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

[Marginal Gains]

17 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

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

 

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What exactly are you referring to?

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

Edited September 6, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What exactly are you referring to?

I recall 22 years ago, sitting amongst a great American family.  We were teaching them and they were eating it up with joy.  One day we decided to read with them from the scriptures.  2 Nephi 4.  It went quite well.  We stopped short of the next chapter which address race.  Sneaky us.  "that was some good reading for the day, elder.  Let's get back to our discussion from last time..."

The next Sunday they came to Church and the wife went to RS.  Apparently someone told her of a theory held by most members that there are tons of people who were less valiant before they came to earth and many of those less valiant were those that are black.  They were cursed.  The parents couldn't bare the notion that their kids would be taught something like that.  Well, soon enough, though remaining friendly, they skipped us over and considered a more friendly Church.  Dang history.

Edited September 6, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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

Oh it'll all be debatable.  Not sure we need to go there.  The most prominent:  Polygamy.  But, again, I realize many a member rejects there was a change made on that because of outside pressure. 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, 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

So perhaps there is more going on in the verse that just black meaning the color black and white meaning white.  If we just read black as what we traditionally thing of as black skin then this is saying that the Lamanites had skin coloring akin to that of Africans. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I recall 22 years ago, sitting amongst a great American family.  We were teaching them and they were eating it up with joy.  One day we decided to read with them from the scriptures.  2 Nephi 4.  It went quite well.  We stopped shot of the next chapter which address race.  Sneaky us.  The next Sunday they came to Church and the wife went to RS.  Apparently someone told her of a theory held by most members that there are tons of people who were less valiant before they came to earth and many of those less valiant were those that are black.  They were cursed.  Well, soon enough, though remaining friendly, they skipped us over and considered a more friendly Church.  Dang history.

Marginal Gains was citing 2 Nephi 5 as containing doctrine that has been disavowed.  The idea that those of African decent could not hold the priesthood is not taught in 2 Nephi 5 or for that matter in the Book of Mormon.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh it'll all be debatable.  Not sure we need to go there.  The most prominent:  Polygamy.  But, again, I realize many a member rejects there was a change made on that because of outside pressure. 

If we don't need to go there they why did you bring it up?  I would like some examples of changes the church has made to the scriptures because of "extensive pressure from the outside..."  I'm not meaning to imply that there are or are not changes, but would like to know what these "extensive" changes are that you mention.

[Marginal Gains]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So perhaps there is more going on in the verse that just black meaning the color black and white meaning white.  If we just read black as what we traditionally thing of as black skin then this is saying that the Lamanites had skin coloring akin to that of Africans. 

Or we could go with what the Church actually taught - that the curse was to be cut off from the Lord and changing their actual skin colour to black was the visible sign of that curse.

“The cursing” that the Lord caused to come upon the rebellious Lamanites was to be cut off from His presence (see 2 Nephi 5:20–21). The Lord caused “a skin of blackness to come upon them” so that the Nephites would not mix, or intermarry, with them and bring the curse upon themselves (see vv. 21–23).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/2-nephi-5?lang=eng&query=2nd+Nephi+5

Race and the Priesthood disavows 2nd Nephi 5:21

[Marginal Gains]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Marginal Gains was citing 2 Nephi 5 as containing doctrine that has been disavowed.  The idea that those of African decent could not hold the priesthood is not taught in 2 Nephi 5 or for that matter in the Book of Mormon.

Interestingly, the First Presidency wrote an official letter in 1949 in response to questions about the Priesthood Ban - they stated unequivocally that the ban for people with black skin was doctrinal. The current First Presidency has disavowed that. How should that now inform our thinking?

 

*I note that this is venturing off topic and may be best placed on a different thread.

August 17, 1949 

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." 

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." 

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. 

The First Presidency [1]

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

Edited September 6, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh it'll all be debatable.  Not sure we need to go there.  The most prominent:  Polygamy.  But, again, I realize many a member rejects there was a change made on that because of outside pressure. 

What change to the scriptural text has resulted from that?

 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Or we could go with what the Church actually taught - that the curse was to be cut off from the Lord and changing their actual skin colour to black was the visible sign of that curse.

