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
The Account is still accurate

If the Book of Mormon is not true, than Jesus of the Bible is not the Christ, because both scriptures testify of the same Jesus. Both scriptures support and testify of each other, as well. And both books are not the conclusive accounts of all of God's dealings with man. We just don't have all those accounts. Of the accounts we do have, and with all the changes the Bible has undergone, it just happens that the Book of Mormon remains the most correct book.

The change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon acknowledges that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not the conclusive accounts of all the people who have inhabited the Earth. The previous introduction only took in account the fact that we only have one record of the ancient inhabitants of America, the Book of Mormon, and those people very well could be the principle ancestors of the American Indians, but the record itself never makes this claim. We don't know all the people of the Earth, but we do know that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are accountings among some of our predecessors on two continents of the Earth.


I have checked into the Zelph story. There is a lot of evidence to suggest Joseph claimed everything I said. A FARMS website used it to clear up the geography issue as two of their (FARMS) 'experts' debated whether the geography was in North or South America.


The church slowly evolves. It does so in a masterful way. It is like the Adam Smith's invisible hand. Any Org has to do it to survive.It is easier to do with believers who do not question. Think of so many of those 'set of beliefs' that have changed exactly like this over time. Blacks, polygamy, men on the moon, etc, etc, etc....Any doctrine if you think about it could be repealed as 'not a revealed truth', just dismiss the speaker(s) as not under the influence of the holy ghost. Or speaking as men. What a perfect out! Or on the other pole, that the person is VERY inspired and do not question or you are not exercising faith. There is no room for critical thought. One of the first proofs we are taught in critical thinking is proof by contradiction. Assume something is true, find a fault(or a false result) and then your assumption is wrong. I guess the idea of faith is to short circuit this process.


The thing I know is that the only contstant thing in this world is that nothing is constant. Change is all around... the Bible certainly didn't end the way it started... it is filled with stories of prophets who were preaching change and were persecuted for it... the very reason the jews crucified Jesus is cause he had come to fulfill the law and bring change... obviously there were other reasons far more divine, but that's why "they" did what they did... they fought against the change.

God is a living being and a great teacher, rather than giving all knowledge to us at once He gives it line upon line and precept upon precept, no more than we can handle. You just have to decide... are you going to be like those who followed the spirit and the teachings they were given or like those who fought against God's changes?

Spend less time persecuting people who have made their choice and pick a path already.


It appears the standard Mormon response to others desire for logical thinking amd seeking truth of the world we live in is to tell us that ignorance is bliss and to come and join them in their dream world and be happy, and if there is anything we really need to know those in charge will let us know and in the mean time we need to drink our milk and not want meat, and not trouble oureselves with too much thinking. We only need to learn to follow and heaven is ours. Our great philosophers from Plato to Dewey would have been at a loss in the Mormon world.


this is uneeded speculation, obviously Joseph Smith didn't write the introduction page, and the introducion page isn't scripture so what's the fuss about, it's being amended so it can be more easily red.

Why Witnesses?

To Reality | 4:16 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

You said,

"In modern time two founders of two major churches, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard, have authored religious books. Smith's writting have undergone changes while Hubbard's has endured the test of time."

I think you are correct. And the reason is because Hubbard never tried to deceive people into believing his books were literally "true" or "the most correct books on earth". He simply sought to teach priciples and ideas in works that were acknowledged to be "fiction."

And that is also why Joseph Smith went to great lengths to obtain "Witnesses" to support his claims. Hubbard didn't need witnesses because he wasn't fabricating anything. The only reason Joseph needed "witnesses" was because he was trying to perpetrate a fraud.

More changes are required

So many of you are spewing your venom about minor linguistic changes in the book. Guess what- there will always be more changes because cultures and languages evolve. To maintain accuracy, change is required.

Case in point: when I was growing up the word "gay" had a very different meaning than it has now. Books that accurately used that word then are no longer accurate in today's culture, and must be changed.

Therefore, even "perfect" books must change to continue to be perfect.


From my vantage point I see many things. However, I don't see all things. I have observed this, some folks seem to hold very tightly to the iron rod. To them I would suggest that they loosen their grip as little. A tight grip on the iron rod makes it impossible to move. Having a loose grip in the iron rod makes it possible to progress.

From my observation there is only one absolute truth and that is there will always be change in some form or another.

It would be good to leran to adapt to change.

Cognitive Dissonance

How do we reconcile this little tid-bit of information that comes straight from the source?

2 Nephi 1:6-8

1:6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

1:7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

I know, I know, now the "land" means the "small geographical pocket where Lehi lived" would be kept secret from all the others already on the continent.

To Mike Hodge

Those are good observations. The small change of "mother of God" to "mother of the Son of God" in my opinion however was a correction to make the doctrine more clear. Mormon's believe the God of the Old Testament was Jesus Christ Himself, and that Jesus Christ is a God, and is the Father of their spirits through His atoning sacrifice. Often God and Christ are used interchangeably in the Bible as well.

Back to the Everglades

To "to Florida (6:47)"

The Prophets themselves have claimed to be "perfect" in that they "will never lead the Saints astray." When prophets, seers, and revelators teach for hundreds of years that the Lamanites are the "principal" ancestors of the Indians, that counts as "leading the Church astray."

