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

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I know you aren’t necessarily presenting your counter arguments, but let me respond to each as if you were:

1. Nephi attributed people painting their faces to God cursing them with a skin of blackness? Please tell me you’re joking...

Why? That's a rather common practice and he'd just see the Lamanites coming looking like that. It's be well into his anger towards his brothers and xenophobia. Judaism also has a very long dislike of tattooing and it's prohibited in the Torah. (Lev 19:28) Interesting relative to the Nephite use of "mark" to describe the Lamanite skin is "mark" to describe tattoos in the Talmud. The origins were seen in idolatry and apostasy, much like Nephites saw Lamanite. While the main practice among Canaanites opposed by Josiah and Jeremiah around the time of Lehi was slashing of skin more than tattoos, there is use of war paint in the region albeit more by Libyans. Again though, look at this not as a 21st century person with how we think of things, but a very primitive person.

Quote

2. Nephites were racists, but during production of the Book of Mormon God neglected to point out to JS that such xenophobia was not from Him?

I already mentioned Jacob 2-3 which says just that.

Quote

3. There’s no suggestion from Nephi that Lamanites were anything other than ancestors of Laman and Lemuel and Nephites gone rogue.

Yes, but the Nephites had no way of knowing what was going on among the Nephites. Also because of the loss of the 116 pages we basically have no history until the time of Benjamin 400 years later. (Remember the small plates were primarily religious sermons) So we really don't know very much if anything that happened historically during that 400 years beyond the Nephites fleeings, the change of appearance of Lamanites and lots of wars. Given we know there were other people in the Americas, regardless of where the Nephites landed, it's almost certain the Lamanites would intermix. Nephites did as well I strongly believe but at least there people can point to the text and debate it. There's no way to know what the Lamanites were doing.

 

Quote

4. If there was a difference? Nephi was a Prophet keeping a divinely inspired record of God’s dealings with his people in the Americas and yet it contains cultural racism and misattributation of skin colour despite the fact that God had the opportunity to correct it or explain it at the point JS was translating the record, but He didn’t, leading to 150 years of erroneous uncorrected cultural racism attributed to Him within His Restored Church right from the get go? Do I have that about right?

Ancient peoples are racist. That's as true of the Old Testament. If you think God controls scripture so it'll contain what a 21st century person thinks is important then of course you'll be upset. But that's really a different issue. All that means is you don't believe God gives scripture because the Bible doesn't say what you think God ought to have said. Which is fine, but is really quite a different issue. But the Book of Mormon is certainly no different.

Quote

5. Which undermines both Nephi as a Prophet, JS and 100 years of succession as Prophets, and means the Church was in apostasy from the Restoration up to 1978.

Only if you require inerrancy and God saying what you want him to say. (At which point there's not much left to discuss)

Quote

6. Alma wasn’t there at the time, Nephi is a first hand prophetic witness.

But of course it traces the development of the social ideas the Nephites have.

Quote

7. Which also attests to the fact that there was a skin colour difference, undermining Brant Gardner and point 4.

How so? Again if we're talking tattoos or war paint then that explains it.

Quote

8. Actually, the main take away from that would be that the Prophets of the Book of Mormon didn’t have the first clue about what God did or didn’t want, did or didn’t do. If we cannot trust what the authors of the Book of Mormon say about skin colour, on what basis can they be trusted to accurately reflect the will of the Lord on any other subject?

If the curse and the associated skin colour change isn’t true (accurate) on what basis can Moroni’s promise be legitimate?