“The cursing” that the Lord caused to come upon the rebellious Lamanites was to be cut off from His presence (see 2 Nephi 5:20–21). The Lord caused “a skin of blackness to come upon them” so that the Nephites would not mix, or intermarry, with them and bring the curse upon themselves (see vv. 21–23).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/2-nephi-5?lang=eng&query=2nd+Nephi+5

Race and the Priesthood disavows 2nd Nephi 5:21

So you're saying the church taught that the Lamanites had black skin?  Black as in African?   I'll have to go back to my Arnold Friburg painting collection and look for all the Lamanites with "black" skin. 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Interestingly, the First Presidency wrote an official letter in 1949 in response to questions about the Priesthood Ban - they stated unequivocally that the ban for people with black skin was doctrinal. The current First Presidency has disavowed that. How should that now inform our thinking?

What verse in 2 Nephi 5 refers talks about the priesthood ban?  I see nothing in there about Ham or Cain or those of African descent.  We're talking about the Book of Mormon here.  Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is it taught that the Lamanites do not have a right to the priesthood because of skin color.

Edited September 6, 2017 by ksfisher

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

So you're saying the church taught that the Lamanites had black skin?  Black as in African?   I'll have to go back to my Arnold Friburg painting collection and look for all the Lamanites with "black" skin. 

I’m not saying it, I’m quoting the Church teaching it.

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

What verse in 2 Nephi 5 refers talks about the priesthood ban?  I see nothing in there about Ham or Cain or those of African descent.  We're talking about the Book of Mormon here.

 

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

What verse in 2 Nephi 5 refers talks about the priesthood ban?  I see nothing in there about Ham or Cain or those of African descent.  We're talking about the Book of Mormon here.

Do you see in verse 21 where God applies a curse and the sign of that curse is a black skin?

Do you see in Race And The Priesthood where the Church disavows all theories of the past that depict black skin as a sign of a curse from God?

Now, connect those two dots...

Trying to deflect into Priesthood Ban, Ham or Cain(not sure why you’ve brought those into something this simple) is missing the wood for the trees.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m not saying it, I’m quoting the Church teaching it.

The church taught that the Lamanites had black skin?  Really?  Never heard that in my life.  Do you have an example?  Is it reflected in artwork that was published by the church?

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Do you see in verse 21 where God applies a curse and the sign of that curse is a black skin?

Do you see in Race And The Priesthood where the Church disavows all theories of the past that depict black skin as a sign of a curse from God?

Now, connect those two dots...

Trying to deflect into Priesthood Ban, Ham or Cain(not sure why you’ve brought those into something this simple) is missing the wood for the trees.

It appears that you do not understand that colors could have symbolic meanings to ancient peoples and that that symbolism exists in the Book of Mormon.

I've done a little bit of painting.  I would never use the color black to illustrate the color of a Lamanite or African.  I would never use the color white for a Nephite or a Caucasian.  The colors just don't literally match.

Edited September 6, 2017 by ksfisher

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The church taught that the Lamanites had black skin?  Really?  Never heard that in my life.  Do you have an example?  Is it reflected in artwork that was published by the church?

I’ve quoted from, and linked to , the Church manual earlier in the thread. You even commented on it. If you have a problem with what the Church taught not matching your favourite church artwork, I suggest you take it up with them.

Note: I’m genuinely open to you referencing other official Church teaching resources from later than 2000 (date of my quoted manual) that explain skin of blackness in 2nd Nephi 5:21 means something other than black skin.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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:

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

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

 

it's true as per DC 70:3 and 42:56-"Preserved in Safety"

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’ve quoted from, and linked to , the Church manual earlier in the thread. You even commented on it. If you have a problem with what the Church taught not matching your favourite church artwork, I suggest you take it up with them.

The Race and the Priesthood essay?  Where does it say that the church previously taught that the Lamanites had black skin.

[rodheadlee]

So we are all going to run out and buy new scriptures? I don't think you people questioning the church realize the logistics of changing the scriptures and getting it to the people in all the various languages.

