Major Book of Mormon change?

Question

The book of Mormon just changed. Before anybody says it was ones persons opinion its something that the church has been teaching for decades. This is what I was taught before I was baptized. Here is the change.

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

The new BOM will state this….

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

What does this change? Everything every missionary has taught. For the first time the LDS church is quietly agreeing they were not in America first. They are admitting others were here first. They just joined in.

What does it mean? I don’t know. What does it mean to you? Why did they just change it without any announcement to a major change in how we were taught to believe, they just had General Conference. Why did the publisher know before the members?

John. I get where you are going. Bruce R. McConkie wrote it. But it says. All were destoryed, besides the lamanites.

Now the bible says in Duet. If you are a prophet ect and you are wrong? you are a false prophet. The church was good enough with this theory they put it in the BOM. So we admit he is wrong and in doing so if we follow the bible he hast to be a false apostle.

Cant have it both ways.

Christ-n

GET MY HATE STRAIGHT?

Im LDS. Ive had sunday dinners with Pres Monson. Its a question that allows debate. Get your head out of the sand and ask something, you might learn something.

Answer 1

Bruce R. McConkie, a now deceased world-wide leader of the Mormon Church, said this in 1966: "The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of their fellows perished. It is quite apparent that groups of orientals found their way over the Bering Strait and gradually moved southward to mix with the Indian peoples. We have records of a colony of Scandinavians attempting to set up a settlement in America some 500 years before Columbus. There are archaeological indications that an unspecified number of groups of people probably found their way from the old to the new world in pre-Colombian times. Out of all these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15th century."

It's easy to "debunk" Mormon beliefs when you simplify those beliefs and/or misrepresent them. The truth is many Mormons have been speculating for decades that "Israelites" were not the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

It is not true that "every Mormon missionary" teaches that Israelites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. I did not teach it, for I did not believe it.

To learn more about Mormonism, visit my site at http://www.allaboutmormons.com .

Answer 2

This is more a response to other answers than the question. To the Mormons on here. I was one of you for 29 years. I was the most stalwart seminary student. I served a full time mission. I was in the Elders Quorom Presidency and I taught sunday school. You can't honestly tell these people that the church never taught that the American Indians descended from the Lamanites, because you and I both know that is exactly what the church has taught. And the Introduction to the BoM is not the only place. Go to LDS.org and search the word Lamanite among Ensign articles. You will find several talks given at General Conference by General Authorities that refer to Native Americans as Lamanites. You will find other articles in the Ensign that do the same. If you look in the D&C you will find several times when Joseph Smith calls people to serve a mission "among the Lamanites" and he wasn't talking about going back in time. So not only have several prophets referred to the Native Americans as Lamanites. They also approved other people teaching the same thing. Everything in the Ensign is printed "Under the Direction of the First Presidency" The intro was written by Bruce R. McKonkie "Under the Direction of the First Presidency" not to mention that as an apostle, Bruce R. McKonkie was ordained as a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator." If he was a prophet, and given the task of writing an intro to "The most true book on the face of the Earth" then why wouldn't he have the revelation needed to know that the Lamanites were not the "Primary Anscestors" of the American Indians? Why were we taught in Seminary that the intro was also considered scripture, along with anything the General Authorities say today? This is not a small change. It is a huge change in taught doctrine, that the church was hoping to just slip in without people noticing.
Trust me, I understand what it is like to keep trying to defend your religion all the while thinking to yourself that maybe it doesn't make sense afterall. Only when you TRULY open your mind and look at ALL the evidence out there, and not just that which the church approves for you to look at, can you know the truth. And it will be easy to pick out the stupid people who attack the church with ignorant myths, from the real inconvenient TRUTH about the church. Real truth can withstand any criticism. The Mormon church's "truth" cannot. I truly believe that many Mormons out there can't let go because they are affraid like I was that the church they gave so much to is a fraud. They are also affraid of how they will be treated by their friends and family who are still in the church. They are affraid they will be labeled sinners, and apostates for leaving. But I hope they realize someday as I have, that being true to yourself is far more important than how others see you. Mormons, please take this as an oppurtunity to really research your faith. To do that you MUST read more than just what the Mormon church gives you. If the church really is true, there isn't anything out there that you can read, that would disprove it. If there is even one thing that disproves it, then the church is not true. Please open you mind, and learn for yourself.

