stemelbow Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: What change to the scriptural text has resulted from that? https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng enjoy.
ksfisher Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Here ya go I understand what you're saying here, however I don't think that OD1 changed any scripture. OD1 changed church policy and the doctrine under which the church operated in regards to marital sealings for the living, but nothing was changed in the scriptures.
stemelbow Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: I understand what you're saying here, however I don't think that OD1 changed any scripture. OD1 changed church policy and the doctrine under which the church operated in regards to marital sealings for the living, but nothing was changed in the scriptures. I understand. That'd be debatable. I say adding scripture to end a practice is a change. Anywho, thanks for understanding.
ksfisher Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: I understand. That'd be debatable. I say adding scripture to end a practice is a change. Anywho, thanks for understanding. OD1 did not bring about changes as are being contemplated by the OP. That's what I'm saying.
stemelbow Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: OD1 did not bring about changes as are being contemplated by the OP. That's what I'm saying. Fine by me. I was just commenting on the Church changing things, anything, really. This was a change. So take care.
hope_for_things Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 4 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. Any changes to scriptural canon brings along with it, criticism and questions about the changes. So from a PR perspective there is some negative attention the church would like to avoid. Joseph was constantly revising his revelations to fit his ever evolving theology, but the modern church works much slower and more cautiously as some myths about the revelation/inspiration process have become substantial points of doctrine in the tradition, many people are hesitant to make changes because of the perception that changing any wording is altering the pure and divine will that was earlier expressed. Unfortunately, this is a naive reading of the history of how these texts developed. The words were not considered unalterable by the early church leaders especially Joseph. I think most of them viewed revelation as a process more than a snapshot of the will of the divine.
hope_for_things Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. How about ditching the KJV as the official translation of preference all together and encouraging use of other translations like the NRSV and actually endorsing biblical scholarship institutionally so that the church culture as a whole can move forward on biblical scholarship instead of being stuck in early 19th century perspectives.
hope_for_things Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said: 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. I agree with this in light of the recent public statement. Editing these scriptures to align with the church's current views, as well as explicitly apologizing for the past would be two really important steps the church could take to help heal the racism still found in the institution. This is an issue of practicing what you preach. That newsroom statement needs to be backed up by real changes in the organization, otherwise its just lip service. 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 ksfisher wrote: Quote 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. I think that the issue of 'word' and 'sword' though is a particularly good one to highlight for this question. They may both be metaphorical, but, there is a really, really large gap between the two. Why? Because the context is a vision of the Tree of Life (a retelling of sorts of Genesis 3 in reverse). And in that context, the image of a "sword of justice" relates very specifically to an element from that Genesis narrative: Quote So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Gen. 3:24) And this means that the original reading may be much more specific in its metaphorical message than the current reading. It is these sorts of little details that interest us ... 2
ksfisher Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: ksfisher wrote: I think that the issue of 'word' and 'sword' though is a particularly good one to highlight for this question. They may both be metaphorical, but, there is a really, really large gap between the two. Why? Because the context is a vision of the Tree of Life (a retelling of sorts of Genesis 3 in reverse). And in that context, the image of a "sword of justice" relates very specifically to an element from that Genesis narrative: And this means that the original reading may be much more specific in its metaphorical message than the current reading. It is these sorts of little details that interest us ... You are right, I hadn't thought of it in terms of the Genesis narrative. As I wrote, I would be in favor of all the corrections.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng enjoy. Official Declaration 1 was an addition to the scriptural canon, but it did not amount to a change in the existing scriptural text. Nor did it nullify or disavow any of the scriptural passages on plural marriage, which were valid -- and remain so -- for the time in which they were given. Is this all you have to back up your assertion? Edited September 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: ksfisher wrote: I think that the issue of 'word' and 'sword' though is a particularly good one to highlight for this question. They may both be metaphorical, but, there is a really, really large gap between the two. Why? Because the context is a vision of the Tree of Life (a retelling of sorts of Genesis 3 in reverse). And in that context, the image of a "sword of justice" relates very specifically to an element from that Genesis narrative: And this means that the original reading may be much more specific in its metaphorical message than the current reading. It is these sorts of little details that interest us ... It is true that some essential meaning is lost with the error. But I also agree with Skousen, who said that no theology is at stake with the errors or the corrections thereof. Edited September 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Fine by me. I was just commenting on the Church changing things, anything, really. This was a change. So take care. But not a change to the scriptural text, which was how I worded the question I put to you. Edited September 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Official Declaration 2 was an addition to the scriptural canon, but it did not amount to a change in the existing scriptural text. Nor did it nullify or disavow any of the scriptural passages on plural marriages which were valid -- and remain so -- for the time in which they were given. Is this all you have to back up your assertion? what assertion? My point was change has come slowly and has come after outside pressures. Adding to scripture is change.
