New Editions Of Scriptures Announced

[mathonihah]

Does anyone know how one can obtain the plain text of the scriptures of the new edition, without the footnotes and other reference marks? You can download the PDF, MOBI, EPUB, and audio files and formats, but plain text. I suppose you can extract the plain text from these other formats, but it is a pain doing it that way.

Edited March 5, 2013 by mathonihah

[T-Shirt]

I thought they might drop the comma following the word, "used" in D&C 89:13, but apparently not.

[Duncan]

I thought they might drop the comma following the word, "used" in D&C 89:13, but apparently not.

there is a period in the middle of the sentence in 2 Samuel 21:15, just after "Had" that hasn't been taken out

[ksfisher]

The idea that the prophet felt it should be changed that long ago and one of the apostles felt it his place to oppose it makes me feel a little sick. It's a blot on our history that is shameful.

The president of the church does not rule by divine fiat, "only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned."

[ksfisher]

there is a period in the middle of the sentence in 2 Samuel 21:15, just after "Had" that hasn't been taken out

I don't see the period you're talking about. It's not there in my gospel library app. Here is the cut and paste from lds.org. It don't see it there either.

15 ¶Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint.

[ksfisher]

...or perhaps you're just trying to trick people into actually reading the OT.

[Duncan]

I don't see the period you're talking about. It's not there in my gospel library app. Here is the cut and paste from lds.org. It don't see it there either.

15 ¶Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint.

ah! it's in the printed copy! funnily enough too, some of the recent changes were made in my scriptures but my bro. uses older ones so they are all there

[Duncan]

...or perhaps you're just trying to trick people into actually reading the OT.

guilty as charged!

Edited March 5, 2013 by Duncan

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Guess how many members have this document hanging on their living room wall? No many. If they did, I imagine Utah may have voted a little different in the last election.

Again, canonization matters.

I am sorry but no. I think Utah understand good and well who and why they voted for who they did. Obama is not interested in equality.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

On a more serious note, I think this is great. Now the critics will just go back to "not knowing that JS had a gun at Carthage" as the main reason to leave the church.

[Lightbearer]

I recall when the Church published the new edition of the Bible (1979) some people had a cow about things changed or clarified in it. The apostates were supposed to have a field day... well of course they did... just as now. One thing is constant, Satan and his servants will always oppose this work. I must say I had to chuckle at the posturing here on this thread... I mean really a doctrine/practice... they never give up. But I will make a prediction that some day OD-3 will be the "Proclamation on the Family"... not sure when but it will be. April Conference would be a good time, then the Church could sustain it and it could be included in the paper editions (electronic versions would be easy to amend) If it does happen then I guess more people will be offended... oh well, I think God waits for the proper moment in history to make his revelations manifested to the world. That is why I think OD-2 had to come in 1978 and not a day sooner. Just as OD-1 had to come in 1890 and no sooner... Because the works of God is not frustrated or brought to naught, but the works of men are and I think we get revelation at the right moment in history so as to do the most good for most of His children. I know that the Declaration on the Family is already used in Official Church Curriculum now, making it canon by adding it to the D&C would be a good thing in light of todays political climate. It depends on a lot of factors, OD-1 came out in time for Utah to gain statehood, OD-2 came out not long after the broadcast of TV miniseries "Roots" and Civil Rights was in full swing... with the SSM battle the OD-3 would be welcome to most members of the Church.

[tyler90az]

Good to know that one of my all-time favorite prophets tried to institute it as policy and end it sooner. But maybe there was a reason. I went to Sunstone last summer and listened to Marguerite Driessen an African American law professor for BYU. She had the opinion that it was timed perfectly to grant blacks the Priesthood, when it did. That will forever stick in my mind, it's hard to phathom. Maybe I can get a transcript of what she said if there is one, and post it or PM you and see what you think.

If you get that transcript could you P me also. Thank You

[tyler90az]

I went through the changes and have some questions.

"The quality of the typeface is no longer as clear and sharp as it should be. Therefore, in the process of preparing new printing masters, the Church has taken the opportunity to make adjustments."