Not following your logic here at all. To prevent apostasy of the Nephites, God points out how the Lamanites are different and pushes the traditional Jewish view of not marrying non-Jews. (This is a pretty huge issue in the OT) The Nephites take this and, according to Jacob, push it way too far into extremely racist and xenophobic fear of the other. This is condemned by the prophet. The hatred of the Lamanites persists until the time of the Sons of Mosiah who go on missions to the Lamanites, against this traditional Nephite view of Lamanites. From this point on in the narrative the Lamanites become the good people (almost always better than the Nephites until the shift around 200 AD). The political Lamanites usually are controlled by evil Nephites. But more or less from the time of the Sons of Mosiah onward the whole xenophobic division breaks down. Further the message of the Book of Mormon is against this xenophobia. Not only explicitly in Jacob 2-3 but narratively with the books of Alma, Helaman and 3 Nephi.

Now if your argument is that the book should have been even more clear, despite all that, I'm not sure what to tell you. I'd fully agree Mormons got it wrong for a long time. But then Mormons were also explicitly condemned for not taking the Book of Mormon seriously so I don't think pointing to Mormon use (or rather disuse) of the Book of Mormon until the 1990's is an argument against the book. Rather it's simply acknowledging that “they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon” (D&C 84:54–57).

Edited September 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

On September 12, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Marginal Gains said:

If it’s not elucidating (great word by the way) an eternal principle, and was only for the Nephite day and age, why is it included in a book that was restored specifically for our day and age?

Nowhere does Race And The Priesthood articulate the caveat that the disavowing applies to societal interpretation of scripture and excludes scripture itself. Please feel free to correct me by quoting where either the article or the Church makes the distinction you wish it to have made.

“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

The above, very directly disavows Nephi’s comments in the Book Of Mormon.

It was included to show that the Lord can and will both curse and revoke the curse when conditions are met for forgiveness. Just like today, with the gathering of Israel, of which the children of Lehi are a part. It was included to show the fulfillment of prophecy in various ways in these times.

I think the article is clearly written specifically to address the race and pristhood issue as it was created within the American culture in which the Restoration began. Where in the article do you not see this referenced? Thus the conclusion relates to the American (even European) cultural notion and not to the Book of Mormon itself.

Additionally, the Book of Mormon curse is not a racial theory. It is presented as a scriptural record, and never are the children of Lehi depicted or described as two races (just "-ites", a social division which the book acknowledges is a fixture of a fallen society and has no place in the kingdom of God). The theories disavowed in the article are specifically those that arose since the publication of the Bible and the latter-day scriptures and which misapply these scriptural records to "race."

[Marginal Gains]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

It was included to show that the Lord can and will both curse and revoke the curse when conditions are met for forgiveness. Just like today, with the gathering of Israel, of which the children of Lehi are a part. It was included to show the fulfillment of prophecy in various ways in these times.

I think the article is clearly written specifically to address the race and pristhood issue as it was created within the American culture in which the Restoration began. Where in the article do you not see this referenced? Thus the conclusion relates to the American (even European) cultural notion and not to the Book of Mormon itself.

Additionally, the Book of Mormon curse is not a racial theory. It is presented as a scriptural record, and never are the children of Lehi depicted or described as two races (just "-ites", a social division which the book acknowledges is a fixture of a fallen society and has no place in the kingdom of God). The theories disavowed in the article are specifically those that arose since the publication of the Bible and the latter-day scriptures and which misapply these scriptural records to "race."

Again, the distinctions you are making are not distinctions the Church has made.

Please can you quote something from the article or from the Church that you believe supports your line of thinking?

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Again, the distinctions you are making are not distinctions the Church has made.

Please can you quote something from the article or from the Church that you believe supports your line of thinking?

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-and-doctrine-of-the-book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/lesson-24-all-are-alike-unto-god?lang=eng

 

[Marginal Gains]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Again, the distinctions you are making are not distinctions the Church has made.

Please can you quote something from the article or from the Church that you believe supports your line of thinking?

 

49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-and-doctrine-of-the-book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/lesson-24-all-are-alike-unto-god?lang=eng

 

That’s a link, not a quote.

