Let's Be Frank About the Book of Mormon Introduction

Daniel Peterson spoke at the annual FAIR conference last month, and the transcript of his talk has been posted online. Peterson's talk was titled, "Some Reflections On That Letter To a CES Director," a reference to a document that has been circulating for a year or two that compiles together a lot of criticisms of the Church. Not surprisingly, the issue of DNA and the Book of Mormon was raised. After dismissing the relevance of genetics under the theory that the Book of Mormon peoples were a very small group mixing with a large established population, Peterson turned to the introduction of the Book of Mormon.

[Letter to a CES Director] “Why did the Church change the following section of the introduction page of the 2006 edition of the Book of Mormon shortly after the DNA results were released?” Quote: “The Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians” is changed to, “The Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

Well, the implication is “because the DNA evidence undercut the Church’s position.” That’s not true. I happen to know the backstory, which has never been published. The backstory is, there were people who objected to that heading when it was done in the late 1970s/early 1980s. They were overruled by someone who was in a position of authority. But, they said the Book of Mormon never actually makes that claim. Don’t make the Book of Mormon claim things it doesn’t actually claim. We set ourselves up sometimes for problems when we claim things for the book, but that the book, when carefully read, does not claim for itself.

This is the kind of thing that drives believers-turned-critics crazy, and I can sympathize. I have a specific memory [1] of reading the introduction to the Book of Mormon as a missionary and coming across the passage in question. This was before DNA had become an issue, but it was still the case that virtually everyone outside the Church thought that American Indians came from Asia. I remember reading that line about the Lamanites being the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" and thinking that if the prophets and apostles were certain enough to put that in the introduction, then it must be the case.

I've obviously had to rethink that position and the assumptions behind it in subsequent years [2], but I have to admit that it irks me a little to see the wording simply attributed to someone in authority. It is hard to believe that the wording of the introduction was not read closely by the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles, and it is also hard to believe that the wording would have stood if any of them had reservations about it. I don't dispute Peterson's backstory, but it doesn't really solve the problem anyway. All it shows is that those who objected to the wording were not the ones in authority. That kind of makes the critique stronger.

It might be the case that former believers can be faulted for various failings, but taking seriously the Church's own introduction to the book that is the 'keystone of our religion' is not one of them. I think a better approach is simply to acknowledge that when the introduction was written (1981), Church leaders held the traditional LDS belief and assumption that the Lamanites were the main ancestors of the American Indians. However, it wasn't a crucial issue and so when strong evidence showed it to be in error, the wording was changed. What's the harm in a straightforward answer like that? (It's actually not that different from the Church's own explanation.)

Notes:

1. It is a memory I don't think I ever wrote down. As such, the standard disclaimers apply.

2. On a related note, I also remember one of my MTC teachers driving home the importance of using materials approved by the Church in teaching. Whether intended or not, one of the messages that came through to me was that you can have full confidence in materials published by the Church. Unfortunately, I have had to rethink that as well.

---