A change in Alma 12:31

[theplains]

The 2013 version of the Book of Mormon changed Alma 12:31 from "becoming as Gods" to 
"becoming as gods".

What theological difference is reflected in the change from the original translation?

Thanks,
Jim

[bluebell]

That God the Father and Jesus Christ are the only gods who we capitalize out of respect for their unique position. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, theplains said:

The 2013 version of the Book of Mormon changed Alma 12:31 from "becoming as Gods" to 
"becoming as gods".

What theological difference is reflected in the change from the original translation?

Thanks,
Jim

Given the context of the entire verse I don't think any theological difference was intended.

 31 Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good—

In the context of the fall I don't see that it made much of a difference, and I find the Gods vs gods distinction and debate where exaltation is concerned to be a false one.

[Tacenda]

Good question, I don't understand the church backing down on this.  I'm sure this doesn't sit well with the older generation.  After watching Martin Tanner give the beginning of his presentation below, I was surprised to learn so many other faith beliefs align with Joseph Smith's view of men becoming Gods, not gods.  In the Bible there are plenty of lower 'g' gods.     

 

[theplains]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In the context of the fall I don't see that it made much of a difference, and I find the Gods vs gods distinction and debate where exaltation is concerned to be a false one.

What is wrong with the term Gods in the original translation?

Jim

[Rain]

Was it "Gods" in the original translation or just in this printing? 

[Jim Stiles]

18 minutes ago, theplains said:

The 2013 version of the Book of Mormon changed Alma 12:31 from "becoming as Gods" to 
"becoming as gods".

What theological difference is reflected in the change from the original translation?

Thanks,
Jim

I do not think that the issue of whether or not a letter is capitalized constitutes a translation error or difference.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I do not think that the issue of whether or not a letter is capitalized constitutes a translation error or difference.

In this context I agree.

24 minutes ago, theplains said:

What is wrong with the term Gods in the original translation?

Jim

Does it matter?  The context isn't changed.  I doubt the capitalization was specified or not by Joseph when he dictated the text and was probably capitalized as a force of habit by the scribe.  How many people here always capitalize God and every time He is referred to such as Lord...tradition.

[Robert F. Smith]

We don't know what the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon had at that point, but it is spelled with caps "Gods" in the Printer's Manuscript, and in the 1830, 1879, 1920, and 1981 editions; but small caps "gods" in the 1837, 1840, and 2013 editions, as well as in the 1908 RLDS edition.

Since this parallels the text of Genesis 3:5, we might note that the 1611 KJV has "Gods," while the LDS KJV has "gods," as does the 1599 Geneva Bible.

I doubt that there is any significance to all that variation, although technically speaking the generic usage should be in lower case, and the particular in caps.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[JAHS]

The G is capitalized in the original 1830 edition. I think the decision to change it to a lower case makes it more consistent with the reason it is lower case in the Bible:

Psalms 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

The only time in the scriptures the word "God" is made plural (Gods); as in Abraham chapter 4, is when they are talking about the Gods of this universe who created everything. It makes sense to make it a lower case g when not talking about them.

[Robert F. Smith]

29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The G is capitalized in the original 1830 edition. I think the decision to change it to a lower case makes it more consistent with the reason it is lower case in the Bible:

Psalms 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

The only time in the scriptures the word "God" is made plural (Gods); as in Abraham chapter 4, is when they are talking about the Gods of this universe who created everything. It makes sense to make it a lower case g when not talking about them.

Unfortunately, the 1611 KJV often follows a different orthography than later KJV printings, and one cannot depend on the consistency of them to be a guide.  For example, at Daniel 4:8-9 the 1611 KJV has "Gods," while later KJV printings (including the LDS KJV) have "gods" -- the same problem we see at Gen 3:5.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

The 2013 version of the Book of Mormon changed Alma 12:31 from "becoming as Gods" to 
"becoming as gods".

What theological difference is reflected in the change from the original translation?

Thanks,
Jim

The likely reason why the word Gods was changed to gods in Alma 12:31 is so that the spelling and usage of the word gods, when referring to deified human beings, would remain consistent throughout the LDS canon of scripture. For example, in the following verse from Doctrine and Covenants 132, the word that refers to deified humans is spelled gods, with a lower case g.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Bluebell's comment is also no-doubt true. Sorry to dash your hopes of finding an explanation that plays into an anti-Mormon narrative.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

The 2013 version of the Book of Mormon changed Alma 12:31 from "becoming as Gods" to 
"becoming as gods".

