bu11fr0g Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 What kind of mistakes in the Book of Mormon could be the "mistakes of men" that would have been incorrectly inserted? Could these mistakes be false? To what extent could Joseph Smith misinterpret? or did the translation process preclude misinterpretation? (i.e. if Joseph saw a creature, he could miscall what he saw, or the original description could have been a miscall.)
altersteve Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 The Book of Mormon is true because it contains the fullness of the gospel. The "mistakes of men," as I understand it, are minor errors that don't affect the message it contains: that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God. I believe that Joseph could have and probably did misinterpret some minor details, but these misinterpretations didn't seem to be a big deal in God's eyes, since He pronounced the Book of Mormon to be a correct translation. When He said this, I believe He was simply saying that it will serve the purpose that was meant for it: to bring people unto Christ.
jskains Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Isn't this the funemental flaw most people ignore? That the Bible and the Book of Mormon were not written by God, but were written by men who interacted with God? In my humble opinion, this is the single most important fact that evangelicals fail to grasp when applying the Bible as a weapon against Mormonism.
CV75 Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 What kind of mistakes in the Book of Mormon could be the "mistakes of men" that would have been incorrectly inserted? Could these mistakes be false?To what extent could Joseph Smith misinterpret? or did the translation process preclude misinterpretation? (i.e. if Joseph saw a creature, he could miscall what he saw, or the original description could have been a miscall.)I found it interesting to do a word search of the Book of Mormon for the following:Err: carries a negative connotation of losing salvation by not knowing or living according to the truth in all instances except 1 Nephi 19:6.Mistake: refers to a fairly innocuous error in two instances (similar to 1 Nephi 19:6).Weakness: as it pertains to men writing and reading the scriptures, it is not presented as anything the Lord cannot rectify (Ether 12:23-40; 1 Nephi 19:6; 2 Nephi 3: 13, 21; 33,4-11; Jacob 4:6-7). Ether 3:1-6 and 3 Nephi 17:2 show how He handles our weakness in other areas as well.When it comes to effectively conveying the Lord’s will though the words written in the Book of Mormon, the Lord clearly compensates for errors, mistakes and weaknesses through His grace upon His servants and those who are served by them. He does not permit such errors/mistakes/weaknesses that would cause His children to stumble in their faith or err in the doctrine they receive.I don’t think there is anything Joseph could have done (if any such thing could have been done) in the way of misinterpretation that would have interfered with the Lord’s purpose for and message in the Book of Mormon. In light of corrections being made over the years “to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions,” even the mistakes of others don’t seem to interfere. His children are converted and enter into the covenants regardless.
Damien the Leper Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 This is an important area of scriptural criticism. I find that we often make the naive assumption that because scripture is 'God breathed' or inspired then it must be fully intact and without error. This is not so. This road, I have observed in some cases, leads to scriptural idolatry...a sin I have committed myself. Scripture is a vessel in which we are able to read about someone else's experiences with the Divine and to learn from it. As Marcus Borg, John Crossan and N.T. Wright have stated over and over again...we are reading someone else's mail.
Deborah Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Joseph in fact made corrections in the manuscript, particularly as it was being set for publishing. Some things his scribes wrote down incorrectly and some things were error of the publisher in setting the type. However, as has been mention as far as the meat the book is intact.
Questing Beast Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Benjamin gets changed into Mosiah, and Alma's people become Mosiah's people instead of Ammon's people, in the 1837 edition. Joseph Smith made the correction himself, apparently. The way it reads in the 1830 edition, there is an apparent contradiction: but the changes were possibly inaccurate, even though they make the text more simple. More Joseph Smith changes occurred in the 1841 edition: "pure and delightsome" instead of "white and delightsome". The 1981 edition changed "white" back into "pure", even though all but the 1840 edition read "white and delightsome". This is simply P.C. agenda at work. Does God approve? Ask him, I guess. But, YMMV from millions of other readers' answers.I accept scripture as in the mind of the beholder. You determine what is scripture to you. Nobody can tell you that your inspirational insights gained from your reading of any book are not genuine....
