The Book of Mormon: Minor edit stirs major ruckus

by Deputy Dog 9 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Deputy Dog

  New Light for the Mormon?

  From: http://www.sltrib.com//ci_7413508?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

  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."
• 

  darkuncle29

  They also have a colorful history that for members has been covered up or simply ignored. My dad's family is Mormon, some are "Jack" Mormons, a few are in good standing and even wear the holy underwear.
• 

  Leolaia

  While that may be new to "official" church material, the thinking embodied in that statement has been around for a while. FARMS scholar William Hamblin, for instance, regards "Lamanite" as meaning simply "non-Nephite," such that "Lamanite is not a genetic designator requiring us to insist that all inhabitants of the New World are genetically descended only from the Lehite colony... All modern Native Americans can be accurately described as cultural or political Lamanites, since they are non-Nephites" (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1994, p. 476). As the Salt Lake Tribune article notes, this view accords with Sorenson's limited geography model of the cultures referred to in the Book of Mormon. But the belief that Native Americans are not all descendents of Lehi and his companions is much older than this model (going back to the 1920s, at least).

  Of course, the traditional hemispheric model is the one imho most naturally suggested by an exegesis of the book itself.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  See what LDS apostates and apologists have to say about it...

  http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?t=3325
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Leolaia

  They have been bending and twisting every witch way since the video "DNA vs. The Book of Mormon" (from http://www.lhvm.org/dna.htm) came out.
• 

  Honesty

  Just another cult like so many others that are full of charlatans and Snake Oil Purveyors.
• 

  kwintestal

  Leolaia

  They have been bending and twisting every witch way since the video "DNA vs. The Book of Mormon" (from http://www.lhvm.org/dna.htm ) came out.

  That was my first thought on it. DNA evidence doesn't support the Mormon teachings however if they're able to change their stance from "most" to "some" they can just argue that they just haven't tested the right people yet.

  Kwin
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Kwin The change gets them in as much trouble as the point they were trying to make. How is it that the only "true" church, can't get "the most correct book ever written", right? To me, it's admitting that their own early leaders didn't know how to interpret their own "scripture". Most mormons would try to tell you that, the Book of Mormon is inspired cover to cover, notes and all.
• 

  Shawn10538

  I just can't take anyone seriously if they believe in the book of Mormon. If someone even wants to hint that there might be a single solitary gem of light in that ridiculous book, I quietly place that person in the category of "totally delusional, and not worthy of a second of my time. There is only one appropriate response to the Mormons: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
• 

  Leolaia

  So I guess you're not voting for Romney?