What theological difference is reflected in the change from the original translation?

Thanks,
Jim

I don't see any theological difference. Either way, I think the equivalent Hebrew would be Elohim. I believe the context is comparable to Gen 3:22 which is saying "became as one of us" which refers to at least God the Father and Jesus, so a capital "God's" is appropriate imho. 

[BCSpace]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

The 2013 version of the Book of Mormon changed Alma 12:31 from "becoming as Gods" to 
"becoming as gods".

What theological difference is reflected in the change from the original translation?

Thanks,
Jim

It's all relative.  The scriptures, the Theosis doctrine, make it plain that we will be capital 'G' Gods relative to our creations/jurisdictions and gods relative to God.

[canard78]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We don't know what the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon had at that point, but it is spelled with caps "Gods" in the Printer's Manuscript, and in the 1830, 1879, 1920, and 1981 editions; but small caps "gods" in the 1837, 1840, and 2013 editions, as well as in the 1908 RLDS edition.

Since this parallels the text of Genesis 3:5, we might note that the 1611 KJV has "Gods," while the LDS KJV has "gods," as does the 1599 Geneva Bible.

I doubt that there is any significance to all that variation, although technically speaking the generic usage should be in lower case, and the particular in caps.

I agree with the points that in the context of the particular verse, the case used isn't particularly significant. 

On the other hand, I wonder at what level this required sign off (first pres...? Qot12...? Someone further down the chain...?). Further, when the change was proposed, I'd be curious what case was made for the change. 

I realise that these things probably aren't going to be shared as, in all likelihood, the decision was not a significant one and the case to do so probably not a big one. I'm curious nonetheless. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The likely reason why the word Gods was changed to gods in Alma 12:31 is so that the spelling and usage of the word gods, when referring to deified human beings, would remain consistent throughout the LDS canon of scripture. For example, in the following verse from Doctrine and Covenants 132, the word that refers to deified humans is spelled gods, with a lower case g.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

....................................................................................

The problem is that the second copy made of D&C 132 on July 12, 1843, which is the earliest copy we have (Emma destroyed he original), has "Gods" in caps for those verses.  See http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132#!/paperSummary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132&p=2 .  Of course, consistency may indeed be sought for more recently.

The upshot is that the biblical references which we have discussed above are originally in Hebrew, which does not distinguish those words with caps.  There is only one uniform orthography, and gods/Gods is 'elohim, as in Psalm 82.  This consistency we now seek is a hobgoblin of English usage.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I agree with the points that in the context of the particular verse, the case used isn't particularly significant. 

On the other hand, I wonder at what level this required sign off (first pres...? Qot12...? Someone further down the chain...?). Further, when the change was proposed, I'd be curious what case was made for the change. 

I realise that these things probably aren't going to be shared as, in all likelihood, the decision was not a significant one and the case to do so probably not a big one. I'm curious nonetheless. 

Probably an effort to be consistent in English usage.  However, in my opinion there were far more important changes which should have been made, i.e., the correcting of actual errors.  Royal Skousen's 2009 Yale edition of the Book of Mormon goes far toward making just such corrections.  Would that the 2013 committee had consulted with him.

[Bobbieaware]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem is that the second copy made of D&C 132 on July 12, 1843, which is the earliest copy we have (Emma destroyed he original), has "Gods" in caps for those verses.  See http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132#!/paperSummary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132&p=2 .  Of course, consistency may indeed be sought for more recently.

The upshot is that the biblical references which we have discussed above are originally in Hebrew, which does not distinguish those words with caps.  There is only one uniform orthography, and gods/Gods is 'elohim, as in Psalm 82.  This consistency we now seek is a hobgoblin of English usage.

I wondered whether or not the original manuscript of section 132 had the word 'gods' rendered with a capital G? But even if 132's 'gods' was originally written with a capital G, it really doesn't negate the point I made. My point is that because section 132's gods is now rendered with a lower-case g, in order for the standard works to be literarily consistent it was no doubt deemed wise and proper to render Alma 12's gods with a lower-case g as well. But in any case, I have no problem with gods rendered with a capital G because I am a King Follett Discourse believing Mormon. I have no doubt but that Lorenzo Snow is correct. But I acknowledge that in today's politically correct age rendering god with a small g is less likely to raise eyebrows.

