The State of the Evidence

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Would it still be that complex if the over 100 thousand changes to the Book of Mormon had not taken place? 

It's more like 3,000 changes, and most are minor corrections, though Joseph Smith did make substantive changes in 1837 and 1840. 

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's more like 3,000 changes, and most are minor corrections, though Joseph Smith did make substantive changes in 1837 and 1840. 

That's not what Scott Gordon said. http://www.mormonstories.org/   Start watching at 26:00 min.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

That's not what Scott Gordon said.

If he said that, he is wrong. 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If he said that, he is wrong. 

I provided the link to watch him say it. Are you saying the man who basically started, or with those from the beginning of Fair Mormon or Fair LDS, is wrong? 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I provided the link to watch him say it. Are you saying the man who basically started, or with those from the beginning of Fair Mormon or Fair LDS, is wrong? 

Unless he's defining "changes" in an esoteric way, yeah, he's wrong. 

Just watched some of that. Did not like the tone at all. 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

That's not what Scott Gordon said. http://www.mormonstories.org/   Start watching at 26:00 min.

Strangely, in the brief Q&A session at the end of his talk, Scott contradicts his assertion that there are no substantive changes by admitting Joseph changed "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."

I suppose substance is in the eye of the beholder.

All the Best!

--Mosiah (aka Benjamin)

 

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Strangely, in the brief Q&A session at the end of his talk, Scott contradicts his assertion that there are no substantive changes by admitting Joseph changed "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."

I suppose substance is in the eye of the beholder.

All the Best!

--Mosiah (aka Benjamin)

 

Yeah, no kidding.  Substantive changes is hard to define.  White to pure?  eh... what's so substantive about that? 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Strangely, in the brief Q&A session at the end of his talk, Scott contradicts his assertion that there are no substantive changes by admitting Joseph changed "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."

I suppose substance is in the eye of the beholder.

All the Best!

--Mosiah (aka Benjamin)

 

I saw what you did.

[smac97]

On 7/13/2016 at 9:55 AM, stemelbow said:

Yeah, no kidding.  Substantive changes is hard to define.  White to pure?  eh... what's so substantive about that? 

Let me propose a though experiment.  First, let's establish some context: I am a fan of Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre, including the 1983 BBC TV adaptation starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton.  In this adaptation, the two romantic leads, Jane and Mr. Rochester (the former is employed as a tutor to the latter's young daughter, Adele), have a discussion about Jane leaving because Mr. Rochester is about to marry another woman (this is right after she had asked to be paid her accrued wages of, I think, 9 pounds, and he had given her the money):

Quote

1. Jane: Mr. Rochester, I think this a proper time to mention another matter.
2. Rochester: I'm curious to hear it.
3. Jane: You are shortly to be married.
4. Rochester: Yes? What then?
5. Jane: In that case, sir, Adele ought to go to school.
6. Rochester: In that to get her out of Adele out of my bride's way, who might otherwise walk over her? There's sense in that.  And you, Jane?
7. Jane: I must seek another situation elsewhere, sir.
8. Rochester: You must? With the help of your family, I suppose?
9. Jane: No, sir.  I am not on such terms with them.  I shall advertise.
10. Rochester: You shall walk up the pyramids of Egypt! I wish i had not given you that money now, Jane.  Give me back the 9 pounds  Look, I've a use for it.
11. Jane: So have I, sir.
12. Rochester: You little niggard!  Well, give me 5 pounds, then.
13. Jane: Not 5 shillings, nor 5 pence, sir.
14. Rochester: Just let me look at the money.
15. Jane: No, sir.  You are not to be trusted.
16. Rochester: Promise me you won't advertise.  Look, if you want a situation, I'll find you one in time.
17. Jane: I shall be glad to, sir if you, in your turn, will promise that i and Adele shall both be safe out of the house before your bride enters it.
18. Rochester: I'll give you my word on it.

