Comments about ‘Debate renewed with change in Book of Mormon introduction’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 8 2007 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS member

What a ridiculous waste of time. Every time an article is printed referring to the LDS church, the same antagonistic church bashers come out and offer their same cynical remarks. It's okay that you don't believe as we do, why not be on your way and keep believing the way you do. Why spend so much energy attacking something you don't like? I can't imagine anything less fulfilling than spending my days finding fault with another persons religion. The LDS church is undoubtedly a force for good in the world regardless of a person's beliefs. Likewise there are many other religions that do much good in the world as they teach and encourage people the essence of christianity. While we each hold to our own doctrinal beliefs, I hope that we can respect one another and be grateful for the good the other has to offer. It doesn't have to be a contest about who is right and who is wrong!


Friend, we don't believe you.
Hiding behind anonymity here, you would have us believe your doubts?
You are looking for other doubters to soothe your conscience.

Tens of thousands of intelligent, educated, VISIBLE men and women (that you can meet and know by name) have studied the scriptures and history and have put it to the test, and love it and live it and bless the lives of their families and countless strangers.
They've put their name and reputation out where people can see.
You are not who you claim to be.

Sandy Non-LDS

As a sceptic when I came to faith in Christ, I maintain my scepticism about ANYTHING brought forth by man. My scepticism was overcome by a logical look at the Bible, its geography and historical accuracy--not it's perfection in those areas. Frankly, I do not feel the BOM comes even remotely close to approaching the Bible in those areas--I will continue to be a sceptic.

As non-LDS I hear about prophets from whom ALL things relating to the spiritual are considered to be from God himself--so even an introduction to a scriptural book would fall into this category, hence held to a higher standard. I hear about a God-revealed interpretation of tablets that cannot be reproduced. I hear about MAJOR changes in doctrine...I will continue to be a sceptic.

Perhaps my faith is limited, perhaps my eyes are veiled. Perhaps...

I don't pretend to have revelation of God's new and improved Church on Earth, I struggle daily with what I feel God has revealed to me. God won't give me more than I can handle. Thanks Lord, I am glad to know that!


I can see the similarities.
Can you seen the differences?

Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer, founded a business, called it Scientology.
It's a moneymaker. My doctor has spent upwards of a half-million dollars, has almost nothing to show for it. (The moral standard he foisted on our daughter got her into troubles she still carries.)
Hubbard took a couple of small ideas and has multiplied the books and courses and certifications to unfathomable levels.

Joseph Smith was called by God, and created their ultimate service organization, that gives and gives, for here and the hereafter, and not for money.


To Leaving the Church, Brother you are one of many. Unfortanatly our fore fathers did not have access to the information or common sense that we enjoy today. Nevertheless, I do love my Mormon Brothers and Sisters and I would be sad without them.

theological support?

To believe that Joseph wrote the Book, you have to overlook a lot of details, and hope your readers are never gonna find out, such as:
-that he had a 3rd-grade education,
-that he "produced" a book that scholars of all walks of life still marvel at, (the ignorant sneer, but only from ignorance)
-that people gave (and give) their lives for the Book -- meaning both: they died for, and they live amazing lives of love and service because of,
-that Joseph gave his life (both ways) for, not for personal gratification or power or money,
-and most of all, that you have an agenda that centers around not having to accept the Lord's commandments, even though He has given them to you and me because he loves us.


I personally am glad the change was made. In my blog on the convergence of science and religion, I'm currently discussing migrations to the Americas. There is a lot of scientific evidence there were migrations way before those described in the Book of Mormon.

To those who ask why would inspired leaders allow mistakes to be made in the Introduction, I say this. We LDS believe our church leaders are not infallible. They are human like the rest of us. They make mistakes like the rest of us. They have their opinions about things like the rest of us. God inspires them about some things and he doesn't inspire them about other things. They learn and grow from their experiences like the rest of us. I'm glad they recognized a mistake was made in the Introduction and have corrected it. This has strengthened my faith in them as my religious leaders and my willingness to follow their counsel.


This is an introductory written by men so change it all you want. But there have been almost 4000 changes in the book of mormon verses themselves...the most perfect and correct book ever written and/or translated? There is zero archaeological proof of the bom. The mormon doctrine is contrary to the bom. It's interesting to think of how long God has been in existance but in a short 200 years he has flip flopped on many issue which is sold as modern day revelation. I can just see God sticking his finger up in the air to see which way the popular wind is blowing so he can change to the will of man?! Real history is called Anti-Mormon and why doesn't the brothern want you to read it? When you are a child adults put you up to the pulpit and whisper in your ear what to say, it's so cute. "I know the church is true." It's brain washing and I was sad when I found out the truth. My gosh, God is our only judge but in morminism a man can keep you out of heaven over a glass of tea.

to Florida (6:47)

Someone has misinformed you. Even the language, "change things all the time", tells you their agenda.
Somehow certain people came up with the idea that prophets claim to be perfect. Actually, real prophets only humbly assert their willingness to follow through on an assignment they were given. The Lord reveals new things on his timetable, not ours. No true Christian prophet ever said they have all the answers.