What exactly does that mean? Could somebody clarify for me what typeface means? Why not just say they wanted to make changes?

"Alma 12:31—”becoming as Gods” to “becoming as gods” (lowercased gods)"

That is a significant change and is more aligned with our doctrine. It shows we may become a god but never higher then God the father. The other option is it could simply mean we gained an attribute of God. Either way, the change is a good one, clears up possible confusion for readers.

Hel., book intro.—”the book of Helaman.” to “the book of Helaman, and so forth.” (restored a comma and the phrase “and so forth”

Why and so forth?

Deity abreviations spelled out

It would be so much easier to read if all abbreviations were spelled out. Just use a different text or bold to show the word.

Introduction, par. 8—Changed the last sentence “Finally, the testimony that is given of

Jesus Christ—his divinity, his majesty, his perfection, his love, and his redeeming

power—makes this book of great value to the human family and of more worth

than the riches of the whole earth” to “Finally, the testimony that is given of Jesus

Christ—His divinity, His majesty, His perfection, His love, and His redeeming pow

er—makes this book of great value to the human family and ‘worth to the Church

the riches of the whole Earth’ (see heading to D&C 70).”

And of more worth then the riches of the whole world was one of my favorite scriptures. Worth to the church does not seem to make sense, like it is worth to the church in general. I guess if you break it down it means the same thing. It just sucks that was a good 'scripture.'

I can say overall the changes were all great and worth even bad changes(subjective).

[cinepro]

It depends on a lot of factors, OD-1 came out in time for Utah to gain statehood, OD-2 came out not long after the broadcast of TV miniseries "Roots" and Civil Rights was in full swing... with the SSM battle the OD-3 would be welcome to most members of the Church.

If OD-2 was timed to coincide with the Civil Rights movement, then they could add the Proclamation on the Family in 2028 in order to time it with the battles over the legalization of SSM.

[Avatar4321]

The president of the church does not rule by divine fiat, "only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned."

As you might read in that same section, few learn this lesson.

[Avatar4321]

...or perhaps you're just trying to trick people into actually reading the OT.

Why would anyone have to be tricked into it? It's a fabulous read.

[tyler90az]

It was interesting reading Royal Skousen's Analysis of the changes. To me it seems like they were trying to make it more easy to read in our day, using our writing style. Royal says a few times well it says in the KJV this so it should in the BOM. Two things are the KJV has errors and that was language for a different age.

!Δ “carried away in the spirit” > “carried away in the Spirit”

Yale has spirit in this expression

Spirt does not seem like it is talking about the Holy Ghost here. Then again, spirt always refers to the holy ghost. For instance, the spirt of revelations is essentially Holy Ghost giving you revelations. That is an interesting one. Everytime Spirit is used in the BOM is it capitalized?

!Δ first-born > firstborn

Yale has first born (as well as last born)

2013 LDS edition has firstborn but last-born

That is confusing but really makes no different. It could go either or maybe the brethren compromised on that one. haha

Δ “Son of righteousness” > “Son of Righteousness”

Yale has “Sun of righteousness”, as does the KJV

Son of Righteousness is a title and thus should be capitalized.

since the Ether preface is extracanonical, it remains in italics!

this preface was added in the 1920 LDS edition

the Yale edition omits the 1920 Ether preface

discussed in ATV 6:3715

I am not sure what your point is it says anything not translated will be in italics.

"In the Book of Mormon, all scripture text that is part of the translation from the

plates has been placed in roman typeface. Only study helps, such as chapter headings, remain in italics."

In response to Robert F. Smith

Even if those changs are correct does it really matter? Those are the names that have been used since the begining. It would just cause an unneeded headache for members. I just wonder why so many names were wrong after the P MS? Was it mostly names or many words in general?

[tyler90az]

Why would anyone have to be tricked into it? It's a fabulous read.

Not to get off topic..... I never liked the OT then I discovered Psalms and it has become one of my favorites. Talk about pure wisdom.