[The Nehor]

The writer in me likes the change. It is grammatically how you do it in the English language. When monotheistic religions refer to Yahweh or Allah it is God. If you say someone is like god or as a god or there are many gods or talking in the abstract about a supreme god or a monotheistic god it is lower case. In this case it should definitely be lower-case. In fact even if you believe there are multiple gods in the LDS faith (and I do) it would still be lower case because we aren't talking about specifics. The only edge case might be if you refer to the Gods of the Trinity but most Christians never do so in that way so the ruling on grammar has never been made.

What amuses me is childish atheists referring to the Christian God in lower case for petulant reasons. As if you stop capitalizing names of people you do not believe exist. One waits for them to refer to frodo and harry potter and odin in lower case to at least be consistent.

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I wondered whether or not the original manuscript of section 132 had the word 'gods' rendered with a capital G? But even if 132's 'gods' was originally written with a capital G, it really doesn't negate the point I made. My point is that because section 132's gods is now rendered with a lower-case g, in order for the standard works to be literarily consistent it was no doubt deemed wise and proper to render Alma 12's gods with a lower-case g as well. But in any case, I have no problem with gods rendered with a capital G because I am a King Follett Discourse believing Mormon. I have no doubt but that Lorenzo Snow is correct. But I acknowledge that in today's politically correct age rendering god with a small g is less likely to raise eyebrows.

You are no doubt correct.

[igonzals]

This is very interesting!

Comparing Alma 12:31 with Mormon 4:14, the prophet Mormon chose to use the word "idol" before the word "gods". It could be indicating an evidence of His belief on Theosis and consecuently Joseph Smith did translate it with a "G" to preserve that belief. At least the "G" is present in the Profesor Skousen's work The Book of Mormon, the Earliest Text inalterable.

[theplains]

On 11/05/2016 at 8:38 PM, JAHS said:

The G is capitalized in the original 1830 edition. I think the decision to change it to a lower case makes it more consistent with the reason it is lower case in the Bible:

Psalms 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

The only time in the scriptures the word "God" is made plural (Gods); as in Abraham chapter 4, is when they are talking about the Gods of this universe who created everything. It makes sense to make it a lower case g when not talking about them.

Your references to Psalms and John are not about Deities.  See attached.

Jim

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Your references to Psalms and John are not about Deities.  See attached.

Jim

Opinions vary on this:

"we learn that God is an exalted, glorified, resurrected man. We are told that we are his children, created in the image and likeness of his body (Moses 6:9). We neither quibble nor hedge the words of the psalmist, who said: "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Psalm 82:6). We accept Christ's affirmation of the literal rendering of those words" (John 10:34-36). (HERE WE STAND by Joseph Fielding McConkie)

"He enunciated the great truth that it was possible for man to attain unto God, and become like Him. Referring to the words of the Psalmist, where he said: "Ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High," he said, "Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemist; because I said, I am the Son of God." But they could not understand the doctrine which God has revealed—the eternal truth that He has communicated to us in the Gospel."  (George Q. Cannon, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, VOL. 25)

 "All that [the] Father hath" shall be given to them (D&C 84:37-38). In biblical terms, those who are worthy to share in all the power and glory that God himself has are called "gods": "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6; John 10:34-38). Latter-day scriptures refer to several persons, including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who once lived on earth and who are now resurrected beings and have become gods (D&C 132:37).  (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MORMONISM 4 VOLS.)

 

 

[igonzals]

Talmage was right by teaching that Judges of Israel were gods because they represented God when they were judging. But it's obvious the jews further from that point believed also at the same time that that verse was referencing of complete divine beings, otherwise why Jesus would use same verse in front of pharisees to reafirm his own full divinity in John 8. If the scope of Psalms 82 only was "human judges" as representatives of God, then Jesus only was arguing He was a human representing God but not being God. However we all know that Jesus used the verse to clarify that He is God and the representative of God the Father.

[theplains]

34 minutes ago, igonzals said:

Talmage was right by teaching that Judges of Israel were gods because they represented God when they were judging. But it's obvious the jews further from that point believed also at the same time that that verse was referencing of complete divine beings, otherwise why Jesus would use same verse in front of pharisees to reafirm his own full divinity in John 8. If the scope of Psalms 82 only was "human judges" as representatives of God, then Jesus only was arguing He was a human representing God but not being God. However we all know that Jesus used the verse to clarify that He is God and the representative of God the Father.

He wasn't using this to reaffirm his divinity. "If he called them gods to whom the word of 
God came..." is a reference to human judges, not to Deities.  Read Psalm 82.  It is about
judgment, not exaltation.

Thanks,
Jim