All of this debate about the demographics of Native American is pointless. There is not way to really know at this point. And believing that you can logically deduct something from the information at hand is self delusional.

If you are concerned if the Book of Mormon is true to the source-God. He knows and He can and will tell you.

If you are concerned about looking intelligent or looking for reason to argue- have fun. I'll be elsewhere.

This could be proved by testing the Y chromosome in both populations. You won't see BYU rushing to do this study soon.

This book has been changed hundreds of times if not thousands over the years since its initial publication. That is the right of the LDS Church. It's "their" book.

The crux of the matter is whether or not it is in fact an ancient religious text. I would merely call attention to the title page which says, "By Joseph Smith, Jr."

No further questions.

This is an intersting article. I did not know the introduction was written in the 80's and it would be interesting to understand who wrote it and what kind of meetings were held to discuss, edit and approve it. Science is an interesting thing and can stir up much controversy and debate. Some things are yet to be discovered, disproved, or verified completely. No matter what scientific studies are done it does not take away from the fact the people believe things that are religious in origin by faith and their hearts have been touched by things science has yet to understand.

I don't live in Utah and I am not mormon. I do have mormon friends who I respect very much. My question is if the leaders of the LDS church are considered "prophets and seers" then why do they have to change things all the time like this? Wouldn't they get it right the first time? I am really curious, thank you.

Testing the Y chromosome in both populations would also be inconclusive and pointless. Try researching your genetics first. BYU knows not to waste the time or money. I'll go with Jason on this one, look to the source, not the philosophies of men. That is the best any of us can do.

To Florida,
I am intrigued by change to something that I have revered and been blessed by for 28 years. It can not be denied that new learning and discovery brings change. Revelation comes line upon line, precept upon precept. At times, because we are still human, what was once right and good can later become refined into something that is much clearer and full of greater light and understanding.
For example the law of Moses was right, but the New Testament gospel taught by Jesus Christ was much much better and shed greater light into the hearts of man than did the latter.

To Florida - Applying conversational language of 2007 to older written texts, often written in more poetic style, with to much specificity is unfair to the older text. (Read C S Lewis' work on this for more information.) Examples of words with different meanings now than even 20 or 30 years ago are bad, cool, heavy, gay, radical, tubular, far out, right on, hot, stud, babe, fox, etc. Often then we take something said even that short time ago, like "the principle ancestors of the American indian," beyond what it was ever intended to convey. The person that wrote that was not making an anthropological statement. The bible has also had thousands of changes. These changes and those in the Book of Mormon have been made in an effort to bring the text more in conformance with current language style so that it can be better understood. (Try reading Beowulf in original Old English as an example.) These changes have no effect on the doctrine and teachings contained therein. And finally, only those things spoken by the prophet at the time he is the prophet is the official doctrine of the Church, the rest are opinions.

To Carl:

Yes, it is true that there have been textual variations to the Book of Mormon. It is also true that there have been countlessly more textual variations to the various translations and editions of the Bible (and thousands to the King James Version). Does this mean that they are not scripture? Absolutely not! This is what we would expect when God's word falls into fallible human hands.

Also, what the critics won't tell you is that many of the textual variations in the Book of Mormon bolster, not condemn, the Book of Mormon's divine authenticity. Case in point, the "if/and" Hebrew clause that we find in the orginial manuscript of the Book of Mormon. I would suggest that you consult the works of Royal Skousen and Hugh Nibley - especially "Since Cumorah" - on this issue.

Also, the only reason that Joseph Smith appeared as the "Author and Proprietor" in the 1st edition of the Book of Mormon was to follow the legal copyright laws of 1790-1831. Note in the preface of the 1st edition he identifies no less than six times that he translated the text. So that little detail was for legal regulation only.

If a matter is capable of being tested by science -- that is, if science can tell whether something is more likely than not, even if it can't provide a precise answer -- let sound science test it, and respond appropriately. If only faith can provide an answer, then choose whether or not to exercise faith.

Common misconception: Prophets are infallible. This is not correct.

