Book of Mormon Intro Page Change

[Watchmen]

As many of you know, I don't necessarily believe the Book of Mormon events to have literally happened. I believe the day may come when the Church is in harmony with this position. I also believe the 2007? change to the introduction page represents the slow development to my position.

Previous title page said: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”


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

What do you think of the change? What does it signify in the greater scheme of things?

[madhatter85]

i think the latter is more appropriate to real life. I think in the zeal of translating the book and having all of these really amazing things happen they may have gotten a little ahead of themselves. I believe some american Indian tribes stemmed from the Lamanites, but i think the ones they are the primary ancestors of are actually Latin america. Look at how it is growing so rapidly there. Just as I feel the the people of the Philippines are one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. I think one of the reasons it is growing so rapidly there is because the spirit is working in them especially.

[Arkholt]

I don't think the change in the introduction has anything to do with any change in position on whether the events literally happened or not. I think it's just a more correct statement, in light of archeological evidence. There were more people on the American continents than just the Lamanites. But I'm sure the Church's position remains the same, that the Lamanites were here.

And, Watchmen, I really don't want to start a debate on this, just interested: Why do you feel that the BoM events didn't literally happen? Do you believe some parts happened, and some didn't? I'm interested in your opinion on it, because it's not an opinion I hear that often from members of the Church.

[Watchmen]

Originally Posted by Arkholt

I don't think the change in the introduction has anything to do with any change in position on whether the events literally happened or not. I think it's just a more correct statement, in light of archeological evidence. There were more people on the American continents than just the Lamanites. But I'm sure the Church's position remains the same, that the Lamanites were here.

Do you believe it's possible that, in light of further archeological evidence, the Church will ever abandon that position?

And, Watchmen, I really don't want to start a debate on this, just interested: Why do you feel that the BoM events didn't literally happen? Do you believe some parts happened, and some didn't? I'm interested in your opinion on it, because it's not an opinion I hear that often from members of the Church.

I believe it's possible some events happened and some did not, but whether they happened or not I don't believe is the real point. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring people to Christ - and it has done that, whether historically accurate or not.

I believe the same is true of much of the Bible (e.g. the Creation story).

[Arkholt]

Originally Posted by Watchmen

Do you believe it's possible that, in light of further archeological evidence, the Church will ever abandon that position?

I guess I don't know what kind of evidence would be conclusive enough to show that the Lamanites were definitely not on the American continents. Evidence shows that there were more people here than just them, but what evidence could show that some of the peoples we have found could not be them?

I believe it's possible some events happened and some did not, but whether they happened or not I don't believe is the real point. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring people to Christ - and it has done that, whether historically accurate or not.

I believe the same is true of much of the Bible (e.g. the Creation story).

Makes sense. I agree that it's not the real point of the Book of Mormon. That's why I shy away from debates on whether scripture stories really happened or not. I believe they did, but does it matter, if what is learned from them is useful?

[madhatter85]

I do not believe for one minute that the Book of Mormon Events did not happen.

The Angel Moroni is the same who placed the plates in the earth, The some of the same Mormon who abridged the record of his ancestors.

If the Angel Moroni was not who he had claimed to be, That would make him a liar. And i do not believe that God would need to lie to play trickery to bring forth his truth. If it was allegory, it would be stated as such by the Angel Moroni.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

I do not believe for one minute that the Book of Mormon Events did not happen.

The Angel Moroni is the same who placed the plates in the earth, The some of the same Mormon who abridged the record of his ancestors.

If the Angel Moroni was not who he had claimed to be, That would make him a liar. And i do not believe that God would need to lie to play trickery to bring forth his truth. If it was allegory, it would be stated as such by the Angel Moroni.

I'm going to have to agree with madhatter here. At the very least, a person named Moroni had to have wandered around for a while and burried golden plates in New York. If that didn't happen, then either Joseph Smith is a liar, or the Angel Moroni is a liar - I don't see any way around one of those.

As for the rest, I guess the history Mormon and Moroni put down could be inaccurate - stories and oral histories that they had heard about but didnt' actually happen. If they were working from source materials like they claimed to be, though - then that would fall on whoever originally wrote it down. Not outside the realms of possibility.

I think that the only alternative to the "liar" scenario is that the basic structure of the BoM had to have taken place. A group came from Jerusalem and settled here, had their wars, preached to each other, etc. The whole "came from Jerusalem" part is necessary because someone would have needed to have come from the Old World in order for them to get the Isaiah stuff.

Now, for the details, especially those that are not described well enough in the book to have much confidence in, there are all sorts of possibilities there - and future discoveries will help clarify some of that. For example, I think that we are at a point where I can't claim to believe that the Nephite and Lamanite society spread over all of North and South America. The evidence doesn't point that way, and under that framework the book isn't consistent with itself. The limited geography model is much more likely. The "there were others around" model is also probably true.

The events did happen, though - somewhere.

[Watchmen]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

I do not believe for one minute that the Book of Mormon Events did not happen.

The Angel Moroni is the same who placed the plates in the earth, The some of the same Mormon who abridged the record of his ancestors.

If the Angel Moroni was not who he had claimed to be, That would make him a liar. And i do not believe that God would need to lie to play trickery to bring forth his truth. If it was allegory, it would be stated as such by the Angel Moroni.

Do you really think I believe God is a liar playing trickery?

The Creation account in genesis may very well be allegory, but that isn't stated as such either.

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Watchmen

As many of you know, I don't necessarily believe the Book of Mormon events to have literally happened. I believe the day may come when the Church is in harmony with this position. I also believe the 2007? change to the introduction page represents the slow development to my position.

Previous title page said: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”


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

What do you think of the change? What does it signify in the greater scheme of things?

I believe the change in wording is in recognition of modern evidence. I don't believe there's any chance that God revealed the Book of Mormon as an allegory. The book itself, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the resurrected Moroni all state that the people and history are real.

[Watchmen]

Originally Posted by Scott C.

I believe the change in wording is in recognition of modern evidence. I don't believe there's any chance that God revealed the Book of Mormon as an allegory. The book itself, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the resurrected Moroni all state that the people and history are real.

And what happens when "modern evidence" further disproves the Book of Mormon as time goes on?