Answer 3

It wasn't "precisely translated, character by character". David Whitmer wasn't the one translating it. As someone who has done a translation from another language into english it's impossible to translate something letter by letter and then go back and do it the same way over and over. Hence the reason that the Book of Lehi wasn't translated again after it was stolen (however I'd bet a dollar that you have no clue what I'm talking about as supportive arguments aren't exactly promoted by utlm). So, there have been some changes to the Book of Mormon, who cares. Not a single point of doctrine was changed. Most changes were punctuation and grammer, and many were indeed from the printer as the original manuscripts backed up the errors. As one who reads the Book of Mormon and accepts it as truth, I don't care about the changes. They make it easier to read, they eliminate mistakes, so I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath-water. I also love the bible and teach the New Testament. There are more discrepancies with the New Testament texts than there are words in the New Testament. So many in factthat nobody has ever been able to accuratly count them. For the most part, they don't matter anyway. What matters is allowing God to speak to you as you read those words on the page in front of you. The power isn't found in the words, it's found in the doctrine of God which is taught by the words found in boththe bible and Book of Mormon. Perhaps you should spend some time and read it rather than criticize it. So really, what's your point? Many good people seem to think that we should read the bible - WE DO! We read it and believe it as a church; so why argue that we should reduce what we read as truth and find the truth in the bible alone- a book written under intense persecution from the Jews who's arguments about the lack of a need for additional scripture during the first few centuries are identical to those arguments against the Book of Mormon. You promote the cause of the early Christians while following the same song and dacne as their enemies. There is a word for people like that, one that Jesus Himself used often, it's hypocrite. Just out of curisoity, have you read the Book of Mormon? How about the bible? Have you read the entire New Testament even? I'm intereted to know.

Answer 4

First of all you need to know a couple of things. This change is in the introduction of the BOM. This was written in 1981, based on what what known at the time. The church has never had the official position that Lehi and his family were the only people (or the first) that came to the America's. Heck the BOM talks about 2 other groups that came over. No doctrine or principles of the gospel changed. really its a correction that clarifies the churches position. FYI, there have been grammatical changes over the years that most people haven't noticed.

The Book Of Mormaon is still Another Testament of Jesus Christ


To the asker: The BOM does not make the point that everyone was killed off except the Lamanites. Its referring to the two different nations that came off from Father Lehi. The writers in the Book of Mormon knew nothing of other people in the western hemisphere so when it says they were all destroyed it was talking about the people in the book of mormon not the other unknown peoples. All this change does is more clearly show the churches position.

Answer 5

First, it's not the Book of Mormon that changed, it's the introduction or whatever.

Second, it's changed to reflect new light and knowledge that we have. Joseph Smith didn't know for sure, and now we know that the Lamanites were not the only people that the native American Indians could have descended from. And careful study of the Book of Mormon itself shows this. The Book of Mormon itself does not say that the Lehites were the ONLY people in the entire western hemisphere, and iti does not say that the Lamanites were the ONLY people that the current native American Indians could have descended from.

Answer 6

What does it change? Nothing... does the new version say that they aren't the principle ancestors, no? It could simply as be seen as taking as backing away from something that has lead to contention, so people can focus on the main teachings of the Book of Mormon which are teachings about Christ. I do not know if this is officially why the LDS church made the change, but it makes sense to me.

It is VERY important to note that the change is to the cover page NOT the Book of Mormon itself which was translated by the power of God.

Answer 7

Intro or BOM, does it matter? So you argue that one was translated by God, the other just thrown in by man? If this is the case, what other doctrines are just doctrines of men and not of God? If they are merely of men, why have prophets (are they not supposed to be the mouthpiece for God)? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to open discussion. How does one know which doctrines are correct and which ones are not?

I've been taught to believe there is right and there is wrong. I do not believe right and wrong change. Yet doctrines/statements seem to change on a regular basis.

The problem is, one can either argue that the works are inspired of God, or that man has made a mistake (in his works). But it is very difficult to argue that the works are God's, but man made a mistake. Why would God allow a mistake in doctrine, when the very salvation of everyone is reliant on these principals?

Finally, to argue that the change is made because of our new knowledge does not make sense. These works are supposed to be inspired of God. Are you saying that God is not all knowing? The understanding of man should not matter if that man is a mouthpiece for God.

Answer 8

Asked and Answered -- however this version makes more sense and it is not part of the translated text -- it was McConckies addition that is being revised (changed, updated, corrected).

Not a problem.


D

Answer 9

WE all knew that the Asian people was here and exchanging gods with the first group that came over 3500 years before Christ.
You can see it all the Statutes in South America, that Asian eyes and smiles

Answer 10

The publisher got directions from the angel Moroni of where to find a set of amended gold tablets, along with a brand new Urim and Thumim with which to translate them, obviously.