Take a look at line 12.  "You little niggard!"  This is a near-verbatim quote from the book.  The dictionary definition of "niggard" is "an excessively parsimonious, miserly, or stingy person."  Etymologically, it is derived from "Middle English nyggard, equivalent to nig niggard (< Scandinavian; compare dialectal Swedish nygg; akin to Old English hnēaw stingy)."

However, the word sounds bad, doesn't it?  To some (many?) modern readers of the book (or to watchers of adaptations of the book), "You little niggard!" sounds like it may have some association with the well-known "N-word" racial epithet.  Note that this epithet is so incredibly offensive I don't even want to say it.  Check out this dictionary entry about it:

Quote

Usage alert

The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. The senses labeled Extremely Disparaging and Offensive represent meanings that are deeply insulting and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. It is so profoundly offensive that a euphemism has developed for those occasions when the word itself must be discussed, as in court or in a newspaper editorial: “the n-word.” 

There have been several controversies about the use of the word "niggardly," so many that there is a Wikipedia entry about them.

So with this context in place, here's the thought experiment: 

Let's say that I want to put on a stage production of Jane Eyre. 

Let's also say that the production is going to open in Atlanta, which has a sizable African-American population.  

Let's also say that the dialogue above is, in my view, an important component of the plot, as it illustrates the unspoken affection growing between the two romantic leads.  But the word "niggardly," which had no race-related connotation in 1847 when Brontë wrote the book, and which has no such connotation now, is nevertheless a point of concern for me.  I want to use as much of the source material as I can, but I don't want to give offense - even when such an offense would be based on ignorance about the word "niggard" as originally used and intended.  So in writing the script, I decide to modify the above dialogue to read as follows:

Quote

9. Jane: No, sir.  I am not on such terms with them.  I shall advertise.
10. Rochester: You shall walk up the pyramids of Egypt! I wish i had not given you that money now, Jane.  Give me back the 9 pounds  Look, I've a use for it.
11. Jane: So have I, sir.
12. Rochester: You little miser!  Well, give me 5 pounds, then.
13. Jane: Not 5 shillings, nor 5 pence, sir.

"Miser" is a synonym for "niggard."  However, changing the dialogue in this way pretty much eliminates the risk of misunderstandings and the taking of offense where none was intended.

My question to you is based on your statement: "Substantive changes is hard to define.  White to pure?  eh... what's so substantive about that?"

Is using "miser" instead of "niggard" a "substantive" change in your mind?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Is using "miser" instead of "niggard" a "substantive" change in your mind?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No.  what's your take? 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No.  what's your take? 

I agree with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

I don't even know how to characterize a change as substantive, as it pertains to this.  Is the Mosiah/Benjamin change substantive?  They had to change the name?  It doesn't seem like it to me.  But I guess people see a big deal regarding changes. 

[jkwilliams]

 

Just now, stemelbow said:

I don't even know how to characterize a change as substantive, as it pertains to this.  Is the Mosiah/Benjamin change substantive?  They had to change the name?  It doesn't seem like it to me.  But I guess people see a big deal regarding changes. 

I'd say Joseph Smith's changes of references to "God" to "Son of God" are substantive. But then I've always thought this was a good illustration of Joseph Smith's belief that revelation and scripture are tentative and fluid. He had no qualms about revising the Book of Mormon and rewriting revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. Clearly, he didn't see scripture as "God-breathed" and set in stone.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

 

I'd say Joseph Smith's changes of references to "God" to "Son of God" are substantive. But then I've always thought this was a good illustration of Joseph Smith's belief that revelation and scripture are tentative and fluid. He had no qualms about revising the Book of Mormon and rewriting revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. Clearly, he didn't see scripture as "God-breathed" and set in stone.

I agree.  But even God to Son of God doesn't seem substantive since the terms are used interchangeably throughout Christianity in describing Jesus. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  But even God to Son of God doesn't seem substantive since the terms are used interchangeably throughout Christianity in describing Jesus. 

