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
Some here contend

that DNA evidence should not be trusted due to lack of a control group. Where, by the way, is the contol group when evaluating spiritial evidence? Silly me, for a moment I forgot that things of the spirit do not require a control group because all one has to do is pray and receive a warm fuzzy feeling. If comparisons are going to be made, the same standard should be applied to both sides of the argument. Apologists seem to have no problem employing the same faulty logic that they accuse others of using against them. Talk about circular logic, lol.


monilee, the Bible has questionable things to it just as any document that old and ancient typically would. However, Joseph Smith can be much more easily researched and examined since his work is less than 2 centuries. I agree that the Bible is contrdictory, however it does have some evidence that perhaps verify the people and regions existed. If you look at hat Joseph Smith claimed honestly, one would have to deduce his work to be self-serving and mythical. I hate to say that as I wanted to believe, but my faith and feelings can't supercede the facts. Any rational person who does their homework will always find the same thing: the facts do NOT support the story. In this crazy world, it would've been nice to know that we had things figured out for the next life. At his point it's hard to trust any organized religion realizing most are obviously set up to aggrandize the people at the top and let the lower tiers finance it. If God exists, I don't need someone w/no bigger brain than mine to help me interpret. Everyone should use their God-given intellect to figure out the sad reality and do their homework.

Just a question?

Wasn't the change made to the introduction originally written in 1981? It's not an issue for me that a word was changed for clarity.


The Book of Mormon is an ancient record, written by prophets for the eternal advantage of future generations. What benefit? To invite all mankind to come unto Christ. Baring this in mind, the phrase under dispute, found in the 1981 edition (as well as in other editions) reads, the principle ancestors of the American Indians. The work principle, as used above, does not emphatically state that there were no other groups living on the ancient American continent. A close study of the text validates the multi-migration theory. Consider the book of Jacob (Ch. 7), Ether (Ch. 2-6), both clearly state that there were various groups of people living upon the land. For the purposes of the Book of Mormon, the Nephites and the Lamanites are principle to its contents.
The truthfulness of the Book cannot be determined by a scientific study, nor by an archaeological find. Truth can only be received by and through the source of all truth. That source was the author, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, namely Christ Jesus.


Yeah, really. Why should one change matter? After all, it's only one of thousands of changes to a supposedly perfect book. Wait a minute...

Maybe the difference between Joe's errors and biblical variations is that bible variations can be ascribed to translation/copying errors.

Joe's book doesn't carry this prerogative...it is claimed (by the supposed prophet) to be *translated divinely.*

He probably shouldn't have said that...


The thing that anyone looking at this issue should probably consider is WHO the Lamanites were. According to the Book of Mormon, around the time of Jacob (Jacob 1:14 - look it up), the word "Lamanite" was used as a generic term much like the word "Gentile" is used in the Bible. They used the word "Lamanite" to describe anyone who was unfriendly to the Nephites and the word "Nephite" to describe anyone who was friendly to the Nephites. So technically, if Mayans were enemies to the Nephites, they would have been called "Lamanites" as well. I think the old word "principle" was probably correct, but the new wording 'among' is probably more technically correct. I welcome the change. We can't go blaming the prophets by shouting: "THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!" because this particular information has never been revealed, they're only trying to describe what seems reasonable. Now if the into said: "and they are the ONLY ancestors of the American Indians." well, then that would be a another story now wouldn't it.


To answer those who ask: "why is this significant?": The research shows that 99% of the American Indians can trace ancestry back to Asia (Mongolia, Siberia) and the other 1% can trace it back to Europe (mostly Spain). Now where are the American Indians that are "among" any ancestry from Jerusalem? They don't exist!
To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon should be based on confirmation through the spirit: shouldn't the science back up that spiritual confirmation? There is no science to back up the Book of Mormon and there is certainly NO evidence to confirm the Book of Abraham!
To go along with something because of spirituality is in no way wrong, but science and spirituality should not conflict. Find real truth.

Truth Seeker1
Salt Lake, UT

To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon can only come from the source, where is the source? God? How does he communicate? making you feel good or bad about something? By your definition of truth and how to obtain it I believe watching football on Sundays is "good and true" because I feel good about it. I also feel the police are "bad and evil" since my heart skips a beat when their lights flash behind me when I'm driving and I have a negative emotional reaction. Prescribing an "eternal truth" to your emotional reaction is the pinnacle of pride and selfishness. Using FACTS, LOGIC, REASONING, etc.to guide your decisions and philosophies is what we should all be doing. "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." I have a good emotional reaction to this post so it must be "true".

to comment

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