Which specific part(s) of the lesson you link to do you think supports your thinking that the Church doesn’t intend for the Race & The Prietshood disavowing of theories that black skin is the sign of a curse from God to apply to scripture?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Which specific part(s) of the lesson you link to do you think supports your thinking that the Church doesn’t intend for the Race & The Prietshood disavowing of theories that black skin is the sign of a curse from God to apply to scripture?

In the comment I was responding to that wasn't what you were demanding. You were replying to these by CV75:

Quote

I think the article is clearly written specifically to address the race and pristhood issue as it was created within the American culture in which the Restoration began. Where in the article do you not see this referenced? Thus the conclusion relates to the American (even European) cultural notion and not to the Book of Mormon itself.

Additionally, the Book of Mormon curse is not a racial theory. It is presented as a scriptural record, and never are the children of Lehi depicted or described as two races (just "-ites", a social division which the book acknowledges is a fixture of a fallen society and has no place in the kingdom of God). The theories disavowed in the article are specifically those that arose since the publication of the Bible and the latter-day scriptures and which misapply these scriptural records to "race."

The manual I linked to establishes both those points. If you are now asking about the Race and the Priesthood essay that's a different topic than I was addressing. I'm not sure I agree with CV75 on that point.

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In the comment I was responding to that wasn't what you were demanding. You were replying to these by CV75:

The manual I linked to establishes both those points. If you are now asking about the Race and the Priesthood essay that's a different topic than I was addressing. I'm not sure I agree with CV75 on that point.

Got it! Cheers.

Note to self - pay more attention!

Edited September 14, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[champatsch]

On 9/6/2017 at 2:12 PM, smac97 said:

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).

Royal Skousen first informed the First Presidency in the 1990s about 100 or so correct, more consistent original manuscript and printer's manuscript readings that were not present in the current LDS text.  In the late 1990s and early 2000s a PHP was functioning in a day-to-day capacity.  The 1981 revision went forward with an ailing PHP.  The 1920 revision was spearheaded by James E. Talmage, who checked grammar and punctuation and oversaw production (see Talmage Story, ch. 19).  More than 20 years have now passed since top leaders have known about many clear errors. Some of these have led to problems in translation, and many of the corrections would facilitate new translations and re-translations.  At least 200 non-conjectural corrections could be made any time the church scriptures committee chose to make them effective.  The scriptures committee decides, based on evidence and inspiration, which changes to make.  The First Presidency is always able to sanction determinations by the scriptures committee.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, champatsch said:

Royal Skousen first informed the First Presidency in the 1990s about 100 or so correct, more consistent original manuscript and printer's manuscript readings that were not present in the current LDS text.  In the late 1990s and early 2000s a PHP was functioning in a day-to-day capacity.  The 1981 revision went forward with an ailing PHP.  The 1920 revision was spearheaded by James E. Talmage, who checked grammar and punctuation and oversaw production (see Talmage Story, ch. 19).  More than 20 years have now passed since top leaders have known about many clear errors. Some of these have led to problems in translation, and many of the corrections would facilitate new translations and re-translations.  At least 200 non-conjectural corrections could be made any time the church scriptures committee chose to make them effective.  The scriptures committee decides, based on evidence and inspiration, which changes to make.  The First Presidency is always able to sanction determinations by the scriptures committee.

You raise some very good points.  Thank you.

-Smac

[JarMan]

Let me offer a rather cynical conspiracy theory regarding the reason why the church is slow to make changes to the Book of Mormon or to embrace or embark upon a new Bible translation. I sometimes think people in church leadership would rather have us NOT understand the scriptures that well.  They would rather have us listen to what the leaders say about what the scriptures say. Because if we look too closely at the standard works we might find significant doctrinal differences. This could weaken our faith in the church (though not necessarily weaken our faith in the gospel, if you know what I mean). But maybe this is just crazy talk…

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Let me offer a rather cynical conspiracy theory regarding the reason why the church is slow to make changes to the Book of Mormon or to embrace or embark upon a new Bible translation. I sometimes think people in church leadership would rather have us NOT understand the scriptures that well.  They would rather have us listen to what the leaders say about what the scriptures say. Because if we look too closely at the standard works we might find significant doctrinal differences. This could weaken our faith in the church (though not necessarily weaken our faith in the gospel, if you know what I mean). But maybe this is just crazy talk…

I think you'll have a hard time convincing a reasonable member of the church  of this without being able to demonstrate a preponderance of evidence supporting your theory. 