[Tacenda]

If you get that transcript could you P me also. Thank You

I tried finding one, so far no luck. Maybe someone on here might know if it exists.

[mathonihah]

I am surprised that this verse hasn't been changed:

“But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews; but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about; and I have made mention

unto my children

concerning the judgments of God, which hath come to pass among the Jews,

unto my children

,

according to all that which Isaiah hath spoken, and I do not write them.” (2 Nephi 25:6)

The second phrase “unto my children” seems superfluous and redundant, and I had always thought it had been a mistake of some kind, like a printing mistake or copying mistake, which should have been corrected in the new editions. But apparently not!

Edited March 7, 2013 by mathonihah

[tyler90az]

Nobody will answer my questions. I thought Mormons helped each other out? Yes, I am trying to guilt trip somebody into answer my questions.

[ksfisher]

I went through the changes and have some questions.

"The quality of the typeface is no longer as clear and sharp as it should be. Therefore, in the process of preparing new printing masters, the Church has taken the opportunity to make adjustments."

What exactly does that mean? Could somebody clarify for me what typeface means? Why not just say they wanted to make changes?

type·face (tpfs)

n. Printing

1.

a.

The surface of a block of type that makes the impression.

b.

The impression made by this surface

[mathonihah]

Here is another obvious error in the Book of Mormon which should have been corrected, but hasn't been:

“And there are none that do know the true God save it be the disciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to remain with the people; and

whether

whither

they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth.” (Mormon 8:10)

The use of the word “whether” in the above verse is an obvious mistake, and even grammatically unsound. It should be “whither”. Contrast with the following verses:

“And behold, there are many who are already lost from the knowledge of those who are at Jerusalem. Yea, the more part of all the tribes have been led away; and they are scattered to and fro upon the isles of the sea; and

whither

they are none of us knoweth, save that we know that they have been led away.” (1 Nephi 22:4)

“And it came to pass that they were never heard of more. And we suppose that they were drowned in the depths of the sea. And it came to pass that one other ship also did sail forth; and

whither

she did go we know not.” (Alma 63:8 )

“Then he departed out of the land, and

whither

he went, no man knoweth; and his son Nephi did keep the records in his stead, yea, the record of this people.” (3 Nephi 1:3)

“And there were some who were carried away in the whirlwind; and

whither

they went no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away.” (3 Nephi 8:16)

“But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth

whither

he hath taken them.” (3 Nephi 17:4)

Whether and whither are two easy words to confuse, and this is not the first time that that has happened in the Book of Mormon. In the pre-1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, Alma 16:5 had “whether” instead of “whither,” which was corrected on the 1981 edition:

In Alma 16:5 two words sound similar, but the spelling is slightly different, and the meaning is vastly different. The Lamanites had taken Nephite prisoners of war. Zoram, chief Nephite army captain, went to Alma the prophet and asked him to inquire of the Lord concerning the prisoners. Until 1981, all printed editions read, “therefore they went unto him to know

whether

the Lord would that they should go … in search of their brethren.” (Italics added.) The original manuscript reads

whither

rather than

whether

, and it was corrected to read so in the 1981 version. For years the interpretation had been

whether

(if) the Nephites should go in search of their brethren. The true meaning is, rather,

whither

(where) they should go. The printer’s manuscript contains a rather awkward correction from

whether

to

whither

, showing that this had been discovered long ago, but the correction was not assimilated into the scripture until the 1981 edition.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/03/i-have-a-question

The same error has occurred in Mormon 8:10, which no one it seems has noticed to correct in the new edition. There are lots more of these of course, for those who have a sharp eye to look for them.

