Reader comments
Church responds to one-word change in Book of Mormon Introduction

This subject will always be somewhat controversial.
After all the Book of Mormon came when many said God doesn't reveal things to man anymore. As long as
that belief still is there among many believers in God, there will always be that desire to "disprove"
the text of the Book of Mormon any way possible. I can understand the agnostic or atheist questioning, but believers in the Resurrection, the First Easter story saying it can't happen in our day, seems rather in-consistent to me. Whether Joseph Smith actually had this ability of communication is a matter of Faith and the Book does make a promise to find out, but for a "believer" in God and Jesus to say "totally impossible" is Questionable..

Yes, but how many "translations" of the Bible exist and are still yet to come? And all these so-called Christians believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God, or claim to. They change words all the time. The Mormons claim to have continuing revelation. The Protestants used to claim the heavens were closed and that all the God had to reveal he had already revealed. Yet, notice today how many of them claim experiences of "prophesying" and "tongues" and "interpreting" in their revivals. That smacks of claims to revelation to me.

The Church recently had a general conference. Why not present this change and offer a detailed explanation (a la Oaks or Holland) during one of the sessions, rather than have the change discovered and revealed by the media? This card-carrying member would like to know. The organization to which I devote much of my time and money owes me at least that courtesy.

Perhaps this experience will help members of the church realize that General Authorities, like all human beings do make mistakes. (else why the change). It is common in the church to quote a general authority on a particular subject and then shut down further discussion on the issue regardless of evidence otherwise. Hopefully now, people will realize it is not a sin to think for oneself.

Nothing in the Book of Mormon changed. Part of a summary written by an Apostle changed.

Please people get a grip! The intro. was written as just that an introduction to further explain the book. Not a big deal!!!!!!!!!!!! If you want to know if the book is true or not it's easy read it then pray about. I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone would be afraid to do that. Can we move on now with our lives!

It's about time. Calling Lamanites the principal ancestors of the American Indians was not only a stretch in 1981 but a downright embarrassment in 2007. The very fact that the current introduction is sandwiched between the front cover and the scripture itself lends a lot of weight to it. It's abut time the church and its members backed off trying to equate the ruins in central America with Book of Mormon history. To quote Geo. Gershwin - "It ain't necessarily so - De things dat yo' liable to read in de Bible (or the Book of Mormon) It ain't necessarily so.

A word in the introduction is changed. The world stops. Never mind nothing doctrinal within the Book of Mormon changed. Never mind any one, regardless of church affiliation or no, is to read and pray about the book, to know for themselves whether it is true or not. The promise is given to do so, with sincere intent, and one will know themselves. I might be strange, but I fail to see how there could be a more fool-proof answer to the question "Is it what it claims to be?"

Course if one is unwilling to take the time to do that, one is probably not going to ever know what it is or is not. And probably does not really care.

I think it shows that there is continuing revelation. Someone is praying and receiving answers. Good thing.

Carol: I'm afraid the method is not quite fool-proof. This particular fool has been trying it for twenty years, and it has yet to yield the promised result.

Maybe my intent isn't "sincere" enough -- like Linus's pumpkin patch -- but I sincerely can't see what more I could have done to be sincere. I've been the Mormon version of a "Hebrew of the Hebrews," to paraphrase Paul, and have read the Book of Mormon through at least a dozen times, and it does grate a bit to hear people whose moral conduct has been quite a bit slipperier than mine suggest that there must be something wrong with the character of anyone who's followed the Moroni 10 formula and not gotten the "right" answer.

Perhaps some of the arrogant members in the LDS church can change a bit as well. The church needs genuine members and less haughtiness, self importance and almighty types of members. Its getting worse all the time.

I think the Book of Mormon is a minor change. Nothing to huff and puff about. There are far more important things to be concerned about.

This "minor" change may be small for some people. But for others, like my husband, who has been told his whole life and taught by the church that he is an ancestor of the Lamanites, he wasn't told he was possibly an ancestor, he was taught that he is an ancestor, and even he can acknowledge that he was always taught that the all of the natives of today are the ancestor of the Lamanties, no ifs ands of buts. I understand that lds members will always have an answer to criticism, no matter how factual it is, just as my husband did. And this comes from the fact that they believe that this church is the true church of God, so once any evidence is pointed out, it doesn't matter, the argument is over, they always find a away to refute the evidence. But there comes a point, when you weigh the evidence, church history and inconsistencies, and open your eyes, you come to realize things and its not that you lack faith, your eyes and mind are opened and then you realize the truth.

I don't see why any DNA "evidence" should even matter. Everyone says that the Book of Mormon suggests Native Americans should have Hebrew DNA, but the Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites were physically altered by God after they rebelled, and since the Lamanites were the only survivors from the original Hebrews (Nephites and Lamanites) that journeyed to the Americas why should we assume the Lamanites' DNA would in any way resemble Hebrew DNA? The Book of Mormon also mentions that the Nephites encountered other peoples here (such as the Hebrew Mulekites, and the non-Hebrew Jaredites), had trade with other peoples, and that some of them left to colonize other lands. The Book of Mormon never states that the Nephites and Lamanites were the only inhabitants here. At any rate, most scriptural subjects of faith cannot be proven tangibly--does it really matter whether Noah's ark is ever found, or whether the Ark of the Covenant is ever discovered? Does it matter whether we have any of the original parchments the books of the Bible were written on? If the Mormon Church were to publicly display the golden plates or the Liahona, there would still be doubters.

Whether the Book of Mormon context actually changed or not isn't as revealing to me as the fact that the universal mind of Mormonism is changing.

Since Joseph Smith's time so=called Lamanites were said by Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders to be the principle ancestors of the Native Americans.

That Bruce McConkie introduced it, and the LDS church agreed to put it in the first page of the Book of Mormon leaves no room for doubt how well observed this principle was.

Joseph Smith Jr. actually claimed that God told him that the Native Americans were Lamanites, specifically the ones near the Canadian border.

Opps.... (again)