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:
1
2
3
4
5
Next >

Conejo | 2:14 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

How funny. The tribune runs this article and there are almost 300 comments on it. The Desnews runs it and no one cares. I can't say I have every read the introduction spoken of. I was in too much of a hurry to read the actual book.

RE: Conejo | 3:04 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Before you judge the Desnews readers too harshly, you do realize it is now 3AM! Although I couldn't sleep, not too many of us are up this early! The article posted at 12:30am Friday morning. No doubt you will get all the usual suspects commenting on how this one word will prove the Mormons wrong, etc, etc. You don't get a testimony of this book by that one word. You shouldn't lose it over a change of the word. Interesting, but not pertinant to anyones salvation.

Matt | 3:13 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

It's an acknowledgement by this organization that there are problems.

"By his own hand upon papyrus" is a real gem as well.

Comments continue below

Patrick | 3:38 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

is the Book of Mormon real or speculation? Is it really scripture or the images of a youth with a high fever? Truth has never been a stronghold of the LDS Church.

Not even scripture | 5:23 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

The title page at least. If it was the actual text in the book, I'd worry, but it's simply the text that introduces the book, and it's so minor, and essentially the same thing. Why would there need to be 300 comments on that? So we know now the ancestors were only some instead of the main ancestors. Wow, let's all freak out! Tribune readers must have issues.

maxutils | 5:32 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Note that there has been no change to the Book of Mormon, only a change in the introduction written in 1981. We don't know the exact proportion (majority, equal, minority) and it isn't important what the exact ratio is and the change reflects this. Note that no doctrine has changed. Note that there is nothing written in the Book of Mormon that precludes people from Asia coming to the Americas. The Book of Mormon itself speaks of several groups. Again, this is much ado about nothing. Let's not make more of this than it is and more importantly, let's be accurate about what it means and what it doesn't mean.

1954 knocking on your door | 5:41 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

I see, the lamanites or american indians are so important and gave the book relevance then how come Utah was the last state to acknowledge them as citizens along with giving them the right to vote. Why is this so important one might ask...well lets start with the grandfather of my children who are descendants of a code talker who wasn't recognized or allowed to vote yet with out his contribution we might all well be speaking a different language , under a different form of government. In some parts of this state we are still looked upon as secondary citizens yet they know how to get the money through our numbers.

Marky | 6:08 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

I don't know that this really matters. If you already believe the Book of Mormon is true, this change will be of minor interest. If you already believe that the Book of Mormon is not true, this may serve to bolster your conviction. In either case, I suspect people will remain convinced of their position. Perhaps this change will sway those who are struggling with their belief but, if so, then they would most likely be swayed by some other relatively trivial issue as well.

Anon | 6:23 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

When I read this in the Trib yesterday, I couldn't wait to see it show up in the DNews and watch the madness unfold in here - let the illogical justification begin!

Mercury | 6:28 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

The Reader's edition of the Book of Mormon (University of Illinois Press) notes that there have been hundreds of changes in the text of the Book of Mormon since it was first published in 1830. Many of these are simply the use of punctuation. But several hundred changes are also due to words being changed.

A good example includes changing families to family, when talking about Book of Mormon prophets, so as to remove any fuel for potential polygamists out there.

michaelh | 6:32 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

I read most of the comments in the Tribune. The hatred was astonishing even for the Tribune. Why does any non-Mormon care if I believe in the Book of Mormon or the great pumpkin? What ever happen to tolerance and hate speech? So the DNA tests on the current American Indians resulted in an unexpected result for some Mormons. I encourage more study but if you are looking for physical evidence the Book of Mormon perfectly describes a trip along the frankincense trail in Arabia. The book is still true and the Tribune gets another story completely wrong. Nothing has changed.

Randall | 6:35 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

I'm glad to see it. The idea that all indigenous peoples of the Americas were Lamanites has long been viewed as incredulous. The other change I would like to see is a formal apology from the church regarding the BOM doctrine that dark skin is a curse from sin. Hopefully that will also soon be in the dustbins of church history.

Carl | 6:35 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Conejo,
More Desnews readers actually read the article.
The professional haters who follow the Trib's slant only read until they could find a club to hit with, and didn't read the Book, let alone the rest of the article.

I ALWAYS understood "principal" to mean "one of the main ones", as opposed to "one of the many" and NOT "the only". So this so-called "change" is very slight when you see the whole message in context.