The evidence, I believe, actually indicates the opposite.  We study the scriptures in seminaries, institutes, and in our Sunday meetings.  The missionaries teach from the scriputes.  General Authorities teach from the scriptures.  Members of the church are being constantly taught to study the scriptures and pray about what they read.  I don't see at all what you're seeing.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think you'll have a hard time convincing a reasonable member of the church  of this without being able to demonstrate a preponderance of evidence supporting your theory. 

The evidence, I believe, actually indicates the opposite.  We study the scriptures in seminaries, institutes, and in our Sunday meetings.  The missionaries teach from the scriputes.  General Authorities teach from the scriptures.  Members of the church are being constantly taught to study the scriptures and pray about what they read.  I don't see at all what you're seeing.

And the vast resources for scripture study, found as aids, such as the Dictionary, Topical Guide, references at the bottom of each page, JST, maps, etc

Edited September 16, 2017 by cdowis

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think you'll have a hard time convincing a reasonable member of the church  of this without being able to demonstrate a preponderance of evidence supporting your theory. 

The evidence, I believe, actually indicates the opposite.  We study the scriptures in seminaries, institutes, and in our Sunday meetings.  The missionaries teach from the scriputes.  General Authorities teach from the scriptures.  Members of the church are being constantly taught to study the scriptures and pray about what they read.  I don't see at all what you're seeing.

I propose a simple experiment. At church on Sunday take notes on every speaker in Sacrament Meeting and on the lessons in the other two blocks. Each time the speaker/teacher/class member reads from the scriptures take note of it. Each time they read from another source such as manuals or church magazines, note that. If the non-scriptural source quotes the scriptures you can count that part as being from the scriptures. At the end of the third block add up everything that was read in both categories  and see how the percentages play out. I'll perform the same experiment, except I won't count the hour I teach Gospel Doctrine so that I don't bias the results. What do you think the results will be?

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I propose a simple experiment. At church on Sunday take notes on every speaker in Sacrament Meeting and on the lessons in the other two blocks. Each time the speaker/teacher/class member reads from the scriptures take note of it. Each time they read from another source such as manuals or church magazines, note that. If the non-scriptural source quotes the scriptures you can count that part as being from the scriptures. At the end of the third block add up everything that was read in both categories  and see how the percentages play out. I'll perform the same experiment, except I won't count the hour I teach Gospel Doctrine so that I don't bias the results. What do you think the results will be?

I really don't see the point.  All scripture is based on the teachings of prophets.  The manuals are based on or illustrate the teachings of prophets.  Church magazines contain the words of prophets or stories to help us understand prophets.  We hold that the teachings of both modern as well as ancient prophets are of great value.  We quote from and learn from both. 

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

And the vast resources for scripture study, found as aids, such as the Dictionary, Topical Guide, references at the bottom of each page, JST, maps, etc

Such obvious ruses. 

[JarMan]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I really don't see the point.  All scripture is based on the teachings of prophets.  The manuals are based on or illustrate the teachings of prophets.  Church magazines contain the words of prophets or stories to help us understand prophets.  We hold that the teachings of both modern as well as ancient prophets are of great value.  We quote from and learn from both. 

The point is that we don't emphasize the scriptures as much as we think we do. There is a much greater emphasis on modern day prophets by a long way (to the detriment of understanding scripture, in my view). You implied that the preponderance of the evidence weighed toward scripture. I proposed a simple experiment to gather some empirical evidence.  What evidence can you cite that would tend to cast us in a scripture-centric light?