[Marginal Gains]

39 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Or we could go with what the Church actually taught - that the curse was to be cut off from the Lord and changing their actual skin colour to black was the visible sign of that curse.

“The cursing” that the Lord caused to come upon the rebellious Lamanites was to be cut off from His presence (see 2 Nephi 5:20–21). The Lord caused “a skin of blackness to come upon them” so that the Nephites would not mix, or intermarry, with them and bring the curse upon themselves (see vv. 21–23).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/2-nephi-5?lang=eng&query=2nd+Nephi+5

Race and the Priesthood disavows 2nd Nephi 5:21

 

30 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So you're saying the church taught that the Lamanites had black skin?  Black as in African?   I'll have to go back to my Arnold Friburg painting collection and look for all the Lamanites with "black" skin. 

 

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The Race and the Priesthood essay?  Where does it say that the church previously taught that the Lamanites had black skin.

See above.

1. Where I post a quote from a Church teaching manual (not Race and the Priesthood) and provide a link.

2. Where you respond to the quote I posted from the Church manual with associated link.

3. Where you seemingly forget that I’ve posted a quote from a Church teaching manual with associated link and to which you responded.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

 

See above.

1. Where I post a quote from the Church teaching manual and provide a link.

2. Where you respond to the quote I posted from the Church manual with associated link.

3. Where you seemingly forget that I’ve posted a quote from a Church teaching manual with associated link and to which you responded.

You mean this quote?

2 Nephi 5:20–25—“The Cursing” Was Not “a Skin of Blackness”

“The cursing” that the Lord caused to come upon the rebellious Lamanites was to be cut off from His presence (see 2 Nephi 5:20–21). The Lord caused “a skin of blackness to come upon them” so that the Nephites would not mix, or intermarry, with them and bring the curse upon themselves (see vv. 21–23).

 

You are not understanding the symbolism.

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, ksfisher said:

You mean this quote?

2 Nephi 5:20–25—“The Cursing” Was Not “a Skin of Blackness”

“The cursing” that the Lord caused to come upon the rebellious Lamanites was to be cut off from His presence (see 2 Nephi 5:20–21). The Lord caused “a skin of blackness to come upon them” so that the Nephites would not mix, or intermarry, with them and bring the curse upon themselves (see vv. 21–23).

 

You are not understanding the symbolism.

Then point me to where the Church teaches that ‘skin of blackness’ (as above, the visible sign of the curse to prevent mixing and intermarriage) does not mean skin of blackness.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Or we could go with what the Church actually taught - that the curse was to be cut off from the Lord and changing their actual skin colour to black was the visible sign of that curse.

“The cursing” that the Lord caused to come upon the rebellious Lamanites was to be cut off from His presence (see 2 Nephi 5:20–21). The Lord caused “a skin of blackness to come upon them” so that the Nephites would not mix, or intermarry, with them and bring the curse upon themselves (see vv. 21–23).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/2-nephi-5?lang=eng&query=2nd+Nephi+5

Race and the Priesthood disavows 2nd Nephi 5:21

And yet Lamanites were never barred from the priesthood...Samuel the Lamanite being a prophet prevented that, so however the curse was seen, it was not comparable to the Curse of Cain/Ham in LDS teachings/views.

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

And yet Lamanites were never barred from the priesthood...Samuel the Lamanite being a prophet prevented that, so however the curse was seen, it was not comparable to the Curse of Cain/Ham in LDS teachings/views.

Oh I agree there’s something incongruous in all of this, but that’s for the Church to explain, not me. 

My understanding of Race and the Priesthood is that it’s an effort to put all of this curse, skin colour, priesthood ban stuff away once and for all. Including that passage in 2nd Nephi. Personally, I don’t think it works whilst the passage in 2nd Nephi remains part of the canon. Given the current statements coming out of the Church on white supremacy, it’s removal is overdue in my opinion.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

If we don't need to go there they why did you bring it up?  I would like some examples of changes the church has made to the scriptures because of "extensive pressure from the outside..."  I'm not meaning to imply that there are or are not changes, but would like to know what these "extensive" changes are that you mention.

Here ya go