KevinG Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 More Joseph Smith changes occurred in the 1841 edition: "pure and delightsome" instead of "white and delightsome". The 1981 edition changed "white" back into "pure", even though all but the 1840 edition read "white and delightsome". This is simply P.C. agenda at work.If readers in a particular era are getting a false impression from a verse I think it is well within the perview of a Prophet to change the text to something more clear. This is one of those changes. IMO the verse was not meant to imply race and the change back to pure is more readily understood today.That is an advantage to continuing revelation and Prophets.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 As has been discussed in another thread, one of the mistakes is probably the addition of deutero-Isaiah in the Books of Nephi. There are also geographical and historical mistakes, various anachronisms, and the mistake as to the origin of Native American pigmentation. But the book is "the most correct book," to use Joseph Smith's words, because of its doctrinal correctness. It stands the test of time as scripture because of its inspired doctrine and teachings. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 What kind of mistakes in the Book of Mormon could be the "mistakes of men" that would have been incorrectly inserted? Could these mistakes be false?To what extent could Joseph Smith misinterpret? or did the translation process preclude misinterpretation? (i.e. if Joseph saw a creature, he could miscall what he saw, or the original description could have been a miscall.)If Joseph Smith, say, misrendered Alma 41:10 to say that wickedness really is happiness, then I'd start worrying. Conversely, whether a horse is actually a tapir is of absolutely no concern to me whatsoever, since the Book of Mormon is not a zoology/taxonomy textbook. The concept of the Book of Mormon containing "the mistakes of men" originated with the book's purported abridgers, not with Joseph Smith:Book of Mormon Title Page:. . . And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.Mormon 9:3333 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
Verum Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God ...as far as it is translated correctly. Why would this not be an accurate / fair statement of faith?
altersteve Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God ...as far as it is translated correctly.Why would this not be an accurate / fair statement of faith?Because we know the Book of Mormon has been translated correctly.
Verum Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Because we know the Book of Mormon has been translated correctly.I think this is dangerous to advocate this strongly.If Joseph was a fallible man, why can't his fallibility poor over into the translation process? As a church, we already accept the idea that not everything a prophet says is inspired by God. So, if one speaking as a prophet can sometimes error, why couldn't Joseph have made error as he was translating as a prophet? In addition, some of the possible translation errors in the BOM may have been scribal errors as Joseph was reading aloud, which was part of the translation process. Hence, claiming that the BOM is true as it far as it was translated correctly is much more accurate and sustainable in the long run and to me does not necessarily take away from its divinity.Also, the fact that we do not recognize any translation errors in the BOM does not mean that there aren't any. Without the comparing it against the original text, I don't see how we can claim that we "know the Book of Mormon has been translated correctly".
altersteve Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 I think this is dangerous to advocate this strongly.If Joseph was a fallible man, why can't his fallibility poor over into the translation process? As a church, we already accept the idea that not everything a prophet says is inspired by God. So, if one speaking as a prophet can sometimes error, why couldn't Joseph have made error as he was translating as a prophet? In addition, some of the possible translation errors in the BOM may have been scribal errors as Joseph was reading aloud, which was part of the translation process. Hence, claiming that the BOM is true as it far as it was translated correctly is much more accurate and sustainable in the long run and to me does not necessarily take away from its divinity.Also, the fact that we do not recognize any translation errors in the BOM does not mean that there aren't any. Without the comparing it against the original text, I don't see how we can claim that we "know the Book of Mormon has been translated correctly".It has been "translated correctly" because it contains the fullness of the gospel, and because it was translated by the gift and power of God. That doesn't mean that there are "mistakes of men" in it, which there are, but as God told the Three Witnesses, the Book of Mormon is as correct a translation as He intended.
Calm Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 It has been "translated correctly" because it contains the fullness of the gospel, and because it was translated by the gift and power of God. That doesn't mean that there are "mistakes of men" in it, which there are, but as God told the Three Witnesses, the Book of Mormon is as correct a translation as He intended.That doesn't mean that there are "mistakes of men" in itI think you meant "aren't", not "are".God told the Three Witnesses, the Book of Mormon is as correct a translation as He intendedOutside confirmation is what tells us when anything is sufficiently correct (that confirmation being through the spirit).
altersteve Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 I think you meant "aren't", not "are".Yeah, that is what I meant. My bad.
Recommended Posts