“Are the principal ancestors” vs. “Among the principal ancestors”

“Are the principal ancestors” vs. “Among the principal ancestors”

Class discussion about this led me to see if this was a generally held view, or not. I found that, while the introduction to the Book of Mormon was written in 1981, such scholars as Hugh Nibley in 1952, were making statements in published books prior to this, that “the Book of Mormon is not so much a history of the Indians as of their distant ancestors—people as different from them in many things as our Anglo-Saxon forefathers are from us. The story of the Indians only begins where the Book of Mormon ends” Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites, Hugh Nibley, Bookcraft, 1952, pg 143, and “There is not a word in the Book of Mormon to prevent the coming to this hemisphere of any number of people from any part of the world at any time, provided only that they come with the direction of the Lord” See Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites, Hugh Nibley, Bookcraft, 1952, pg 253.

Nibley also wrote that “A careful study of the motions of the Jaredites, Mulekites, Nephites, and Lamanites should correct the absurd oversimplification by which the Book of Mormon as a history is always judged. It will show as plain as day that the Book of Mormon itself first suggests the Asiatic origin of some elements at least of the Indian race and culture long before the anthropologists got around to it. The scientists no longer hold that one migration and one route can explain everything about the Indians. The Book of Mormon never did propound a doctrine so naive.” see http://www.boap.org/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/The_World_of_the_Jaredites.html

Also, BYU posted these comments, “The introduction previously said that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians," and the new edition printed by Doubleday says that the Lamanites "are among the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

The passage in question is not a part of the Book of Mormon itself, but in the introduction, which Bruce R. McConkie wrote in 1981.

"The current Introduction page in the Book of Mormon was not part of the original text translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.," said Mark Tuttle, LDS Church spokesperson in the Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday. "A one-word change was made to the introduction in the latest edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday. That change takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography, which are not known. The change will be included in the next edition of the Book of Mormon printed by the Church." See http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/66279

It should also be noted that the terms Nephite and Lamanite became known as political affiliations, not racial markers, in later times mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

I just wanted to point out that, while there was a change in the introduction, not all bought into the idea of what McConkie’s introduction posited—some, such as Nibley, felt otherwise, and voiced their view.