In context, however, the changes are quite substantive in the Book of Mormon, IMO. Either way, such changes pale in comparison to the rewrites of revelations between the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants. There are some changes that turn statements completely around to their opposite.

[stemelbow]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

In context, however, the changes are quite substantive in the Book of Mormon, IMO. Either way, such changes pale in comparison to the rewrites of revelations between the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants. There are some changes that turn statements completely around to their opposite.

yep.  Good point. 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Would it still be that complex if the over 100 thousand changes to the Book of Mormon had not taken place? 

Not sure about your figure of over 100,000, but those types of changes (mainly grammatical, syntactic, spelling, etc.) have nothing to do with the complexity of the contents of the BofM.  The KJV Bible has undergone many more such changes in the years since 1611, but that has not altered the contents in any substantial way.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Strangely, in the brief Q&A session at the end of his talk, Scott contradicts his assertion that there are no substantive changes by admitting Joseph changed "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."

I suppose substance is in the eye of the beholder.

All the Best!

--Mosiah (aka Benjamin)

 

It's undefinable and yet much fought over.  It's a pretty silly argument to get into

Of course one could defined the One Substance of the trinity or the change in substance under transubstantiation.

Good luck on debating any of the three of those.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It's more like 3,000 changes, and most are minor corrections, though Joseph Smith did make substantive changes in 1837 and 1840. 

Depending on how and what to count as a "change" through multiple editions, one can come up with a variety of numbers, nearly all the changes virtually meaningless in any substantive sense.  Only a handful of changes are considered substantive, even by the anti-Mormons.  And even then they are not systematic or consistent throughout.  Since Royal Skousen plans a digital comparison of all editions and manuscripts, we will be able to get a more refined total of all sorts of changes (even in punctuation), but that will be of little value in actually drawing meaningful conclusions.  We already know where the substantive changes have been made, and I published two editions of the Book of Mormon Critical Text at FARMS (1984-1987) which pointed out all of them.

As with the Bible, most scholars are more interested in establishing the earliest and most reliable form of the Book of Mormon in manuscript, the best example of that being Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (Yale Univ. Press, 2009).

Edited July 14, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

In context, however, the changes are quite substantive in the Book of Mormon, IMO. Either way, such changes pale in comparison to the rewrites of revelations between the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants. There are some changes that turn statements completely around to their opposite.

stemebow's point about the early Christian usage of the term "mother of God" and "mother of the son of god" in the NT and elsewhere is well taken, i.e., the NT and early Christian docs are as opaque and inconsistent as any such reference in the BofM.  And changing the goal posts to the BofC and D&C misses that point and further misstates what is really going on in the midst of continuing revelation.  Even as a stake patriarch, for example, Richard Bushman openly stated that he has edited the blessings he himself has given while typing them up.  Why?  Because he had not gotten it quite right during the initial run through (on tape).  Moreover, one must not delimit the Lord himself in adding to or altering his own revelations.  All such changes are on open display in the Joseph Smith Papers Project, and were the subject long ago of a massive doctoral dissertation on such changes in the D&C by Robert J. Woodford (BYU, 1974).  I don't know any Mormons who are embarrassed by that, if they even know of it.

ETA:  The biblical text is likewise rife with such changes made through time, often by pious scribes who just wanted to remove any blasphemies, or the like.

One might also consult Book of Mormon Central, “How is Christ Both the Father and the Son? (Mosiah 15:2),” KnoWhy #92, May 4, 2016, https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/how-is-christ-both-the-father-and-the-son .

Edited July 14, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/13/2016 at 9:22 AM, consiglieri said:

Strangely, in the brief Q&A session at the end of his talk, Scott contradicts his assertion that there are no substantive changes by admitting Joseph changed "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."

I suppose substance is in the eye of the beholder.