Prophets can be prophets and still hold personal opinions that may later prove incorrect. One example from the BofM: Alma 40:19-20. Alma the Younger (a prophet and leader of the Nephite Church) is teaching his son Corianton about the resurrection of Christ. He states "I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ascenion into heaven". There is no way to test the veracity of this idea; we cannot know if all the "righteous" to that point were resurrected at the time of Christ's rising. However, it illustrates that those who are called as prophets can still have personal opinions separate from the revealed word.

The fact that the introduction (i.e., not part of the canonized text) has been changed reflects a change in understanding and thinking regarding Bof M geography, not a sudden shift in doctrine. We all have a "check" on the both the doctrine of the BofM and the words of a prophet--the ability to get down on our knees and seek for personal confirmation.

I am a convert to the Church and have been a member for 30 years. And in that time many changes have taken place and it seems the Intellects of the Church have to over analyze things. I believe that if a person has a question, they can pray for the right answer. Know for yourself.

There is no Y-chromosome test that could be conducted, for several reasons:

1) It is difficult to identify the target group. N American Indians? Aztecs? Myans? Olmecs? S. American populations? You're talking about a small population scattered amongst a much larger group. good luck.

2) It is similarly difficult to identify a control group. The BofM asserts that Lehi came from the tribe of Joseph, Mulek from Judah. All of ancient Israel has been scattered, genes mingled, etc. with populations all over the place. Where do you get the control population? Modern Jews? Again, good luck.

As noted in the article, scholars discarded the continental model for the limited geography theory decades ago; the BofM text of itself contains nothing to conclusively support either, though some inferences exist that suggest the LGT. BYU probably has better things to do than to pitch a proposal for a scientific study that would likely be just as inconclusive as anybody's wild guess regarding the matter. No one's going to find DNA evidence that completely rules out Lehi-descendants; neither is anyone likely to find a Myan glyph saying "Nephi was here". Veracity of the BofM is a matter of faith and personal revelation.

I have a very old copy of the BOM. There have been many many changes made since the original. Some do not seem significant, and others carry a lot of weight. I do not go about informing others of these changes. But I also do not base my entire belief system and relationship with Diety on another mans testimony..the book is an interesting supplement to Mormon doctrine, but each must live life and gain beliefs which have nothing to do with science.

My question is to those of you who believe fully in the Bible. I do, but how can people judge changes to The Book of Mormon and not even question the changes that have been made to the Bible? I believe in both books very much. No simple changes to either have effected my faith in them.

I'm still waiting for all those who rely so heavily on science to explain everything, to tell me how life just all of a sudden appeared from the goopy warm mud in the early days of the earth? And if it really happened why can't we replicate it? Is that not a fundamental theroy of science, It has to be replicable?

Maybee it was this same magic mud that someone named Jesus Christ put in the eyes of the blind man, and then told him to wash it out in the fountain's waters, that made him see!

I don't know, but I'll put my trust in God,my Savior, and my church leaders.

And least we forget, man is not infalable, no not even the prophet. The introduction is not revelation from God, it is interpretation and inspiration of man, that why it is the introduction and not in the Doctrine and Covenants.

The discovery of spiritual truth is an individual quest in a realm that cannot be proven by scientific or archeological means. Scripture is one of those means that help with spiritual truth. That said, I am neither surprised nor upset if verbiage or introductions change from time to time. After all, languages and word meanings change. And if one believes in revelation, as I do, why should one be surprised if changes for clarification of meaning occur?

We live in a country of varied ethicity, where many groups of people came here in various ways. Why would it seem strange that more than one group of people could populate the Americas, even hundreds or thousands of years ago? It certainly occurred in the Middle East, where the Hebrew nation originated.

"Small" change. So we ignore that Joseph told his followers to go to Missouri to teach the "Lamanites?" He taught and thought that ALL indigenous peoples of North and South America were descendants of Lehi. Fact is, NONE of them are, and it has been shown time and time again. Despite what Mormons think, there is no conspiracy in the science of DNA. No men in black are trying to show the fallacy of this doctrine, but Mormons act like all science is in error except for their own Mormon scientists who constantly refute the mountain of evidence showing the history of man through DNA research. Their trumpeting is heard only by believing members who are looking for something to hang onto. It is fascinating science once it is freed of stiffling religiosity and examined for what it really is. There are thousands of researchers pushing DNA research, and not one of them cares about how their discoveries will impact the Mormons. Open up, folks. Live a little bigger. You don't have to be a frog in a well declaring to every migratory bird that stops by that they are lying about the size of the world.

