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

[champatsch]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why would the Book of Mormon text (given word for word via the seer stone) powerfully match the grammar of Early Modern English Bibles?

The match is broader than that, and here is some speculation on this point--hopefully something fairly accurate, and certainly informed speculation.

Because the grammatical core of the Book of Mormon is mostly a broad form of Early Modern English, the non-biblical portions of the earliest text blend well with the King James idiom found throughout the Book of Mormon--not only in lengthy biblical passages, but also in interwoven biblical words and phrases.

While not dramatically different from King James idiom, systematic analysis shows Book of Mormon idiom to be distinct in many ways. It is not as archaic, on average, as King James idiom, yet there are a few things (but not many) in the Book of Mormon that are older than Tyndale's language, whose language heavily influenced the 1611 KJB.  For example, even the heavy periphrastic did-usage of the Book of Mormon is younger than Tyndale.  It's an example of mid to late 16c usage that is transparent and easy to parse for today's reader even though the usage died out in the 17c. By and large, archaisms seem to have been carefully chosen for transparency.

Many non-linguist English scholars (of history, literature, etc.) find Early Modern English to be fully formed, expressive, and beautiful. Think Tyndale, Shakespeare, Milton, etc., who greatly influenced the English we know and use today.

The archaic Book of Mormon syntax may have facilitated translation efforts into other languages, even possibly increasing accuracy, since many languages today share analogs with archaic English syntax more than with modern English syntax.

Extra-biblical Early Modern English resolves the issue of the nature of the translation for us.

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am concerned with the context of BoM, not what Brigham Young said. 

And this quote by Spencer W. Kimball?

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967:

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today…. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather….These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.”

 Who made the promise he refers to?  Any thoughts on that quote?

 

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am concerned with the context of BoM, not what Brigham Young said. Who better than Mormon knows what fair meant when describing Lehites? There are ja few uses of fair when describing people, but this one is interesting...3 Nephi 2...

Quote

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites.

So are you stating that you agree that he was referring to their skin color?  Just clarifying....

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Isn't it interesting that the losers actually reported such propaganda that they were losers, that they became more unrighteous than the winners?

Read the Book of Omni. There are several successive authors who make no claim to be a prophet. Omni himself says that he is a wicked man. Several of them just wrote a bit because that is what they were commanded to do by their own fathers or brothers who passed the plates to them.

Glenn

 

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

It is interesting. Unprecedented even?

It was neither victors nor losers who wrote it.

It was written by a prophet of God who abridged centuries of records as he was guided by God to do so for the benefit of those in the latter days to whom the record would come forth.

Mormon (as was his son Moroni) was divinely directed in his work every bit as much as Joseph Smith was in his.

To look at it as a biased history or "propaganda" ignores the big picture.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

A comparison between the printers manuscript and the current content of the Book of Mormon is going to be interesting, on the basis it was translated by direct dictation a word at a time.

Do you mean the original manuscript? The printer's manuscript was not made by dictation; it is a copy made from the original manuscript.

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And this quote by Spencer W. Kimball?

 Who made the promise he refers to?  Any thoughts on that quote?

So are you stating that you agree that he was referring to their skin color?  Just clarifying....

 

Again, I am concerned about the BoM text only. The way I read it, the curse on the Lamanites was being cut off from the presence of God, and the mark of the curse was some kind of change in their appearance. If the BoM were the product of 19th-century America, I would expect Joseph to use the most common words of his time describing Native American skin color....red, copper, tawny, or olive...not black.

I believe President Kimball's words expressed a sincere love and concern for those whom we called Lamanites, not malevolent  racism. But I think that notion is a mistaken relic of the hemispheric theory and is not supported in the text of the book. 

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was neither victors nor losers who wrote it.

I get your point, but actually it was the losers who wrote it. The Nepites lost everything.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Again, I am concerned about the BoM text only. The way I read it, the curse on the Lamanites was being cut off from the presence of God, and the mark of the curse was some kind of change in their appearance. If the BoM were the product of 19th-century America, I would expect Joseph to use the most common words of his time describing Native American skin color....red, copper, tawny, or olive...not black.

Ok.  So you agree it was the color of their skin that is referenced?  ("And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites")

 

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I believe President Kimball's words expressed a sincere love and concern for those whom we called Lamanites, not racism. But I think that notion is a mistaken relic of the hemispheric theory and is not supported in the text of the book. 

I agree that he spoke in error or was mistaken.  I also highly doubt that the skin of the youth in the Indian placement program became lighter as he states.

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The match is broader than that, and here is some speculation on this point--hopefully something fairly accurate, and certainly informed speculation.

Because the grammatical core of the Book of Mormon is mostly a broad form of Early Modern English, the non-biblical portions of the earliest text blend well with the King James idiom found throughout the Book of Mormon--not only in lengthy biblical passages, but also in interwoven biblical words and phrases.

While not dramatically different from King James idiom, systematic analysis shows Book of Mormon idiom to be distinct in many ways. It is not as archaic, on average, as King James idiom, yet there are a few things (but not many) in the Book of Mormon that are older than Tyndale's language, whose language heavily influenced the 1611 KJB.  For example, even the heavy periphrastic did-usage of the Book of Mormon is younger than Tyndale.  It's an example of mid to late 16c usage that is transparent and easy to parse for today's reader even though the usage died out in the 17c. By and large, archaisms seem to have been carefully chosen for transparency.

Many non-linguist English scholars (of history, literature, etc.) find Early Modern English to be fully formed, expressive, and beautiful. Think Tyndale, Shakespeare, Milton, etc., who greatly influenced the English we know and use today.

The archaic Book of Mormon syntax may have facilitated translation efforts into other languages, even possibly increasing accuracy, since many languages today share analogs with archaic English syntax more than with modern English syntax.

Extra-biblical Early Modern English resolves the issue of the nature of the translation for us.

Has any thought been given to the influence of that most widely read book of the time (other than the Bible), Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress?

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  So you agree it was the color of their skin that is referenced?  ("And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites")

 

I agree that he spoke in error or was mistaken.  I also highly doubt that the skin of the youth in the Indian placement program became lighter as he states.

 

I think I have made it clear that we don't know exactly what the sign of the curse was. It could be skin color or it could be something else. What is clear is that whatever it was, it was not a racist distinction in the pejorative sense that critics imply and it disappeared after the Resurrection.

I am not willing to say Pres Kimball lied about something he said he observed. He interpreted this according to his best understanding. Have we not long ago agreed Prophets are not infallible? I have no less regard for him because of this.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[cdowis]

41 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The archaic Book of Mormon syntax may have facilitated translation efforts into other languages, even possibly increasing accuracy, since many languages today share analogs with archaic English syntax more than with modern English syntax.

Amazing!  

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I get your point, but actually it was the losers who wrote it. The Nepites lost everything.

I"m not sure you do get my point.

I recognize that Mormon and Moroni participated with their people in the winding up scenes and the final battles. But in the sense of being divinely called to perform the work they did with respect to producing the Book of Mormon and delivering it in latter days, I see them as being above the fray, as it were, as not expressing the viewpoint of either the victors or the losers, but rather, recording and writing what Jesus Christ would have them pass along to those of us living in the latter days.

In short, the cliche that history is always recorded by the victor (or, on this case, the loser) strikes me as a myopic way of viewing this particular scenario.

 

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think I have made it clear that we don't know exactly what the sign of the curse was. It could be skin color or it could be something else.

Well, we will just have to disagree on that.  I think it's stated very clearly in several places what the curse was.  ( "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites", as one example.  In 2 Nephi 5:21: "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity... wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" is another example.) 

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am not willing to say Pres Kimball lied about something he said he observed.

I never stated that he "lied".  I stated that he was mistaken or spoke in error.  From what is stated in the Book of Mormon, he believed those Indians had been promised that their skin would become lighter as they become more righteous.  I think he was speaking in reference to that belief when he stated:

Quote

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today…. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. 

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it's stated very clearly in several places what the curse was.  ( "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites", as just one example).

 

 

I guess it's a good thing then that the Book of Mormon never describes the Lamanites turning "green with envy." 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I guess it's a good thing then that the Book of Mormon never describes the Lamanites turning "green with envy." 

 

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

We immediately understand someone turning "green with envy" as an idiom.  Yet why do we insist on reading "skin of blackness" as meaning an actual change from white to black skin?  To further complicate our thinking when we picture that "skin of blackness" we don't see black skin, but the red (or whatever you want to call it) skin color of Native Americans. 

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We immediately understand someone turning "green with envy" as an idiom.  Yet why do we insist on reading "skin of blackness" as meaning an actual change from white to black skin?  

Most likely because that's what is stated in the Book of Mormon:

Quote

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites"

Quote

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity... wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" 

And from Prophets:

Brigham Young:

Quote

"You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336). 

Spencer W. Kimball, (October 1960 LDS Church Conference):

Quote

...the Indians “are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.” ... “The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation”

During the same message Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and “several shades lighter than her parents…” He went on to say, “These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.”

Quote

W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith: `It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.’ 

And other writings from the church:

Quote

“it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom his blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extend as to excite the comments of all who have known them.” Juvenile Instructor (26:635)

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Most likely because that's what is stated in the Book of Mormon:

 

 

So then it is a good thing that the Book of Mormon doesn't say that any ones skin turned "green with envy," because if it did we would insist on ignoring the idiom and reading it literally. 

If we believe that the Lamanites had black skin then why does the church not publish artwork that shows Lamanites with skin coloring similar to Africans? 

Why would Joseph Smith and other early church members believe that it was the Native Americans and not the Africans who were the descendants of the Lamanites?  Surely Joseph Smith could tell a Native American apart from an African when he saw one.  If the Lamanites really did have black skin then it would seem as if the African slaves living among the church members would have been identified as Lamanites and not the Native Americans?

Perhaps it's because both the phrases "skin of blackness" and "white and delightsome" are idioms.

We look for allegory, idioms, symbolism, metaphor, and many other literary devices in modern writing.  We should expect to find many of the same in ancient writing as well.

Edited September 8, 2017 by ksfisher

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well, we will just have to disagree on that.  I think it's stated very clearly in several places what the curse was.  ( "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites", as one example.  In 2 Nephi 5:21: "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity... wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them" is another example.) 

I never stated that he "lied".  I stated that he was mistaken or spoke in error.  From what is stated in the Book of Mormon, he believed those Indians had been promised that their skin would become lighter as they become more righteous.  I think he was speaking in reference to that belief when he stated:

 

Yes, we'll have to disagree. There are things that point to possibilities other than skin color, but that is the topic for another discussion. If it is skin pigmentation, it would make more sense if the book conformed with the common notion of Native American skin color at that time.

The promise was fulfilled shortly before and after the Resurrection. That is what the book says. 

Perhaps not you, but others use the Kimball quote to denigrate him and call into question his qualifications as a prophet and to paint him as a racist. I may have misunderstood this comment...

Quote

I also highly doubt that the skin of the youth in the Indian placement program became lighter as he states.

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps it's because both the phrases "skin of blackness" and "white and delightsome" are idioms.

You can believe that.  You have every to believe as you wish.

The statements by past Prophets and church writings do not support that belief, however.

Read the quotes again.

I've got to get off of here now for the day....have a great weekend (just didn't want you to think I was being rude if I do not respond to any of your responses )

Edited September 8, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I"m not sure you do get my point.

I recognize that Mormon and Moroni participated with their people in the winding up scenes and the final battles. But in the sense of being divinely called to perform the work they did with respect to producing the Book of Mormon and delivering it in latter days, I see them as being above the fray, as it were, as not expressing the viewpoint of either the victors or the losers, but rather, recording and writing what Jesus Christ would have them pass along to those of us living in the latter days.

In short, the cliche that history is always recorded by the victor (or, on this case, the loser) strikes me as a myopic way of viewing this particular scenario.

 

The point I got was that the Book was written by a prophet under divine command, not as some sort of stick-it-in-your-eye to the Lamanites. The cliche was cited by a previous writer, and I wanted to point out that the winners did not write the history.

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can believe that.  You have every to believe as you wish.

The statements by past Prophets and church writings do not support that belief, however.

Which, of course, was not the point. The text of the Book is clear on what happened to the curse and the promise of its removal despite it being misunderstood by some Church leaders.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which, of course, was not the point. 

Sorry Bernard, I did not see this before I signed off.

The point that ksfisher was making is what I was responding to.  He stated that the phrases were perhaps just "idioms".

The statements and writings from past leaders and Prophets show that is not what they believed.  That was the point I was making. 

Do you believe that President Young and President Kimball believed they were just idioms?

And...Now, I'm really leaving for the day....you have a great weekend too!

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

We immediately understand someone turning "green with envy" as an idiom.  Yet why do we insist on reading "skin of blackness" as meaning an actual change from white to black skin?  To further complicate our thinking when we picture that "skin of blackness" we don't see black skin, but the red (or whatever you want to call it) skin color of Native Americans. 

So once again, a prophet such as Pres. Kimball misunderstood? And of course previous prophets before him? So that leaves me no option other than to trust no one, including prophets.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So once again, a prophet such as Pres. Kimball misunderstood? And of course previous prophets before him? So that leaves me no option other than to trust no one, including prophets.

Just God and yourself...

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Just God and yourself...

Thank you!