Why hasn't church leadership corrected obvious Book of Mormon textual errors?

[champatsch]

With the original manuscript in the news recently, we are once again brought to think about the hundreds of clear errors that persist in the LDS text, that Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants discusses and lays bare. It would be a fairly simple matter to change things like "word of the justice" to "sword of the justice" (1 Ne. 12:18), "gospel of the Lord" to "gospel of the Lamb" (1 Ne. 13:24), or to add repair to Alma 39:13.

Top church leaders have known about many of these for more than 10 years, and I know that President Hinckley was quite interested to learn about a number of them.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions as to why no non-grammatical errors have been corrected based on Skousen's exhaustive work. No one change is earth-shattering, but together the many errors add up to something.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, champatsch said:

With the original manuscript in the news recently, we are once again brought to think about the hundreds of clear errors that persist in the LDS text, that Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants discusses and lays bare. It would be a fairly simple matter to change things like "word of the justice" to "sword of the justice" (1 Ne. 12:18), "gospel of the Lord" to "gospel of the Lamb" (1 Ne. 13:24), or to add repair to Alma 39:13.

Top church leaders have known about many of these for more than 10 years, and I know that President Hinckley was quite interested to learn about a number of them.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions as to why no non-grammatical errors have been corrected based on Skousen's exhaustive work. No one change is earth-shattering, but together the many errors add up to something.

In the examples you've cited above I don't think the overall meaning of the text is changed much by correcting the error.  "Word" and "sword" are both metaphorical regardless of which is used.  "the Lamb" and "the Lord" are both used in the scriptures to refer to the Savior.  Adding "repair" in Alma 39:13 would be nice, but it doesn't change the overall meaning of the verse significantly.

That being said, if I were in change I'd fix everything.

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, champatsch said:

With the original manuscript in the news recently, we are once again brought to think about the hundreds of clear errors that persist in the LDS text, that Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants discusses and lays bare. It would be a fairly simple matter to change things like "word of the justice" to "sword of the justice" (1 Ne. 12:18), "gospel of the Lord" to "gospel of the Lamb" (1 Ne. 13:24), or to add repair to Alma 39:13.

Top church leaders have known about many of these for more than 10 years, and I know that President Hinckley was quite interested to learn about a number of them.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions as to why no non-grammatical errors have been corrected based on Skousen's exhaustive work. No one change is earth-shattering, but together the many errors add up to something.

The change I would like to see would be to get the verses in Alma 13 in the proper order.

[Gray]

There are still grammatical errors that remain as well. They could fix those while they're at it.

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, champatsch said:

With the original manuscript in the news recently, we are once again brought to think about the hundreds of clear errors that persist in the LDS text, that Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants discusses and lays bare. It would be a fairly simple matter to change things like "word of the justice" to "sword of the justice" (1 Ne. 12:18), "gospel of the Lord" to "gospel of the Lamb" (1 Ne. 13:24), or to add repair to Alma 39:13.

Top church leaders have known about many of these for more than 10 years, and I know that President Hinckley was quite interested to learn about a number of them.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions as to why no non-grammatical errors have been corrected based on Skousen's exhaustive work. No one change is earth-shattering, but together the many errors add up to something.

Bro. Skousen's Yale edition has an appendix that shows the significant changes in the text. There are 719 of these at the end of the book.

Page 1:

Page 2:

Quoth Bro. Skousen:

Quote

A second numerical count that is quite important is that the Yale edition introduces 241 new readings that make a difference in meaning. By the phrase “difference in meaning” I mean that if we translate the reading into another language there will be a change in the words – that is, there will be some word difference, no matter what the language. For each of these 241 readings, the change makes a difference in meaning, not just in phraseology.

Nevertheless, despite these "difference{s} in meaning," Bro. Skousen also states:

Quote

Some people have asked whether any textual restoration ever alters doctrine – and the answer is, no. Whenever a change involves doctrine, we find that the original reading has the correct doctrine. An example of this is found in Alma 39:13, where Alma is talking to his son Corianton and tells him to go back to the Zoramites and, in the original manuscript, “acknowledge your faults and repair that wrong which ye have done”. When Oliver Cowdery finished writing this page in the original manuscript, he accidentally dropped some ink on the page. And on the letter p in repair a drop of ink fell right on top of the ascender for the p, which ended up making the p look like it’s been crossed. In fact, the p ends up looking like a t. Moreover, Oliver’s r‘s and n‘s often look alike, so when Oliver came to copy this part of the text into the printer’s manuscript, he copied it as “acknowledge your faults and retain that wrong which ye have done”. That reading doesn’t quite work, and so the 1920 LDS committee decided to just remove the word retain because it didn’t make any sense. Thus they ended up having Alma say to Corianton that he should go back and “acknowledge your faults and that wrong which ye have done”. In other words, “go back and say you’re sorry”. But the need for Corianton to repair his wrong had now been removed from this passage.

When we look at other parts of the Book of Mormon text, we indeed find that when people confess their sins, they do everything they can to repair the wrongs or the injuries they have done. Here’s one from Mosiah 27:35: “zealously striving to repair all the injuries which they had done to the church / confessing all their sins”. And here’s one from Helaman 5:17: “they came forth and did confess their sins … and immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to repair unto them the wrongs which they had done”. So by putting back the word repair in Alma 39:13, the correct doctrine of repentance is restored. The doctrine hasn’t been changed.

In other words, Bro. Skousen is advocating some textual restorations, even though the restorations don't alter the doctrinal precepts in the text.  But if so, then does that lessen the urgency of "textual restoration{s}"?

Also, consider the logistics of changing the texts in the 110 languages in which the text is published.

Also, which changes should be made, and which should not?

Also, Pres. Monson is not presently functioning in a day-to-day capacity.  While the structure of the Church can accommodate that in terms of authority and ongoing administrative governance, I wonder if such a changes to the Church's foundational scriptural text should be determined by the Presiding High Priest (or include his participation in councils about that subject).

Just some thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

With the original manuscript in the news recently, we are once again brought to think about the hundreds of clear errors that persist in the LDS text, that Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants discusses and lays bare. It would be a fairly simple matter to change things like "word of the justice" to "sword of the justice" (1 Ne. 12:18), "gospel of the Lord" to "gospel of the Lamb" (1 Ne. 13:24), or to add repair to Alma 39:13.

Top church leaders have known about many of these for more than 10 years, and I know that President Hinckley was quite interested to learn about a number of them.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions as to why no non-grammatical errors have been corrected based on Skousen's exhaustive work. No one change is earth-shattering, but together the many errors add up to something.

Why would the Most Correct Book on earth need re-correcting?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why would the Most Correct Book on earth need re-correcting?

Just makes you realize how screwed up all the other books on earth are.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why would the Most Correct Book on earth need re-correcting?

Correct principle doesn't require correct grammar or correct syntax.
Joseph called it the most correct book.  And it contains no incorrect doctrine.  So he would be right.

[thesometimesaint]

S

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why would the Most Correct Book on earth need re-correcting?

Simply because the most correct doesn't mean error free. BTW JS was commenting on the principles not the spelling or grammar of it. But you already knew that.

[Darren10]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why would the Most Correct Book on earth need re-correcting?

To make it even more "Most Correct"?

[sunstoned]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Correct principle doesn't require correct grammar or correct syntax.
Joseph called it the most correct book.  And it contains no incorrect doctrine.  So he would be right.

How about the curse of black skin?  I think that sounds more like 19th century prejudice than something that would come from god.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

In the examples you've cited above I don't think the overall meaning of the text is changed much by correcting the error.  "Word" and "sword" are both metaphorical regardless of which is used.  "the Lamb" and "the Lord" are both used in the scriptures to refer to the Savior.  Adding "repair" in Alma 39:13 would be nice, but it doesn't change the overall meaning of the verse significantly.

That being said, if I were in change I'd fix everything.

Actually there are many such needed changes, and some of them create small misunderstandings which have farther reaching implications.  Many differences are listed in the appendix of the 2009 Yale edition of The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text.

One I would like to see made in LDS editions is the homonymous mistake of "Son" for correct "Sun" in 3 Nephi 25:2 and Ether 9:22, which has also infected our LDS Hymnal.  We should have enough respect for Scripture to do the best job we can in correcting it.  At least the LDS Bible has it right (Malachi 3:20 ).

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

How about the curse of black skin?  I think that sounds more like 19th century prejudice than something that would come from god.

A very common misconception by 21st century presentists -- who don't carefully read the text.

[stemelbow]

The Church does nothing without extensive pressure from the outside--particularly as it relates to scriptural changes but other changes as well.

It seems the Church thinks, why change that which isn't broken.  People still revere the Book of Mormon as the most correct and the bestest of all scriptural works.  So, why fix it? 

Now once this news circulates wide enough and those from the outside are able to gain enough leverage, changes will come. 

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

How about the curse of black skin?  I think that sounds more like 19th century prejudice than something that would come from god.

Prejudice is far older than 19th Century America. But you knew that. Why? Jesus during his mortal ministry went only to the Jews. Was Jesus from god?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

With the original manuscript in the news recently, we are once again brought to think about the hundreds of clear errors that persist in the LDS text, that Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants discusses and lays bare. It would be a fairly simple matter to change things like "word of the justice" to "sword of the justice" (1 Ne. 12:18), "gospel of the Lord" to "gospel of the Lamb" (1 Ne. 13:24), or to add repair to Alma 39:13.

Top church leaders have known about many of these for more than 10 years, and I know that President Hinckley was quite interested to learn about a number of them.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions as to why no non-grammatical errors have been corrected based on Skousen's exhaustive work. No one change is earth-shattering, but together the many errors add up to something.

Actaully, Stan, a lot of changes were made in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon based upon Stan Larson's work with the Original and Printer's MSS.  And many more could certainly be made.  Perhaps the LDS leadership is still coasting with that 1981 edition, waiting for the Joseph Smith Papers volume on the Original MS.  Royal is still hard at work.

I would also like to see them make changes to the KJV, by adding back in all the 1611 marginal readings which were improperly removed so long ago.  The 1611 KJV editor Miles Smith thought them absolutely essential, and as valid as the words in the actual text.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

How about the curse of black skin?  I think that sounds more like 19th century prejudice than something that would come from god.

Every record we have of God's dealings with man indicate that he has always chosen some races/tribes/families/individuals over others.
It is only our modern "compassion" that doesn't allow us to attribute that to God.  Basically, we have to make God in our own image to change what we actually know about God.

Edited September 6, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church does nothing without extensive pressure from the outside--particularly as it relates to scriptural changes but other changes as well.

It seems the Church thinks, why change that which isn't broken.  People still revere the Book of Mormon as the most correct and the bestest of all scriptural works.  So, why fix it? 

Now once this news circulates wide enough and those from the outside are able to gain enough leverage, changes will come. 

Vast changes in the BofM have already been made, in many of its editions, but especially in the 1920 and 1981 editions.  And those changes were not made based on outside pressure.

[stemelbow]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Vast changes in the BofM have already been made, in many of its editions, but especially in the 1920 and 1981 editions.  And those changes were not made based on outside pressure.

Well then let's keep pushing for changes again.  Maybe it'll happen soon. 

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church does nothing without extensive pressure from the outside--particularly as it relates to scriptural changes but other changes as well.

It seems the Church thinks, why change that which isn't broken.  People still revere the Book of Mormon as the most correct and the bestest of all scriptural works.  So, why fix it? 

Now once this news circulates wide enough and those from the outside are able to gain enough leverage, changes will come. 

Incorrect. We readily admit there are errors in the Book of Mormon. It even says so in its Title Page. But you knew that.

SEE "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".

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Incorrect. We readily admit there are errors in the Book of Mormon. It even says so in its Title Page. But you knew that.

SEE "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".

Incorrect?  I agree, the book has errors and the title page suggests there might be errors.  Did I say something different? 

[Marginal Gains]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Correct principle doesn't require correct grammar or correct syntax.
Joseph called it the most correct book.  And it contains no incorrect doctrine.  So he would be right.

I’m pretty sure some of the doctrine in 2nd Nephi 5 has now been disavowed...

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually there are many such needed changes, and some of them create small misunderstandings which have farther reaching implications.  Many differences are listed in the appendix of the 2009 Yale edition of The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text.

One I would like to see made in LDS editions is the homonymous mistake of "Son" for correct "Sun" in 3 Nephi 25:2 and Ether 9:22, which has also infected our LDS Hymnal.  We should have enough respect for Scripture to do the best job we can in correcting it.  At least the LDS Bible has it right (Malachi 3:20 ).

I agree that we should have respect for the scriptures.  But as with the examples in the OP I don't think making the change that you've listed would change any of the doctrine presented in those verses. 

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m pretty sure some of the doctrine in 2nd Nephi 5 has now been disavowed...

What exactly are you referring to?

[ksfisher]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church does nothing without extensive pressure from the outside--particularly as it relates to scriptural changes...

 

Do you have some examples of changes made to the scriptures because of "extensive pressure from the outside..."