We've known for years there were others here when Lehi and Ishmael's family arrived. Maybe just some Mulekites, maybe leftovers from the Jaredites. But the record we have doesn't even try to give the whole social history. Humans, especially those with an agenda, have filled in far more than was ever justified.

Buxtehude | 6:48 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Well, this isn't the first time that something written by Bruce McKonkie has fallen into trouble and needed to be edited later on, rather than before the script was actually published, mostly because his reputation for being an authority on everything Mormon preceded him and so nobody ever questioned what he wrote. His book Mormon Doctrine came out, published by a brand-new Deseret Books before it was bought by the Church, and tore apart the Catholics and their beliefs left and right. The Brethren immediately ordered McKonkie to take the book off the shelves, ripped him apart, Apostle by Apostle, in a session with the Quorum of the Twelve, and put him on a very tight leash held by Elder Spencer Kimball, who then edited everything in the book and republished it in a somewhat new form. McKonkie took the dressing-down humbly, impressed everybody thereby, and later became an Apostle himself. This is history, folks, reported by his son Oscar.

The Absurd Man | 7:05 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

This will not be of much importance to believing Saints. Just like the mistranslation of the Book of Abraham as discovered in 1967 by BYU professors and Egyptologists didn't change anything, this won't either.

People who want to believe will not let anything get in their way.

What's more important? | 7:09 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Which matters most? Honesty, or faith?

On this subject, you won't be able to have them both at the same time.

The truth will set you free, but first it's going to really upset you.

Acts 28:22 | 7:11 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Conejo, I think the few comments is because most LDS don't see this as a big deal; no one is changing the scriptures themselves. I suppose it's like coins, horses etc... another gnat fro our detractors to strain at.

Rebagli | 7:16 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

It's just ONE word and it doesn't even change the context of the introduction which wasn't even part of the Book until 1981 - 150 YEARS LATER!! Just let it go people. It doesn't change the truth of the Book in any way.

Jeditoby | 7:29 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

I think part of the reason is that, for much of the DesNews readership, this is noteworthy, but not really watercooler talk.

Gopherus | 7:28 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

The change was necessary and is not minor. It recognizes that we cannot disprove the BoM but that evidence people thought, based on the book, would exist does not. The BoM is in the realm of faith, not science. Science has not, and cannot, find evidence to firmly refute it; however the time for belief that science will find evidence to support it is nearly past. The Church has just made that window of possibility smaller and thereby decreases the chance that individual members will recognize the lack of evidence as reason to abandon faith. It is a good move for the LDS Church.

Rabbit | 7:29 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

I've been waiting for this change for some time. All over Mexico, Central America, and South America there are people that feel that they are decendants of the Lamanites. I'm not sure if they are right or not but it's not important to my faith in Jesus or my testimony of the Book of Mormon. The Southern Mexico/Northern Central America lands fit the book's demographics a lot better than North America anyway. It's interesting to note that discovery of the ancient cities of Central America was taking place during Joseph Smith's lifetime and he stated in the Times and Seasons, "It would not be a bad plan to compare (Southern Mexico/Central American) ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon". As members of a living, breathing Church we of all people on the face of the earth should always know that change is important, is inevitable, and should be welcomed.

Allen | 7:33 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

I personally am glad the change was made. In my blog about the eventual convergence of science and religion, I'm currently discussing from both viewpoints the migrations to the Americas, and the scientific evidence is pretty clear that multiple migrations occurred long before the two migrations described in the Book of Mormon. Even though the Introduction to the Book of Mormon is not part of the cannon of the book, it is part of the published book, and the former wording of the Introduction has been the object of criticisms by those who oppose the Church.

M. Hardy Crawford III | 7:34 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

..."and there are many other things yet to be revealed." As spoken about in church doctrain. Will the truth ever be reveled, I don't think so. Funny, if the BOM is Holy Scripture, one would think that God knew about DNA, and would not have allowed it to become an issue as it is today, oops. "Oh what a tangled web we weave..." Can't wait for the next revived version.

Cognitive Dissonance | 7:47 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

This to shall pass . . . just like the Church made it through the Book of Abraham debacle and the Salamander letters . . . believing Mormons will go on believing.

Jerry | 8:01 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

The detractors have a special pcoket of warmth waiting for them in the afterlife. If they would only read the BoM with humility.

Bert | 8:03 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

"Move Along There's Nothing To See Here ..."

It never ceases to amaze me the Alzheimerï¿½s effect on the collective memory of this organization.

Most wonï¿½t investigate what virtually every pervious prophet including J. Smith Jr. has said on who exactly the Indians are. ï¿½ï¿½the thinking has been done [for me].ï¿½

Sorrel | 8:02 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Dear Trib Readers - go back to the Tribune. But before you go, get a copy of the new DVD Journey Of Faith II - The Promised Land. I am sure if you scratch hard enough you might find something there to nitpick about. On the other hand, you might learn something.

And MichaelH - if you call a pervert a pervert, that's hate speech. Use the vilest vituperation against honest hard working people, that's free speech.

Mr. mr. | 8:04 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

michaelh needs to realize that it's possible to hate the belief but not the believer. Why should anyone tolerate fictions that pass as truth? Does anyone here tolerate the fiction of a flat earth when its accepted as truth? When I talk to those who believe in falsehoods, I personally don't hate them for it. I know that people are much more complex than their believes, no matter how strange and wrong they are.

Let's fact it, the B of M is pure fiction.

to randall | 8:04 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

The church never said that the curse was dark skin, that was from racist members, the curse was being thrown into spiritual darkness.

NauvooChristian | 8:05 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

At the rate the Book of Mormon keeps changing, maybe one day the Mormon Church's claim that the Book of Mormon is most correct book on the earth will be true?

Maybe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will finally admit the Book of Mormon is a book of fiction, you think?

Ben | 8:16 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

The evidence based on DNA that Native Americans migrated here from Siberia is sketchy at best. In the first place, Siberia is only a few short hundred miles away from Alaska. The Bering Straits at it's narrowest point is only about 55 miles across. Native tribes on both sides of the strait have been intermarrying with each other for thousands of years. Based on the historical record, one should entirely expect Siberian tribes to have similar DNA to Native Americans.
Once Mormons realize how conflicting these DNA arguments are to the facts of history, this issue will prove to be a major embarrsament. Not to the Mormons, but to the anti-mormons who have ambraced such a false idea.
The early Church leaders often stated in their sermons that American Indians stand first in many instances in regard to the blessings of God, and that this land America is a promised land unto them. That when the meek inherit the earth, God will give them this land for their inheritance. Although that message hasn't always resonated with all Mormons, it is still true.

Onan | 8:20 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Carl: You're fogetting "the" in front of "principle". This of course indicates there is only one, not one of many.

Matt: "By his own hand upon papyrus" is more than just a gem, it's a doozy. One day I would anticipate that a change will be made in regards to that claim as well.

It's funny how when science supports a certain claim, it's considered good yet when it refutes a certain claim, it's considered a bad thing. Can't have it both way.

Truth is somewhere else | 8:22 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

"Struggling with their belief," Marky?

Common sense and a gut feeling will tell you instantly the whole thing was made up.

I'm checking out Buddhism. It makes more sense.

Tim Burr | 8:23 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

How long have you been reading the Deseret News? Not very long or you would have realized by now that censorship is what they do best. They don't post comments they find even mildly offensive; they leave details out of stories that don't subscribe to their way of thinking. It's a church owned business and the church calls the shots. The church publicly promotes the value of education, which to my way of thinking is a free and open exchange of ideas, but privately they decide what "education" you can get. If you want substance, go to the Trib.

Science vs. Faith | 8:23 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Look at it this way. Science can't prove everything. The end.
Can it prove how Jesus walked on water? Can it prove how he brought people back from the dead? Can it prove how miracles happen?
To compare science to faith, I'm sorry to say, is just lame. It will never compare. Faith is far superior.

Ralph | 8:25 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

I wish to add my voice in the chant that it is but one word, not doctrine at that. I don't see that this changes the beleif in Christ that the book is professed to portray, but it is still "Another Witness of Christ". Add to the fact that when the Spanish came over, there was a great intermingling of seed with the current "indians" of this country. How many others have mingled with them from other spots around the world? It is obvious that not all people kept records. It is obvious when man records records, there's always a flaw (just like in my language in writing this). So why is there an issue about one word that points a more accurate picture of the demography of this people? As listed, get over the hatred, open your eyes, you'll be surprised at what you can find.

A in LA | 8:29 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

TO NAUVOO CHRISTIAN - At what rate is the Book of Mormon changing? The into changed NOT the actual scripture. Perhaps before you make rash statements you ought to actually READ it - with an open mind (which might be hard for you) then pray and ask if its true. You CAN ACTUALLY KNOW FOR SURE you know. I know, I know, it's much easier to blather with sarcastic remarks.......

Non-believer | 8:29 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

BORING !!!!!!

Just a case in point. The Trib and the DN are owned by the same company.

lover of truth | 8:33 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

It is amazing that we do not rejoice in truth, line upon line, and precept upon precept, as the Lord has promised.

It is high time that we seek truth and additional understanding, with rejoicing. We were challenged by Ezra Taft Benson to increase our scholarship in the Book of Mormon.

We should look closely at the recent works by Royal Skousen and all the others at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, at the Maxwell Institue at Brigham Young University.

Seekers of Truth will always rejoice in it.

Those who are afraid of new insights and better understanding of what really is Truth will be left behind.

So, I guess... | 8:35 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

that since 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'.

Onan | 8:38 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Science vs. Faith: Faith doesn't prove Jesus walked on water either.
Science provides more proof than faith and is supperior, as science WELCOMES rational thought and well planned arguements to provide other possible scenarios. Faith on the other hand runs and hides from rational arguments and philosophies that bring into question it's claims.
Look at the excommunications that occurr when someone dares to investigate the truth.

Lets not be ignorant | 8:41 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

The change is insignificant as far as the Book of Mormon goes. The previous wording mostly reflected perhaps the thinking at the time or just the thinking of whomever authored the intro (is was added later not by Joseph Smith). This just brings the intro into current conceptions as to how the Lamanites may fit in to the ancient American landscape. Who knows maybe it will be changed in the future? Despite what every anti-mormon would like you to believe the leaders of the church are not omniscient, they don't understand every cultural detail of the Book of Mormon, and they don't recieve revelation at will.

An interesting thought | 8:42 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Early statements by JS and BY indicated the great cities of the BOM were in places like...Iowa, Missouri, etc. Now we don't seem to acknowledge that as possible. "It must be in central America, look at the ruins, etc.".

I read a book a while back (I've lost it now!), but the gist of it was the BOM peoples lived in the Mississipi valley, the great lakes region, etc. The land of desolation was the SW US. BY made a comment in the dedication prayer at the SG temple that the gadianton robbers inhabited the hills around St. George in BOM times. JS identified Zarahemla as being in Iowa (I think, if I remember right). Add to this the discovery of copper plates ("The Michigan collection") discovered over an extended period of time in Ohio and Michigan by various people. Now, think about this...The ruins you see in Central America exist because they were made of stone, built by large numbers of slave labor. Those societies were very pagonistic. IF, I repeat IF, a great civilization existed in the Mississipi Valley, likely their structures would have been built from wood, which would not survive. FYI (out of room).

Jerry | 8:43 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

Yes, in the 70's being excluded from the priesthood had nothing to do with the color of one's skin. However if you happen to have black ancestry, you could not hold the Priesthood.

Reality Check | 8:44 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

In all fairness, the Bible - presumed to be the definitive and final word of God by most modern Christians - is a collection of books assembled by a roundtable of "scholars" who voted on what was most likely from God and what was not. Left out of the Bible are literally hundreds of other books or versions of books with similar claims of divine provenance. Any book that violated the philosophy of the early Catholic Church was disavowed. Look them up in the Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi collection - the validated dates of authorship of some of these books are centuries BEFORE those used in the Bible. Give the LDS Church some slack - the Book of Mormon is their book, they can edit it if they wish. Heaven knows the early Christians edited their book.

Always LDS stuff - always | 8:49 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

It must be a shock for those who faithfully stand before their congregation reciting in rote form: "I believe that Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon are ...(you know the rest) every Sunday, to find out something smells fishy.

Ross | 8:51 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

One of the important tenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that we have living prophets and apostles on the earth today, and from time to time what was right yesterday is changed to what is right today, so we always have what is right. The word change is so minor but there are those who want to make a mountain out of it. Imagine what they would do if the blue cover color was changed a few shades, do you think they would make a big deal out of that too.

Anonymous | 8:52 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

How about a chage from "Most correct book" to "MostLY correct book." Should cover any future science discoveries.

Ken Baguley | 8:56 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

The word principal means first in rank...which would include others. The introduction was not part of the translation of the plates and wasn't included until 1981 as an explanation of who the Lamanites were. Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the MOST CORTRECT BOOK not a perfect one.

Jared | 8:58 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007

The change about the "Bible" was first reported on the Juvenile Instructor Blog.

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
Next >

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.