Posted on 11/08/2007 5:23:05 PM PST by Colofornian
The LDS Church has changed a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon, a change observers say has serious implications for commonly held LDS beliefs about the ancestry of American Indians.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe founder Joseph Smith unearthed a set of gold plates from a hill in upperstate New York in 1827 and translated the ancient text into English. The account, known as The Book of Mormon, tells the story of two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as the Nephites and Lamanites.
The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing."
The change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday.
It also steps into the middle of a raging debate about the book's historical claims.
Many Mormons, including several church presidents, have taught that the Americas were largely inhabited by Book of Mormon peoples. In 1971, Church President Spencer W. Kimball said that Lehi, the family patriarch, was "the ancestor of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea."
After testing the DNA of more than 12,000 Indians, though, most researchers have concluded that the continent's early inhabitants came from Asia across the Bering Strait.
With this change, the LDS Church is "conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them," said Simon Southerton, a former Mormon and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church.
"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."
LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.
On the church's official Web site, lds.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."
Mormon researcher John M. Butler and DNA expert further argues that "careful examination and demographic analysis of the Book of Mormon record in terms of population growth and the number of people described implies that other groups were likely present in the promised land when Lehi's family arrived, and these groups may have genetically mixed with the Nephites, Lamanites, and other groups. Events related in the Book of Mormon likely took place in a limited region, leaving plenty of room for other Native American peoples to have existed."
In recent years, many LDS scholars have come to share Butler's belief in what is known as the "limited geography" theory. By this view, the Nephites and Lamanites restricted their activities to portions of Central America, which would explain their absence from the general American Indian genetics.
Kevin Barney, a Mormon lawyer and independent researcher in Chicago, welcomes the introduction's word change.
"I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon's] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture," said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."
Nice cop-out. You know, I'd say a good chunk of God's revelations to prophets in OT times made it into God's Word, even if (& actually ESPECIALLY if) we've lost any books along the way. [IOW, at least the prophets were still faithful in recording those revelations; preservation was perhaps a matter beyond their stewardship]
Now compare that to Doctrine & Covenants. Exactly how many "fresh" post-Smith "prophets'" "revelations" are included in this LDS "Scripture?" [So few that it'd only take a one-second breeze to blow 'em away]
So, of course, the standard apologetic line you've been fed by the professional LDS apologists, "You are talking about a personal opinion of his, not a revelation" would then HAVE to apply to about 100% (rounded off) of what most LDS "prophets" have commmunicated. Why? Well, if these were important "revelations" from God (and frankly, I don't think what God has to say on matters is NOT important, do you?), why hold them back from worldwide present & future worldwide Mormons who might not have access to West-laden General Conference Web sites or subscriptions to Ensign Magazine?
So, tell me, then how DO you test any statement of an LDS "prophet"--given that most LDS "prophets" have NEVER couched what they've said as a "revelation" & of the few that have, only a sliver in 100 forests of what they've communicated would amount to that level of "OFFICIALDOM MORMONDOM?"
This is NOT simply a rhetorical question. It's vital. Because elsewise an LDS "prophet" could make 100 predictions about 2008...but never couch them as a "revelation" or "from the Lord"...and then your nice cop-out would apply to all 100 predictions.
Perhaps they could. Why don't you badger them until they do.
Are you casting the first stone?
Don't care whether or not they join me. Their religion is just as good as mine or yours.
Ooh the pseudo mithraic writings are cutting me to the quick.
Oh yer one of those..... Any religion is just as good as another.
Alrighty then. It seems strange that you are here to defend a religion that is even MORE exclusive than Christianity. You DO know that Mormonism is the ONLY true church, right?
It’s been real......
Grig, I notice you don’t have a tagline...may I suggest “The BoM is clear that there are times God commands it and times he forbids it according to his wisdom and purposes.”...would save you lots of time in formulating non-answers.
Ya I'm one of those.
Alrighty then. It seems strange that you are here to defend a religion that is even MORE exclusive than Christianity. You DO know that Mormonism is the ONLY true church, right?
Ya I know all that stuff. I know enough to know that you believe you have the truth and Mormonism doesn't. Pot meet kettle.
It’s been real......
Ya a real pressure ah pleasure.
Answered your own question there very nicely, didn't you?
It's called "PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY" a phrase popularized during the Clinton Administration, . When the goals of the GAs in Salt Lake City change, or political correctness becomes troublesome, the "non-revelations" can be changed in a twinkle of the eye.
And, because the LDS membership believes that "When the Leaders speak, the thinking has been done" WE are supposed to give credence to the same arguments by the apologists here.
Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
But not physically, according to their testimony.
Oh??
When was that??
Isaiah 9:1-2
1. Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan--
2. The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.
Isaiah 42:6-7
6. "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles,
7. to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
Isaiah 49:5-6
5. And now the LORD says-- he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength--
6. he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."
Isaiah 49:22-23
This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples; they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their shoulders.
13. Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali--
14. to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah: =========================
Dang!!
Now you are MINDREADING ol' Joe!!!!
Joseph Smith made that change in the 1840 edition to clarify the intended meaning, but subsequent editions of the BoM were based on the 1837 Edition so the change was accidentally dropped until the 80’s.
So much for PROOFREADING!!!!
(Let's SEE that 1840 edition)
Then the intro should be TAKEN OUT instead of MISLEADING people into BELIEVEING something that isn't true.
TADA!
Nah; merely pointing out that the Jews CANNOT worship G*D like they are supposed to, for the TEMPLE is GONE!
Never argue against a fellow’s ScreenName...
Perfect answer.
Of course that explanation is almost impossible for most of us to verify.
However, this webpage, written by LDS apologists specifically concerning this issue, does not mention the change of "white" to "pure" at all, and in particular not in reference to changes in the 1840 edition.
What is this? tag team? Let's let G-d decide what worship he accepts. You're a mere human.
Speaking of screen names, have you been milked lately?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.