And the LDS Claim that ONLY the LDS "prophets, seers, and revelators" receive revelation from and speak for God is completely contrary to your claim that "No true Christian prophet ever said they have all the answers!" Unless you believe as I do that Hinckley and his management team are NOT "Christian prophets."

You also say "Christ founded the church as a hospital for weak mortals, not a rest home for the perfect." Again, I agree, but Joseph Smith didn't or else he would have had the spirit of Christ to be forgiving and tolerant of the "weak mortals" in Christ's original, Catholic Church and other Christian Churches rather than calling them false, abominations, and their leaders corrupt.

to Onan

I wish I could remember where I saw the info on Zelph- I suspect it was Joseph P Allen, but I'm not sure.

In any case, they have rock solid evidence, including a full paper trail about the original, and published, mis-information.

The actual first hand account, which was not published, confirms most of the revelation except for the final battle stuff.

Keep in mind that Joseph NEVER called the the hill in New York "Cumorah"- that was a Orson Pratt original years after Joseph's death, but mistakenly became accepted as doctrine by way too many members. Also, Joseph is on record as agreeing that the book of mormon likely (maybe just possibly) took place in mesoamerica, but he offered that as his opinion, not as doctrine or revelation.

You have already left reality

To "Dear "Leaving" and "Reality" | 9:27 a.m."

I have lived a long life of helping my neighbors, teaching my children values, caring for the poor, elderly or sick, and serving in my community, WITHOUT the Mormon faith.

The only time I am ever prompted to waste too much time debating doctrine, science and current thinking is when the Mormon missionaries come to my door, or when a Mormon co-worker tries to "share the gospel" with me after a lesson in his high priest group!

Perhaps the Mormons should take your advice and get out of their elitist meetings and go out in the world and do something to benefit mankind instead of either trying to convert everyone, or attacking, ostracizing, and discriminating against all those who don't believe the same way they do!


This wording change is one of thousands of examples of how so-called "Anti-Mormons" are going to great lengths to research, document, and publicize the faults, failings, sins, and problems with the LDS Church.

Mormons (for example, FARMS) defend themselves against such "anti-Mormon" attacks by a variety of arguments, the gist of which is that the Church is true despite errors and changes in scripture, imperfect leaders and members, problems and inconsistencies in theology, etc.

In order to justify why a "Restoration" was necessary, Mormons have gone to great lengths to research, document, and publicize the faults, failings, sins, and problems with the Christian Churches since Jesus' time (see "The Great Apostasy" among many many others).

Point: If the defenses Mormons offer against attacks on their Church are valid (if the Church really is "true" despite these problems), then why aren't those same "defenses" also valid for the Christian Churches Mormons attack?

In other words, why can't the original Church established by Christ also be "true" despite all the problems the Mormons have identified, thereby eliminating the need for a Restoration in the first place?

The foundation of the Mormon claim is inherently incoherent. (Matt. 7:1-2)


This is all minor stuff. What is important is that I just saved $300 on my tithing bill, by making a 15 minute call to another Christian Church.

Chill Out

Dear "You have already left reality",

When the Missionaries stop by tell them no thanks...

When you co worker shares the gospel with you tell them no thanks...

As a non Mormon I've found this very effective and time efficient but people like you are more of problem then overzealous missionaries...why do you have make such poisonous and false statements against your nieghbors?

My mormon neighbors and friends don;t ostrasize, attach or discriminate me...and I have yet to see them do that to anyone else in my Nieghborhood.

Everyoe should chill out a little... life to short to be bitter.

Texas Member

As an active member of the church, I believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient record and I have no doubts about its historical authenticity. For me, this wording change is a welcome relief. I have been bothered by Elder McConkie's "principal ancestors" statement in the non-canonical intro to the Book of Mormon for years. The limited geography theory has always seemed most likely to me. I am very glad the church made the change.


To Coondawg_76 | 10:30 a.m.

Yes, the new wording is a change, but change is not right or good simply because it is change.

Jesus did NOT come to "change" the word and law of God. Your doctrine is mistaken on that point.

This wording change is clearly prompted by the recent DNA research and the debate it has spawned.

It is NOT the result of "revelation", unless your concept of revelation is overly broad and meaningless.

Ditto Over 50

To Over 50 And A Believer | 2:01 p.m.

I am amazed by the parallels. I am also over 50, and had the same experience about my testimony and parents on my mission. I read the BofM myself, and asked God "with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ."

I received a testimony so strong it took my breath away and remains vivid in my memory after 30 years! This was the direct revelation from God that is beyond words to describe adequately: God lives, and Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world! But The Book of Mormon is fiction, Joseph Smith was a fraud, and the Church leaders are clever businessmen.

To avoid family embarassment, I finished my mission preaching only Christ and Him crucified. I shared my testimony in Christ with hundreds of people, and became Assistant to the Mission President. We started a small group to help about 13 people overcome their addictions to alcohol and drugs through Jesus' power. It was "the best 23 months of my life"! I will never forget it.

to comment

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