Duncan Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 I was wondering if anyone knows why the Church didn't incorporate any of the work that Dr. Royal Skousen did in the new edition of the Book of Mormon? If they have and I missed it, let me know so I can stand corrected!
Duncan Posted March 7, 2013 Author Posted March 7, 2013 Such as?all or parts of it!http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2013/03/the-2013-adjustments-to-the-book-of-mormon-accuracy-delayed/are some changes that could have been made, I just checked online the first one mentioned was changed from 'feeling' to 'pressing'
ksfisher Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 I think Grant Hardy's opening sentence best sums it up:"It is a weighty responsibility to decide how God’s word should be presented to the world, and the Church takes this charge very, very seriously."The first part of the second paragraph also provides insight:"Updating sacred writ can make for difficult decisions, and in the case of the Book of Mormon it is important to determine which variants from the earliest manuscripts were accidental transcription or copying errors, which represented conscious grammatical updating, and which might have been deliberate revisions made by Joseph Smith to clarify points of doctrine. As the Joseph Smith Papers so clearly demonstrate, revelations can be amended or corrected by prophets as needed."I would think that at some point in the future many of Prof Skousen's findings will be incorporated into the Book of Mormon. While I would love to see some of these corrections made, I'm glad that the church is not rushing to make any changes that may need to be unmade in the future. 2
Calm Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 I would think that at some point in the future many of Prof Skousen's findings will be incorporated into the Book of Mormon. While I would love to see some of these corrections made, I'm glad that the church is not rushing to make any changes that may need to be unmade in the future.Having online editions would make it very easy to put footnotes in to update.
ksfisher Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Having online editions would make it very easy to put footnotes in to update.Some of the proposed changes could be made as footnotes. Possibly with a note saying "alternate reading" or something similar. I've added many of the changes to the Gospel Library app on my ipad using the note function. Much, much neater than trying to make notes in a paper edition.
Freedom Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 We are a church of modern revelation so I see little need to try to perfect the Book of Mormon any more than we need to stop using the King James version of the bible in favor of more modern and perhaps more accurate editions. It tends to lead to the worship of the book rather than the source of the book. Any doctrinal confusion in the book is made clear every 6 months.
Calm Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 We are also a church whose members are told to personally study the scriptures. Seems to me anything that aids that would be seen as useful by the leadership. 1
ksfisher Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) We are a church of modern revelation so I see little need to try to perfect the Book of Mormon When it comes to correct doctrine, the Book of Mormon seems to be on very solid ground. The corrections outlined in the blog article in the OP improve internal consistency and readability. For example:"Alma 19:30 – she clasped her hands, 1830; she clapped her hands, P"If this change were to be made it would make the scripture consistent with Mosiah 18:11 and Alma 31:36."11 And now when the people had heard these words, they clapped their hands for joy, and exclaimed: This is the desire of our hearts.""36 Now it came to pass that when Alma had said these words, that he aclapped his bhands upon all them who were with him. And behold, as he clapped his hands upon them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit."Changes such as this would add to our understanding of the culture and the people whose lives we read about in the Book of Mormon. Edited March 7, 2013 by ksfisher
Freedom Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 When it comes to correct doctrine, the Book of Mormon seems to be on very solid ground. The corrections outlined in the blog article in the OP improve internal consistency and readability. For example:Changes such as this would add to our understanding of the culture and the people whose lives we read about in the Book of Mormon.And therefore, in my opinion, working on such changes become a distraction. If the church were to focus on these issues then they are by that very action making them a priority. Changes to the Book of Mormon are directed by revelation therefore if there are no changes being made as suggested by highly qualified scholars, it is because God does not want them made. Leave revelation to the prophet and textual criticism to the sciences.
MormonMason Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 I was wondering if anyone knows why the Church didn't incorporate any of the work that Dr. Royal Skousen did in the new edition of the Book of Mormon? If they have and I missed it, let me know so I can stand corrected!I am still ill but feeling a little better. At any rate, if I am not mistaken, the reason why it was not done is because the study is not finished. Skousen has revised some of his initial views but these revisions have not yet been published. I think it would be imprudent to use his unfinished study to set forth portions of the study as the basis for an entire revision of the Book of Mormon since one or more readings may be subject to later revision. It is better to wait until the study is completed so that all evidence may be considered. (There is still an unpublished seventh part of volume 4 of the critical text project that has yet to be completed for publication; this portion to contain revisions of the content of the earlier parts). Even then there will be readings that likely will never be considered by the Brethren due to the fact that some of these changes were deliberate edits for the 1840 edition by the prophet Joseph Smith, e.g, the modification from "white" to "pure" in what is now 2 Nephi 30:6. (As an aside, both "white" and "pure" are correct from the standpoint of both Hebrew and Egyptian). 2
Duncan Posted March 7, 2013 Author Posted March 7, 2013 I am still ill but feeling a little better. At any rate, if I am not mistaken, the reason why it was not done is because the study is not finished. Skousen has revised some of his initial views but these revisions have not yet been published. I think it would be imprudent to use his unfinished study to set forth portions of the study as the basis for an entire revision of the Book of Mormon since one or more readings may be subject to later revision. It is better to wait until the study is completed so that all evidence may be considered. (There is still an unpublished seventh part of volume 4 of the critical text project that has yet to be completed for publication; this portion to contain revisions of the content of the earlier parts). Even then there will be readings that likely will never be considered by the Brethren due to the fact that some of these changes were deliberate edits for the 1840 edition by the prophet Joseph Smith, e.g, the modification from "white" to "pure" in what is now 2 Nephi 30:6. (As an aside, both "white" and "pure" are correct from the standpoint of both Hebrew and Egyptian).that makes sense! get better!
mathonihah Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 One change I like to see is having an edition of the standard works in which all of the study aids (dictionary, topical guide, maps, JSTs, and the index to the Triple Combination) are printed as a separate volume, so that the scriptures themselves would not be so bulky and awkward to handle. It also makes it easier to look up something in the study aids without losing your place in the scripture text (especially if you are doing it in a class).
MormonMason Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 I would love to see two changes to the Bible:I would love to see "The Translators to the Reader" put back into its rightful place in the KJV. It discusses the methodology of the translation, shows that it was a revision of an earlier one with input from other translations, and is quite supportive of the LDS position on the Bible so far as translations of translations of original-language texts goes (which definitely is the case with the KJV).Include the KJV Apocrypha with a disclaimer on the title page that it contains useful information but that it is not to be used to set Doctrine, referring the reader to Doctrine and Covenants Section 91.Feel free to disagree but that is what I would like to see. I do not expect number 2 ever to happen but it would be really nice to see number 1 happen. It would be much easier now that the Church has gone digital with the scriptures. Of course, one always could find a copy and print it up to slip into one's scripture case but it would still be nice to have it in print, bound up with the Bible whence it came. It would add no more than a millimeter (if that) of thickness to the printed work to add the Translators' text. 2
Recommended Posts