Kimball_Kinnison posted:

---

Lord_NoONE posted:

---

You can't dismiss the change to the introduction as "not being doctrine." It has been the approved introduction of a canonized book of scripture. It was drafted by an apostle and approved by the First Presidency. The book, as a whole, was adopted by the law of common consent. The introduction is as much a doctrinal statement as anything written in the actual book itself.

---

Yes, it was written by an apostle, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be edited or revised at the direction of the First Presidency. Remember, that same apostle (Bruce R. McConkie) wrote the book Mormon Doctrine, and the First Presidency had him recall the first edition of that book to make corrections in it. He also wrote the Bible Dictionary, as well as the various chapter headings, but that doesn't bar the First Presidency from having them revised. After all, the previous chapter headings were also written by an apostle, and yet there was no problem having them changed.

Moreover, this is a change in the Doubleday trade printing of the Book of Mormon, not the edition published by the Church. I haven't seen any sources that say one way or the other whether they are changing the Church-published edition.

Kimball Kinnison

---

Lord_NoONE posted:

---

Actually, Robert Matthews, a religion professor at BYU, wrote the Bible Dictionary as a member of the committee headed by Elder McConkie and Elder Packer.

---

Lord_NoONE posted:

---

Of course, what you said about the First Presidency having authority to alter or amend the doctrine of the church is truism. Clearly, the First Presidency is the final arbiter of doctrine in the LDS church and if the doctrine changes, or the interpretation of the doctrine changes, then those changes are pronounced by the First Presidency. The difference between McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and his introduction to the Book of Mormon is that the introduction was incorporated into a canonized book of scripture and adopted by the leading quorums and the body of the church by common consent. Thus, McConkie's introduction is doctrine. The First Presidency, obviously, retains authority to alter, amend, delete, or change anything contained in the canonized works; concurrently, the First Presidency retains the right to reprimand, comment, and criticize independent works authored by apostles and other leaders for their doctrinal veracity.

---

Kimball_Kinnison posted:

---

Lord_NoONE posted:

---

Of course, what you said about the First Presidency having authority to alter or amend the doctrine of the church is truism. Clearly, the First Presidency is the final arbiter of doctrine in the LDS church and if the doctrine changes, or the interpretation of the doctrine changes, then those changes are pronounced by the First Presidency. The difference between McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and his introduction to the Book of Mormon is that the introduction was incorporated into a canonized book of scripture and adopted by the leading quorums and the body of the church by common consent. Thus, McConkie's introduction is doctrine. The First Presidency, obviously, retains authority to alter, amend, delete, or change anything contained in the canonized works; concurrently, the First Presidency retains the right to reprimand, comment, and criticize independent works authored by apostles and other leaders for their doctrinal veracity.

---

Except that there is a difference between being published in a book of canonized scripture and being canonized scripture. It is an introduction to the text, not part of the text itself.

Personally, in my almost 28 years (almost 20 of which as a baptized member of the Church), I have never known anyone (that I know of) who treated the Introduction as canonized scripture. I have seen people refer to it as a historical reference (primarily to the Joseph Smith quote about it being the "most correct book"), but not in a doctrinal sense as scripture itself.

There is a similar introduction for the D&C and for the PGP, but neither of those is considered canonized, nor as authoritative. And yet, both of those books of scripture are considered of equal authority to the BoM. Why, then, should the BoM's introduction be considered more authoritative than either of those?

It is not something of doctrinal authority, and the change itself is incredibly minor. The doctrine of the Church is defined in its canonized scriptures, not in the introductions, nor other study aids that are often published with them. Last I checked, those weren't being changed.*

Kimball Kinnison

---

Lord_NoONE posted:

---

I think hairs are being split here. The introduction was approved by the First Presidency and was included in the book, ostensibly, as an accurate recitation of what the book purports to be and what it seeks to accomplish. Sure, you're not going to have an entire Sunday School lesson on the introduction to the various books of scripture, although I suppose that you could have one for the title page of the Book of Mormon that was actually translated by Joseph Smith. Anyway, the statements contained in the introduction are accurate statements of doctrine and especially since McConkie wrote the introduction and it was approved by the First Presidency. If it hadn't been, then it would not have been in the book to begin with.

I agree that there is a distinction between the actual text of the Book of Mormon, i.e., the translated portions, and the footnotes; however, the distinction is arguably a minor one. The footnotes are there to explain doctrine and are specific to the LDS faith. They exist to weave the four canonized books of scripture together into a broader tapestry of religious definition.

Your position regarding the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price is interesting. The introductions to those books of scriptures are similarly approved by the First Presidency and the general body for their inclusion in those books. I certainly think those introductions should be accurate statements of what is contained in the books, including an accurate representation of the doctrine espoused therein.

---