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

We ignore the 1948 coverage by Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, CWHN V:73-74, at our peril, for a direct confrontation with the text does not provide cover for your misinterpretation as substantive, Counselor.  You are reading it at the surface level and out of context.  We already know that the Bible uses white and pure as synonymous, parallel terms:  We should understand English words in their full semantic range, rather than in a narrow racist manner:

 Lamentations 4:7-8 “Her Nazirites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk” 

Daniel 12:10, "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried"

Psalm 51:2,7, "Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.... Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow"

And the notion of dark pigmentation has much farther reaching, even figurative implications:

Song of Songs 1:5-6 “I am black, but comely” 

Lamentations 5:10 “Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine”

I personally prefer to use the earliest text, based on the manuscript readings.  However, if someone wants to utilize the later edited form of the text, have at it.

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Yeah, no kidding.  Substantive changes is hard to define.  White to pure?  eh... what's so substantive about that? 

Exactly.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

--Mosiah (aka Benjamin)

Consider Book of Mormon Central, “Which Nephite King Had the Gift of Interpretation? (Mosiah 21:28, 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon),” KnoWhy #99, May 13, 2016, online at https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/which-nephite-king-had-the-gift-of-interpretation .

Edited July 14, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

stemebow's point about the early Christian usage of the term "mother of God" and "mother of the son of god" in the NT and elsewhere is well taken, i.e., the NT and early Christian docs are as opaque and inconsistent as any such reference in the BofM.  And changing the goal posts to the BofC and D&C misses that point and further misstates what is really going on in the midst of continuing revelation.  Even as a stake patriarch, for example, Richard Bushman openly stated that he has edited the blessings he himself has given while typing them up.  Why?  Because he had not gotten it quite right during the initial run through (on tape).  Moreover, one must not delimit the Lord himself in adding to or altering his own revelations.  All such changes are on open display in the Joseph Smith Papers Project, and were the subject long ago of a massive doctoral dissertation on such changes in the D&C by Robert J. Woodford (BYU, 1974).  I don't know any Mormons who are embarrassed by that, if they even ,know of it.

Why this objection even comes up is amazing to me- considering that Joseph re-wrote portions of the Bible, added what he was inspired to add, including reversing the meaning of sentences, adding portions that were never there, etc. and we never get flak about that from the critics.

There is no objective standard we can use to judge any manuscripts, Biblical or otherwise, against what the "Lord wanted us to know" anyway.  To assume one is "correct" and the other "mistaken" is naive in my opinion.  The only way is to judge pragmatically, by the spirit, as suggested in Alma 32.  Yes, manuscripts may cohere with others doctrinally or not- that's nice but it certainly is not as if that is a criterion for their "truth".

We never think of comparing non-Christian texts to Christian ones to see which one represents the "Lord's will", which if there WAS some kind of objective standard of comparison would be the natural thing to do.   Yet the critics don't do that- to me that is a tacit admission that they already know there is no objective standard and can never be.  And yet they still come up with the same tired argument which presupposes such a standard exists.

All we have of scripture comes through a human brain and is written by human hands, and so errors are made.

Do we really need to remind ourselves of this on every other thread?   I suppose the critics are the ones who never seem to "get" it.  Why that is the case I will never understand.

Edited July 14, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We ignore the 1948 coverage by Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, CWHN V:73-74, at our peril, for a direct confrontation with the text does not provide cover for your misinterpretation as substantive, Counselor.  You are reading it at the surface level and out of context.  We already know that the Bible uses white and pure as synonymous, parallel terms:  We should understand English words in their full semantic range, rather than in a narrow racist manner:

 Lamentations 4:7-8 “Her Nazirites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk” 

Daniel:10, "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried"

Psalm 51:2,7, "Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.... Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow"

And the notion of dark pigmentation has much farther reaching, even figurative implications:

Song of Songs 1:5-6 “I am black, but comely” 

Lamentations 5:10 “Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine”

I personally prefer to use the earliest text, based on the manuscript readings.  However, if someone wants to utilize the later edited form of the text, have at it.

 

If "white" was a description of clothing, I doubt anyone would have a problem with changing it to "pure":

Rev 7:14 nrsv

"they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb"