Comments about ‘Intro change in Book of Mormon spurs discussion’

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.