Other skeptics would have you believe the LDS Church is just another man-made club, in which some people got together and developed a set of beliefs. That is what most people are accustomed to. If you like the pastor, if you like the interpretation of certain Bible verses, if you like the neighbors in the church, you join that one.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect, but it is here to teach us. Christ founded the church as a hospital for weak mortals, not a rest home for the perfect.

God has always only given to man "line upon line, precept on precept." Man (science) trumpets that they have The Answers, then change often, as we discover newer understandings.

Headline corrected

"Debate renewed with change in Book of Mormon introduction" should read:
"Debate renewed by announcement of trivial change (but we know this will attract a lot of attention)"

95% of the people commenting here don't pay attention, nor study the background of the introduction nor the BoM, and wouldn't even know about a "change" if this kind of inflammatory artice had not been published.


Three things can clear up the whole DNA thing:
1-Zelph. Joseph found his bones, said he was a white Lamanite that died in one of the last battles. If he's been laying around on the ground for 1400 years, it should be difficult to find them and test his DNA.
2-The Three Nephites. They need to step up, make a statement about who was here when Lehi arrived, maybe they can offer up some DNA to take care of the debate as well.
3-President Hinckley can make a definitive statement about it.

Since none of these three things will ever take place, it's just safe to assume the Church actually takes science seriously and will no longer make statements about native Americans being decendents of Hebrews.


Good article.
But now, read all of it before you comment.
Despite the reporter's erroneous opening emphasis on a single-word change, she goes on to mention some other changes, and why they were made.
Maybe we should spend our day blogging about why the writer and editor didn't catch their error!

As long as mortals handle words, whether man's records (newspapers, for instance) or scriptures (Old and New Testaments, for instance) there will be updates, corrections, and some intentional - or perhaps accidental - omissions.

To Jerry

Many of the world's major religions struggle with physical proof. Buddhists have long been looking for acheological proof that Buddha existed. Nothing so far. The Jews would love to find verifiable evidence of Moses in Egypt (or anywhere). Same result. Aside from the Gospels themselves and the apocryopha, there are a grand total of 5 or 6 contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, most of about a sentence or so in length. If it's physical proof you need, there's no satisfying answer.

For that matter, there's no archeological 'proof' of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, just certain evidences and of course surviving writings.

But the proof of the goodness of the Buddha couldn't ever be found in archeology or DNA. Instead, it's found in the lives of the people who live Buddhism as they understand it.

Frankly, that's proof enough for me.


The church is led by Prophets and Apostles who receive revelation which includes changes. What was right yesterday is changed to what is right today, we always have what is right. Those who are too hung up on particular words and can't allow revelation to change things are in trouble. Think how wonderful it is to have Prophets, Seers, and Revelators here on the earth today as we prepare for the second coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So, if...

...the ONE word change in the non-scriptural introduction makes the BOM not true anymore, where does the 200 or so varied versions and translations leave the Bible?? I know the words written in my KJV Bible, absolutly, in no way resembles the words written in the New American Translation of the Bible. I guess the Bible must not be true either because it just 'keeps on a changin'.

To Onan

Check more deeply into the Zelph incident. The published and most commonly accepted version of what happened was a report by someone who knew someone who knew someone that was there.

What Joseph really said had nothing to do with "the last battle" etc. I don't remember the details, but it explains a lot.

Dear "Leaving" and "Reality"

No, our forefathers did not have access to the same information we do today. They were too busy trying to decide whether to renounce their faith to threatening mobs, whether to follow Brigham Young across the continent, or too busy proselyting to people in Europe and North America in a world that was far more hostile to their religion than our apathetic and 'informed' world of today.

If you are you helping your neighbors, teaching your children values, caring for the poor, elderly or sick, or serving in your community, then you will not be troubled by these irrelevant challenges to your faith.

We all waste too much time debating doctrine, science and current thinking - we need to be out in the world doing something with our lives to benefit mankind, especially our families. Do the Book of Mormon and Bible help us to do that? I believe they do, whereas the other things are 'nice to know' but leave no lasting positive impact.

Science vs. Joseph Smith

I sure see a lot of hot air on this page from both sides of the argument. Did it ever occur to any of you to study this issue out? Go buy a book or two on Book of Mormon Archeology. I like Joseph P Allen, but there are many good authors.

If you do, you will find much solid evidence of two things:

1- What most Mormon's believe about the geography of the book is way off base. They really should study a little before they open their mouths and attack the non-believers.

2- Scientific evidence pretty much is loaded with smoking guns proving the ACTUAL archeological claims of the book.

Mike Hodge

There is nothing new in the Church making changes to the "most perfect book" ever written. In 1830 a small change was made in several places to state that Mary was the "mother" of God, to "Mary was the mother of the Son of God. A small change? Hardly, if Mary is the Mother of God then the doctrine is essentially trinitarian, much as other christian sects believe. And just after the civil rights revolution of the 60's the wording describing the lamanites changing their skin from "white and delightsome" to pure and delightsome. These kinds of "minor" changes seem to be a bit convenient. And this latest one fall into that category as well.


To Science vs. Joseph Smith | 9:29 a.m.

Yeah, and the Book of Mormon is "pretty much" the most correct book!

Or should that be the MOST CORRECTED book!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments