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

[clarkgoble]

20 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.

Prophets are a tool. They aren't there for blind faith. Our faith should be in Christ.

[ksfisher]

42 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.

Is the skin color of Nephites and Lamanites part of your testimony?  We trust the prophets to lead us back to Christ.  Along that journey there are some things that some believe, and others don't, that really don't matter.  Whether or not there was a global flood, what a Lamanite looked like, where Zarahemla was located, what language Adam spoke...these things really don't matter.  They're fun to talk about, learn of, and speculate about; but they are not things upon which your salvation or that of your family depends. 

I trust the prophets implicitly to teach me the things I need to do to return to our Father in Heaven.

Edited September 8, 2017 by ksfisher

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Is the skin color of Nephites and Lamanites part of your testimony?  We trust the prophets to lead us back to Christ.  Along that journey there are some things that some believe, and others don't, that really don't matter.  Whether or not there was a global flood, what a Lamanite looked like, where Zarahemla was located, what language Adam spoke...these things really don't matter.  They're fun to talk about, learn off, and speculate; but they are not things upon which your salvation or that of your family depends. 

I learned a long time ago that telling people "these things really don't matter" doesn't help and may make things worse. If it matters to someone, it matters, full stop. Better to talk about why it matters to them than to dismiss their concerns out of hand. 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I learned a long time ago that telling people "these things really don't matter" doesn't help and may make things worse. If it matters to someone, it matters, full stop. Better to talk about why it matters to them than to dismiss their concerns out of hand. 

Hopefully what I wrote didn't come off as dismissive.  I understand that different people have different things that are important to them.  What I'm saying is that before we dismiss prophets as wrong we need to identify whether of not a statement or teaching is central or ancillary to the gospel.

If the thing is ancillary I think we are free to agree or disagree with a prophet or apostle as we believe. 

Again, not trying to be dismissive at all.  Message board posts are not always the best format for two parties to come to an understanding of what each believes.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Is the skin color of Nephites and Lamanites part of your testimony?  We trust the prophets to lead us back to Christ.  Along that journey there are some things that some believe, and others don't, that really don't matter.  Whether or not there was a global flood, what a Lamanite looked like, where Zarahemla was located, what language Adam spoke...these things really don't matter.  They're fun to talk about, learn of, and speculate about; but they are not things upon which your salvation or that of your family depends. 

I trust the prophets implicitly to teach me the things I need to do to return to our Father in Heaven.

The problem being, a prophet told the blacks they couldn't return to our Father in Heaven, because of their skin color, or that their African American, or because they are slaves. I have no idea. So prophets didn't lead these people anywhere but maybe to feeling cursed. 

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The problem being, a prophet told the blacks they couldn't return to our Father in Heaven, because of their skin color, or that their African American, or because they are slaves. I have no idea. So prophets didn't lead these people anywhere but maybe to feeling cursed. 

So far as I'm aware no one said that. Blacks were baptized it was the priesthood that was withheld with the common view they would get it in the future. Many members think this was an erroneous policy, but it was never a doctrine that they couldn't return to their father in heaven. Brigham Young and others explicitly taught the opposite. That's not in the least to deny their racism. But we should be clear what exactly they were espousing.

[Guest]

6 hours 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.

Not so, Joseph had to spell out many words and names. Also, it is no different that other Holy texts that have been corrected (or deleted, entire books of the Bible deleted, as Protestants have five fewer books than Catholics)  in the same way over time. Joseph was ill educated, and would seek to do his best to make it understandable, were he felt it was not. It is the nature of all men to leave their dirty fingerprints on all that they touch. Oliver Cowdrey, as well as Emma Smith, would often suggest changes, because it did not make sense to them. My guess is that Joesph gave in to such suggestions, out of fear of his own weakness in writing. As far as modern Prophets making changes, again, if it is ,not broken, don't fix it. Currently it is the cause of hundreds of thousands coverts a year, so powerful is it's words, and message. I fear this thread is an attempt to point out it's error, perceived or otherwise, to plant the "seed of doubt", as it a stated goal of those who hate the Church. 

Also, every change, ever comma, every question mark, every semicolon, or any other change is to the delight of anti-Mormon. It is canon fodder, for them to show as proof, that Joseph Smith was not a Prophet and a fraud. For those who are professional and amateur critics, and the disaffected, , every error, misstep, mistake, misprint, fills them with joy, and reinforces their reasons for doubting, or leaving the Faith, and for those who lack faith. 

[CV75]

On 9/6/2017 at 3:24 PM, Marginal Gains said:

 

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly 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.

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse...”

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I think context carries a lot of weight. The context for this quote is a society’s racial culture and how the people leveraged their biblical and restoration scriptures with that societal prejudice, and not the scriptural messages themselves.

The Book of Mormon does not say that black skin is a curse as a matter of eternal principle, but as a sign specifically accommodating the understanding of the Book or Mormon peoples. The term references actual and/or metaphorical conditions depending on the circumstance. The physical manifestation was applied both by God and also unknowingly fulfilled by at least one rebellious group (Alma 3:4-18) -- interesting that “red” in this case is the new “black;" rebellion and the results thereof providing forms of the metaphorical manifestation.

Edited September 8, 2017 by CV75

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So far as I'm aware no one said that. Blacks were baptized it was the priesthood that was withheld with the common view they would get it in the future. Many members think this was an erroneous policy, but it was never a doctrine that they couldn't return to their father in heaven. Brigham Young and others explicitly taught the opposite. That's not in the least to deny their racism. But we should be clear what exactly they were espousing.

We are told that only in the Celestial Kingdom can we live with God. Maybe Jesus will visit the lower kingdoms, but according to my knowledge God dwells in the CK only. 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Then I guess you got the point.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours 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.

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Just God and yourself...

 

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thank you! 

I screw up so often I'm not altogether sure about myself!

To me, trusting the prophet is part of trusting God, since He said to trust the prophet:

 

Quote

 

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 1:4-5

Edited September 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

We are told that only in the Celestial Kingdom can we live with God. Maybe Jesus will visit the lower kingdoms, but according to my knowledge God dwells in the CK only. 

Yes. But Brigham Young thought blacks could be baptized and enter the celestial kingdom. Further he believed despite his racism that blacks would one day get all the temple ordinances in the future and thus be able to receive exaltation.

[Glenn101]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

We are told that only in the Celestial Kingdom can we live with God. Maybe Jesus will visit the lower kingdoms, but according to my knowledge God dwells in the CK only. 

I do not understand your point there. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

We are told that only in the Celestial Kingdom can we live with God. Maybe Jesus will visit the lower kingdoms, but according to my knowledge God dwells in the CK only. 

That's my understanding as well. But don't know what it has to do with Clark's post. After receiving the priesthood, they would be eligible, if faithful, to inherit the celestial kingdom.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

I do not understand your point there. 

 

Neither do I.

Apparently Tacenda thinks that the teaching was blacks would never be eligible to attain the celestial kingdom even after they were granted the priesthood and temple blessings. If that's her understanding, I don't know where she got it.

Perhaps she should explain.

 

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Joseph used different grammar when writing his History in 1832, than was used in the 1829/30 Book of Mormon.

And according to you that is the nail in the coffin for the idea that Joseph or Joseph and others were responsible for writing the Book of Mormon.

Have I got that about right?

No,  you're only partway there. The point is that JS used grammar that was old. . . too old for him to have known. Some of the old words and grammar is found in the KJV Bible, but much of it is not. You'll need to read Carmack's earlier papers to see a myriad of examples. One of the criticisms against "Joseph couldn't have known this language" has been the suggestion that maybe these ancient forms of English (or Early Modern English, if you will) survived for hundreds of years in isolated, rural pockets of the English-speaking world and therefore could have existed in 1820's upstate New York and been known by Joseph. Carmack's latest essay, which you appear to be referencing, simply shows that near the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon, JS did not use the grammar of the Book of Mormon when writing in his own words. So it falsifies the argument that JS wrote or spoke in Early Modern English near the time the Book of Mormon came to be.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Prophets are a tool. They aren't there for blind faith. Our faith should be in Christ.

I prefer the word instrument to tool.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

We are told that only in the Celestial Kingdom can we live with God. Maybe Jesus will visit the lower kingdoms, but according to my knowledge God dwells in the CK only. 

