally from the divine Word, the first as dictated by the Holy Spirit, the second as a very faithful executor of the commands of God."

Which, being interpreted, means, "Methodical research, in all realms of knowledge, if it respects... moral norms, will never be genuinely opposed to faith: the reality of the world and of faith have their origin in the same God."

Goodgeye | 8:11 a.m. Dec. 15, 2007

I've never been anti-mormon, just pro-truth. I think this change is the way the administration is trying to deal w/the unfortunate truths that have been brought out. The mounting evidence has caused them to react but somehow try to accomodate for the truth w/out causing mass exodus from their membership. The reaction I see is merely an acknowledgement that this problem DOES exist and quite frankly their only recourse. I can't say I'd react any other way because now they're in a double-bind and the risks to ignore outweigh the risks of subtly responding somehow to the science. DNA suggests misrepresentation, but that's only if you believe in DNA testing.

Anne | 12:12 p.m. Dec. 17, 2007

I think that these changes were simply because of incorrect English. If the Book of Mormon is true, then the Lamanites weren't the only ancestors of Native Americans anyways. The Nephites would also have been ancestors to the Native Americans. As for the change in "a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel". The Bible does not contain a "fullness". The Book of Mormon introduces ordinances and principles not fully explained in the Bible. If that last phrase were left in the BofM, then why would the LDS church need the Book of Mormon? If the Bible had the "fulness", why do they still need the Book? But they don't believe that the Bible contains the fulness of the gospel. They never have. And that is why that phrase was changed. It was a grammer mistake, as was the phrase before it that is also in question.

Misha | 6:45 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007

If you believe, you'll continue to believe.
If you don't, you never would've.
If you keep your head in the sand, keep it there a little while longer...it's better there.

Science, almost unintendedly, continues to chip away at the myth of Mormonism. It is no accident that most genetic studies engaged with Native American ancestry point to Asia as the origin of Native American peoples, both in North and South Americas, and even commonsense would tell one that there is nothing inherently Jewish about these peoples. Their looks, their customs, their cultures, and their religions--nothing corresponds to Israelites, then and now. One only needs to see a South Korean, a Japanese, a Chinese, a Mongolian, a Tungusk, an Eskimo, a Lakota Sioux, a Blackfoot, a Navajo, a Mayan, a Nahuatl speaker (of Mexico), a native Peruvian, or "Amazonian Indian" to know that all these peoples bear uncanny similarities in appearance, cultures, and traditions. Is it a surprise, then, that the genetic studies point to common Asiatic origins and migrations?

The similarities and differences between them can be explained by what we know. What cannot be explained is their Jewish ancestry and character.

I testify to you, brothers and sisters...

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

aAnne, I know you have an honest heart and want to still believe, but the church wouldn't make a one word change because of English error. This error existed this long because technology didn't stand in its way. It's new technoology that refutes the church's claims and unfortunately the evidence categorically does not stand in favor of the church. It literally backed the church in a corner and the church had to respond in the least controversial way possible in order to avoid a mass exodus. That's why there are so many of us that are disappointed and finally have to concede to the facts that are indisputable. Ignorance can be repaired. Lack of intelligence cannot. I'm hoping people will start thinking for themselves and let's stop having any interception of our ability to think, or insult our intellignce as we sort through things based on evidence or lack thereof. It's in our best interest and the best interest of our families and successors. Let's make the church accountable to what it claims and if new technology finds error, let's admit it, talk about it and not attempt to explain it away. This is a better attmpt for rsolution.

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3
4
5

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.