I have to agree with Dave.We deal with this everyday.The government having us change different words because they might offend others. We have to be politically correct. When I have lived my life using words like pipecleaner and now the politically correct word is chenille stem. So we are refining ourselves everyday. Maybe that is why changes are being made in writing? So don't judge before the fact's are searched.

Is it the commas and grammer that make the Book of Mormon valuable? When changes are made by the authorized servents of God under the Spirit, they are accepted by Him.
Since its translation, The King James Version has undergone 100,000 changes.Among those changes, do you think that there was something important for you to know? Entire books, collectively called the apocrypha, that were once considered by many to be true were taken out of the Bible. And which translation do you consider to be true? Ever been to Barnes and Noble bookstore and looked in the Bible section? Which of the over 80 versions of the Bible in english have everything the originals writers wanted the masses to know? The Bible is a miracle, but over the centuries has been challened just like the Book of Mormon. Do these imperfectins make the Bible false. Absolutly not!!! A door always needs two hinges or more to serve its purpose and the Book of Mormon supports the Bible. It proves that Jesus really lived. So what's the bottom line? Truth is eternal whether men believe it or not. If you want to know, ask the One who created the truth: God.

I would love to have DNA testing confirm what the Book of Mormon says, but it is impossible to do so. We have no original base to test from (tribe of Joseph) and no current base to test compare (which tribe of current native americans??). Why have Southerton and co. made this out to be a definitive study?

There are serious doubts about the historicity of the Bible. Few proofs exist of major events and people (ie. the whole Exodus story). The same could be said about many historical texts that are unique. This doesn't prove they are not accurate.

All of this ignores the incredible weight in terms of the Bible's and Book of Mormon's content. These narratives are not written like fiction. There is too much of culture, sociology, military strategy, theology, philosophy, etc. for either book to not be true. They really do support one another theologically.

Whatever text changes there are in a modern introduction page are inconsequential. We have only modified the window dressing.

This is nothing more than acknowledgment by the church that Jared, Lehi and Mulek were probably not the only ones to come to the Americas and create permanent settlements before Columbus. That's all that any of this means to me. For this reason, the DNA debate to me has always been pointless.

Joseph Smith had to put "By Joseph Smith Jr." on the book in order to get it published. He decided it would be better to get it published and printed to share with everyone.

Boy howdy! I totally agree with Anonymous !
We are a people of Change! The Bible was changed many times, Catholic Doctrine has been changed many times the Book of Mormon has been changed and the list goes on and on. Geesh People why cant we all just get along? We, who all believe in God and Jesus Christ should not act as little children who think their daddy is the best and argue with each other. Remember we all have the same Father! Why must anyone be critical of anyone else's religion. Remember....on judgement day YOU will be asked why you made fun or rebuked anyone elses religious preference. Can you give a good enough answer to God why? I sure dont want to have to explain that one! I rather be asked why I stole a candy bar when I was 6 yrs. old !!! I am just an old grandma,who loves God ,what do I know??

Changes in the text have been made several times for different reasons. Some have been made to correct or update spelling and grammar to modern standards. Other changes were made because of printer's errors (when the typesetter lined up all the letters, they introduced errors). I believe the last set of "major changes" occurred when the "current text" was compared to the original manuscript written by Oliver Cowdery, who served as Joseph Smith's scribe for most of the translation--many of the previous revisions were done without consulting the original transcription, and as a result changes were required to revert back to the original. In short, a number of corrections have been made as a result of basic mistakes people make in the process of publishing books.

About 12 years ago, I helped publish a book that had no fewer than seven people proofread the entire text, several of them more than one time. About six months after publications, one of our interns noticed that we had missed the word "INTERSHIP" (not INTERNSHIP) on the spine of the cover. Happens all the time, even to the best of pblishers--people make mistakes.

MT in MD

It is all a matter of Faith, as with anything in the LDS church. DNA testing is an irrelevant matter. If one believes and uses the test that Moroni asks all to do, than the Book of Mormon is God's gift to man; not Joseph Smith.