And baptism gets you into the Celestial Kingdom

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng

Edited September 8, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

I screw up so often I'm not altogether sure about myself!

To me, trusting the prophet is part of trusting God, since He said to trust the prophet:

 

Doctrine and Covenants 1:4-5

I am using "trust" as final judgment, so I would agree with you about not trusting myself.

Many use "trust" in a looser form.  I look on prophets as reliable guides, but I check with the Lord if I see my salvation or someone else's I need to interact with confirms the direction.  There have been a few times it has been "not yet needed from you" or "modify for your needs" on commandments (for example, genealogy...had to take a break after my daughter was born; food storage isn't as developed as it used to be due to not being able to cook much and thus food goes to waste).

Edited September 8, 2017 by Calm

[JarMan]

On 9/6/2017 at 10:47 AM, 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.

I think in due time the church will release another edition incorporating many of the changes. But here's a follow up question: When will the church release a modern English version of the Book of Mormon? I understand the Community of Christ has something like that from the 1960's. To answer my own question I would guess never. But if people in the LDS community (hint, hint) wanted to privately produce such a work, I would be willing to pay good money for it. 

[Calm]

It already has been modernized by a few.  While the quality isn't great imo, I do know at least one missionary where one of these versions made all the difference in the world to his seeing himself as functioning as a missionary due to a learning disorder.

Here is an online example:

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_(Plain_English_Version)

some more:

https://www.amazon.com/Easy-Read-Lynn-Matthews-Anderson/dp/0964495708

Edited September 8, 2017 by Calm

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I think in due time the church will release another edition incorporating many of the changes. But here's a follow up question: When will the church release a modern English version of the Book of Mormon? I understand the Community of Christ has something like that from the 1960's. To answer my own question I would guess never. But if people in the LDS community (hint, hint) wanted to privately produce such a work, I would be willing to pay good money for it. 

Modern-Language Editions of the Book of Mormon Discouraged

"From time to time there are those who wish to rewrite the Book of Mormon into familiar or modern English. We discourage this type of publication and call attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon was translated “by the gift and power of God,” who has declared that “it is true.” (Book of Mormon title page; D&C 17:6.) The Prophet Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth.” (History of the Church, 4:461.) It contains “the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (D&C 20:9.)

When a sacred text is translated into another language or rewritten into more familiar language, there are substantial risks that this process may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure evidence of its ancient origin. To guard against these risks, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve give close personal supervision to the translation of scriptures from English into other languages and have not authorized efforts to express the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon in familiar or modern English. (These concerns do not pertain to publications by the Church for children, such as the Book of Mormon Reader.)"

I guess they are referring to versions like this one:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1555174019?tag=plabooofmor-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1555174019&adid=1C3YGVMZ9HECBV4CP96H&/new-window.php#reader_1555174019

I guess curious people will want to buy such things anyway, but how can you trust the accuracy of author?

 

[Tacenda]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's my understanding as well. But don't know what it has to do with Clark's post. After receiving the priesthood, they would be eligible, if faithful, to inherit the celestial kingdom.

Well, the blacks at one time weren't able to receive the PH. I guess I forgot there are different levels in the CK also. My mind's going, dang it.

So if you're baptized that is enough to live with God, not just Jesus Christ?

Edited September 8, 2017 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So if you're baptized that is enough to live with God, not just Jesus Christ?

As a servant, yes.

Entrance into God's kingdom requires being free of sin (no unclean thing can enter etc).
Since we are all sinners, acceptance of Christ and entrance into the covenant with him is the only way to become sin free.
We signify that covenant through baptism.

So yes, baptism brings us under the atonement, which covers our sins, and allows us entrance into God's kingdom.

Everything else - priesthood, endowments, sealings, and more simply determine our role in that kingdom.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, the blacks at one time weren't able to receive the PH. I guess I forgot there are different levels in the CK also. My mind's going, dang it.

So if you're baptized that is enough to live with God, not just Jesus Christ?

It is in the Celestial Kingdom, so of course both the Father and the Son.

Maybe you should read the Gospel Principles manualto refresh your memory.