Edited March 8, 2013 by mathonihah

[Robert F. Smith]

I recall when the Church published the new edition of the Bible (1979) some people had a cow about things changed or clarified in it. The apostates were supposed to have a field day... well of course they did... just as now. One thing is constant, Satan and his servants will always oppose this work. I must say I had to chuckle at the posturing here on this thread... I mean really a doctrine/practice... they never give up. But I will make a prediction that some day OD-3 will be the "Proclamation on the Family"... not sure when but it will be. April Conference would be a good time, then the Church could sustain it and it could be included in the paper editions (electronic versions would be easy to amend) If it does happen then I guess more people will be offended... oh well, I think God waits for the proper moment in history to make his revelations manifested to the world. That is why I think OD-2 had to come in 1978 and not a day sooner. Just as OD-1 had to come in 1890 and no sooner... Because the works of God is not frustrated or brought to naught, but the works of men are and I think we get revelation at the right moment in history so as to do the most good for most of His children. I know that the Declaration on the Family is already used in Official Church Curriculum now, making it canon by adding it to the D&C would be a good thing in light of todays political climate. It depends on a lot of factors, OD-1 came out in time for Utah to gain statehood, OD-2 came out not long after the broadcast of TV miniseries "Roots" and Civil Rights was in full swing... with the SSM battle the OD-3 would be welcome to most members of the Church.

The thing is that polygyny is practiced by many non-Westerners, and the SSM battle will eventually be lost in the USA, leading to approval of polygyny (and perhaps other forms of non-Western marriage patterns) by the courts. Muslims and Mormon Fundamentalists will quickly utilize the new rules, but I don't know how to predict what happens after that. Would OD-1 be reversed or rescinded? Even after a decent interval? Would most LDS Church members welcome it or rue it? Would it be a useful talking point for LDS Elders in some countries where they are now taking the Gospel, which also happen to have legal polygyny?

[Robert F. Smith]

It was interesting reading Royal Skousen's Analysis of the changes. To me it seems like they were trying to make it more easy to read in our day, using our writing style. Royal says a few times well it says in the KJV this so it should in the BOM. Two things are the KJV has errors and that was language for a different age.

Why then don't we use the New King James Version for the updated language, or one of the other even more modern versions, as our official Bible?

In any case, as Royal points out, the 2004 and 2013 BofM still follows KJV in the Isaiah quotations, unless Joseph dictated something else there.

Δ “Son of righteousness” > “Son of Righteousness”

Yale has “Sun of righteousness”, as does the KJV

Son of Righteousness is a title and thus should be capitalized.

You miss the main point:

Note the mistaken use of the English homonym "Son" for correct "Sun" from Malachi 4:2 (Hebrew Massoretic Text 3:20) -- the same problem we face in the Printer's Manuscript and every edition of the Book of Mormon at III Nephi 25:2, and by implication at II Nephi 26:9 (vis-a-vis 25:13), and Ether 9:22. Cf. Lk 1:78 ("dayspring" - KJ marg rdg "sunrising"), Wisdom of Solomon 5:6 ("Sun of righteousness"), and Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabba 9,7,1.

Of course the KJV translators got it right, and the scribal error in Book of Mormon dictation is understandable -- and probably led to the same well-meaning error in our Hymnal beginning in 1948 (#60), now #209, "Hark the Herald Angels Sing," which Charles Wesley wrote correctly as

Hail the heavenly Prince of Peace!

Hail the Sun of Righteousness!

Light and life to all he brings,

Risen with healing in his wings.

The solar symbolism is very clear.

In response to Robert F. Smith

Even if those changs are correct does it really matter? Those are the names that have been used since the begining. It would just cause an unneeded headache for members. I just wonder why so many names were wrong after the P MS? Was it mostly names or many words in general?

Accuracy is the main reason. A great deal has actually been done to generally improve the text over time, not only by Joseph Smith himself in the 1837 and 1840 eds, but by many editors over time, doing their best to get it right -- including Orson Pratt, James Talmage, and Ellis Rasmussen (and his student Stan Larson) for the 1981 edition. Why wouldn't we want the text to be the best we can produce?

Another reason is that correct etymologies often depend upon correct spellings, and some of us do serious etymological work.

Finally, the names have not all been the same from the beginning (1830 ed. had many mistakes and inconsistencies which were dealt with in subsequent eds). Our failure to be consistent creates more headaches than corrections ever would.