If in fact, that the BofM can be proven to be false, which presently it hasn't, than it appears to me that the whole structure of the LDS church starts to fall apart.

It is a matter of faith.

Whats the big deal with one word change? I don't see that it makes a "hill of beans" difference to the contents that are in the book. However there is always some supposed intellectual that has been Xed that will use the one word change to blow his horn. It only makes him sound off key and flute small.Yet in his eye he thinks he is a tuba.This should not even made print. But because it involves the LDS church some editor or reporter feels that it's news worthy.However, It's about as insignificant as a pimple on a frogs behind.

It demonstrates the error in thinking that the footnotes, introduction, and dictionaries are reviewed and approved by inspiration of the president of the church. Some will now think twice before placing the footnotes and etc on the same level of the verse they are reading. Personally, I like the 1830 edition of the Bookof Mormon that does not have footnotes and lengthy introductions. I'd rather just read the BoM for what it is without a comittee of who knows what people throwing their opinions into the matter.

Throughout the U.S. and the world, Christian demoninations are being torn apart over issues such as gay clergy, female clergy, same-sex marriage, and abuse by clery. And whether some Christians want to admit it or not, there are even deeper divisions regarding which religions and religious leaders are truly Christian and which are not. Is the Pope are true Christian? What about Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn?

To my non-LDS Christian neighbors and friends, please tell me why you attack my faith, when the beliefs of Christians are all over the chart?

The change regarding the Bible was first reported on the Juvenile Instructor blog early this afternoon. The SLT, who broke the story of the "among" change seems not to have been aware of that change before it was brought to their attention on the JI blog. I wonder where the Deseret News learned of it, if it was from the blog or from another source (who may or may not have learned it from the blog).

This change has made me a little unsure of what is fact and what is not. It won't change my testimony. I know I am a child of god and he loves us all. The church has made changes over the years and not minor ones either.
1)Stopping Piligamy (not that I would want to do this but it was done in bible times),
2)clothes legnth. (Need I say more)
3)The blacks holding the priesthood,
4)The way ordinaces are conducted in the temple, well humm that is all I can think of. What are they going to change next? Well as long as the Prophet says it is true. (?) but man shouldn't he get it right the first time. He is speaking to the man up stairs. well i thought I was taught this? sooooo to all you LDS out there, stay true to the faith. there is a reason for everything.
To Just G: there are some religions who teach you to beat your wife and show you how to KIll. yes i will stand up and say NO to that!
DNA testing well did they do it right? did they have a control testing too.

People stand up and take note of this because the L.D.S. Church maintains that they are "The only true Church on the face of the earth. Holding all of the keys to exaltation, and without certain ordinances performed in Holy Temples, you can not enter the highest kingdom and be with your family after death." Pretty serious claims..To do these you must get a recommend and profess to believe in the Book Of Mormon, among other fundamental truths. So, if this is indeed the truth, then of course the world will take note and have a keener interest in this book and anyhting about it. If this Church is founded by past and current day prophets who receive inspiration from God, then the whole world will indeed be very interested about any change to an official book and reason in depth for the explanation as to why. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God........only as far as it is translated correctly. But...We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God..(No clarification added to this book.) So yes, the world will stand up and take note. A world which is very interested in Mormons.

Regarding the change to the "forward" of the B&M, I expect the critics will continue to be critics and the believers will continue to be believers.

As for the critics, this is a minor "clarifying" element that does not affect the scriptural part of the book. If people believed that Lamanites were ancestors to "all Native American Indians" that would be an assumption they made my mistake. I am glad that is something that we can now understand better.

As for prophets, to the reader in Florida, I like to look at modern prophets to realize what ancient prophets would have been like. They were real people with different personalities and approaches to teaching the gospel. For ancient prophets, we only have the scriptures to show what they said. That is pretty limited. For all we know, their comments may have been clarified many times. These men were not prefect people and not everything they said would have been "from god". Modern prophets give talks and opinions that touch on all topics. Clarifying one word from "primary" to "among" does not change the doctrine taught in the book; it only enhances our understanding of who these people were.

I am a Mormon. I have been my whole entire life. I am the great grandson of a former member of the quorum of the 12.
I have studied the BoM with fervent desire to identify whether it is a true document.
About 7 years ago, I visited Jerusalem and witnessed the entire LDS temple ceremony being performed by orthodox jews at the wailing wall.
I begin to search the roots of the church ordinances and learned that Joseph Smith was an active member of the Masonic Order.
I then learned of the discoveries made in the area of genetics and DNA tracing.
I can no longer follow the BoM as an accurate biblical record, but more of a fictional document.
I still love the values of the Mormon Church and principles taught to its members, but I do not believe in the accuracy of its cornerstone holy manuscript.

Old (and wise) people make a lot of sense. I understand why there are apoligists on both sides, to stick up for the truth as they know it. But when a person goes too far out of the way just to make someone else look bad and say I told you so, that is not being a very good Christian, is it. That is why LDS leaders curtail this if they know about it. It makes one wonder why don't other religions do this?

In modern time two founders of two major churches, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard, have authored religious books. Smith's writting have undergone changes while Hubbard's has endured the test of time.

Of course the Book of Mormon supports the Bible theologically, it was written by a man steeped in his mother's biblical study habit. How interesting that a prophet in the ancient lands which became the Americas quotes biblical scripture in the King's English though any records he may have had access to predate the King James translation of the Bible by at least 1200 years. How interesting that an article of faith for the LDS church asserts that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly neatly providing the caveat needed to support faith in the holiness of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was brilliant in his marketing of the religion he founded.

Different Carl than at 6:42pm.
Different response here than in the The Tribulation yesterday. More Desnews readers actually read the article.
The professional haters who follow the Trib's slant only read until they could find a club to hit with, and didn't read the Book, let alone the rest of the article.

Regarding mortal weakness of educated and presumably well-intended people, notice the reporter's. End of 3rd paragraph: "The new introduction reads much the same, but says..."
How could she miss the point of the article she was writing? Shouldn't it read "The new introduction reads EXACTLY the same, but says..." Oh, no, a one-word change! Burn the newspaper!

I ALWAYS understood "principal" to mean "one of the main ones", as opposed to "one of the many" and NOT "the only". So this so-called "change" is very slight when you see the whole message in context.

We've known for years there were others here when Lehi and Ishmael's family arrived. Maybe just some Mulekites, maybe leftovers from the Jaredites. But the record we have doesn't even try to give the whole social history. Humans, especially those with an agenda, have filled in far more than was ever justified.

Didn't they change the wording in the Sunbeams (5 year olds) Sunday School manual a couple years ago?

Seriously, it is an introduction originally written not long ago. Let's keep things in perspective.

And before all the “Christians” start pointing fingers, just look back and see how much “Christianity” has been modified since Christ.

Don't you know if you criticize the BoM, you are at the hand of the Adversary?

What a ridiculous waste of time. Every time an article is printed referring to the LDS church, the same antagonistic church bashers come out and offer their same cynical remarks. It's okay that you don't believe as we do, why not be on your way and keep believing the way you do. Why spend so much energy attacking something you don't like? I can't imagine anything less fulfilling than spending my days finding fault with another persons religion. The LDS church is undoubtedly a force for good in the world regardless of a person's beliefs. Likewise there are many other religions that do much good in the world as they teach and encourage people the essence of christianity. While we each hold to our own doctrinal beliefs, I hope that we can respect one another and be grateful for the good the other has to offer. It doesn't have to be a contest about who is right and who is wrong!

Friend, we don't believe you.
Hiding behind anonymity here, you would have us believe your doubts?
You are looking for other doubters to soothe your conscience.

Tens of thousands of intelligent, educated, VISIBLE men and women (that you can meet and know by name) have studied the scriptures and history and have put it to the test, and love it and live it and bless the lives of their families and countless strangers.
They've put their name and reputation out where people can see.
You are not who you claim to be.

As a sceptic when I came to faith in Christ, I maintain my scepticism about ANYTHING brought forth by man. My scepticism was overcome by a logical look at the Bible, its geography and historical accuracy--not it's perfection in those areas. Frankly, I do not feel the BOM comes even remotely close to approaching the Bible in those areas--I will continue to be a sceptic.

As non-LDS I hear about prophets from whom ALL things relating to the spiritual are considered to be from God himself--so even an introduction to a scriptural book would fall into this category, hence held to a higher standard. I hear about a God-revealed interpretation of tablets that cannot be reproduced. I hear about MAJOR changes in doctrine...I will continue to be a sceptic.

Perhaps my faith is limited, perhaps my eyes are veiled. Perhaps...

I don't pretend to have revelation of God's new and improved Church on Earth, I struggle daily with what I feel God has revealed to me. God won't give me more than I can handle. Thanks Lord, I am glad to know that!

I can see the similarities.
Can you seen the differences?

Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer, founded a business, called it Scientology.
It's a moneymaker. My doctor has spent upwards of a half-million dollars, has almost nothing to show for it. (The moral standard he foisted on our daughter got her into troubles she still carries.)
Hubbard took a couple of small ideas and has multiplied the books and courses and certifications to unfathomable levels.

Joseph Smith was called by God, and created their ultimate service organization, that gives and gives, for here and the hereafter, and not for money.

To Leaving the Church, Brother you are one of many. Unfortanatly our fore fathers did not have access to the information or common sense that we enjoy today. Nevertheless, I do love my Mormon Brothers and Sisters and I would be sad without them.

To believe that Joseph wrote the Book, you have to overlook a lot of details, and hope your readers are never gonna find out, such as:
-that he had a 3rd-grade education,
-that he "produced" a book that scholars of all walks of life still marvel at, (the ignorant sneer, but only from ignorance)
-that people gave (and give) their lives for the Book -- meaning both: they died for, and they live amazing lives of love and service because of,
-that Joseph gave his life (both ways) for, not for personal gratification or power or money,
-and most of all, that you have an agenda that centers around not having to accept the Lord's commandments, even though He has given them to you and me because he loves us.

I personally am glad the change was made. In my blog on the convergence of science and religion, I'm currently discussing migrations to the Americas. There is a lot of scientific evidence there were migrations way before those described in the Book of Mormon.

To those who ask why would inspired leaders allow mistakes to be made in the Introduction, I say this. We LDS believe our church leaders are not infallible. They are human like the rest of us. They make mistakes like the rest of us. They have their opinions about things like the rest of us. God inspires them about some things and he doesn't inspire them about other things. They learn and grow from their experiences like the rest of us. I'm glad they recognized a mistake was made in the Introduction and have corrected it. This has strengthened my faith in them as my religious leaders and my willingness to follow their counsel.

This is an introductory written by men so change it all you want. But there have been almost 4000 changes in the book of mormon verses themselves...the most perfect and correct book ever written and/or translated? There is zero archaeological proof of the bom. The mormon doctrine is contrary to the bom. It's interesting to think of how long God has been in existance but in a short 200 years he has flip flopped on many issue which is sold as modern day revelation. I can just see God sticking his finger up in the air to see which way the popular wind is blowing so he can change to the will of man?! Real history is called Anti-Mormon and why doesn't the brothern want you to read it? When you are a child adults put you up to the pulpit and whisper in your ear what to say, it's so cute. "I know the church is true." It's brain washing and I was sad when I found out the truth. My gosh, God is our only judge but in morminism a man can keep you out of heaven over a glass of tea.

Someone has misinformed you. Even the language, "change things all the time", tells you their agenda.
Somehow certain people came up with the idea that prophets claim to be perfect. Actually, real prophets only humbly assert their willingness to follow through on an assignment they were given. The Lord reveals new things on his timetable, not ours. No true Christian prophet ever said they have all the answers.

Other skeptics would have you believe the LDS Church is just another man-made club, in which some people got together and developed a set of beliefs. That is what most people are accustomed to. If you like the pastor, if you like the interpretation of certain Bible verses, if you like the neighbors in the church, you join that one.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect, but it is here to teach us. Christ founded the church as a hospital for weak mortals, not a rest home for the perfect.

God has always only given to man "line upon line, precept on precept." Man (science) trumpets that they have The Answers, then change often, as we discover newer understandings.

"Debate renewed with change in Book of Mormon introduction" should read:
"Debate renewed by announcement of trivial change (but we know this will attract a lot of attention)"

95% of the people commenting here don't pay attention, nor study the background of the introduction nor the BoM, and wouldn't even know about a "change" if this kind of inflammatory artice had not been published.