stemelbow Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: But not a change to the scriptural text, which was how I worded the question I put to you. then you misunderstood
Bobbieaware Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: How about ditching the KJV as the official translation of preference all together and encouraging use of other translations like the NRSV and actually endorsing biblical scholarship institutionally so that the church culture as a whole can move forward on biblical scholarship instead of being stuck in early 19th century perspectives. Would you please list at least three of the 19th century perspectives derived from the King James Version that you think are holding back the Church from a better understanding of the Bible?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, stemelbow said: what assertion? My point was change has come slowly and has come after outside pressures. Adding to scripture is change. You started out claiming that corrections to the scriptural text will not occur unless there is outside pressure to do so. You were challenged to show an instance in which outside pressure has resulted in a change to the scriptural text. Your response was to cite Official Declaration 1 and then smugly say "Enjoy." But Official Declaration 1 is not a change to the scriptural text. It is an addition to the scriptural canon, one that does not invalidate anything that was there before, but supersedes a portion of it. Furthermore, it does not amount to a correction of existing text, which was the initial point of discussion and which you implied does not occur without outside pressure. Edited September 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Robert F. Smith Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: How about ditching the KJV as the official translation of preference all together and encouraging use of other translations like the NRSV and actually endorsing biblical scholarship institutionally so that the church culture as a whole can move forward on biblical scholarship instead of being stuck in early 19th century perspectives. Yes. Or providing their own translation. There are a number of skilled LDS Hebraists available to work on an up-to-date translation. However, I think that unlikely in the near term. 3
stemelbow Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You started out claiming that corrections to the scriptural text will not occur unless there is outside pressure to do so. No. I said changes in the church will come when there's enough outside pressure Amounts. We'll see these changes, those mentioned in OP, when pressure mounts. But I was thinking generally of change in the church. Change to canonized scripture (not to the text as the OP asks) has happened. Addition is change. 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You were challenged to show an instance in which outside pressure has resulted in a change to the scriptural text. Your response was to cite Official Declaration 1 and then smugly say "Enjoy." But Official Declaration 1 is not a change to the scriptural text. It is an addition to the scriptural canon, one that does not invalidate anything that was there before, but supersedes a portion of it. The challenger, then, misunderstood my point as I pointed out. Take care, Scott
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes. Or providing their own translation. There are a number of skilled LDS Hebraists available to work on an up-to-date translation. However, I think that unlikely in the near term. Wouldn't Greek scholars be needed as well?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: No. I said changes in the church will come when there's enough outside pressure Amounts. We'll see these changes, those mentioned in OP, when pressure mounts. But I was thinking generally of change in the church. Change to canonized scripture (not to the text as the OP asks) has happened. Addition is change. The challenger, then, misunderstood my point as I pointed out. Take care, Scott The OP was not about "changes in the Church." It was all about correction of textual errors in the scriptures, errors that have persisted over the years. Go back and read it. 1
stemelbow Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: The OP was not about "changes in the Church." It was all about correction of textual errors in the scriptures, errors that have persisted over the years. Go back and read it. I think you've misunderstood me. Not a big deal. I assume any changes asked about in the op will come when pressure mounts. I thought the church has been slow to change in most cases. I did offer a case wherein change took place after pressure mounted, after asked by you and another. Hope for the best for you.
Darren10 Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) 5 hours 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. Their "curse" wasn't of black skin. Their "curse" was their spiritual falling away from God. Their "dark skin" was their mark. We've no idea what exactly "dark skin" meant in the Book of Mormon but we do know it was NEVER used as a means of social value. On other words, to put it point blank, the Nephites never used race to determine superiority or inferiority of anyone. Edited September 7, 2017 by Darren10 1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Wouldn't Greek scholars be needed as well? Naturally. But no Hebraist worth his salt can do biblical translation without knowing the LXX Greek versions also. Scholars today have all the important texts on their computer screens simultaneously (the Massoretic Hebrew Text, with critical text notes from the Septuagint, Qumran, the Aramaic Targums, etc.). I tried providing a lot of that in my three-volume edition of the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text, https://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodical/orig-farms-bom-critical-text/ . 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 Just now, stemelbow said: I think you've misunderstood me. Not a big deal. I assume any changes asked about in the op will come when pressure mounts. I thought the church has been slow to change in most cases. I did offer a case wherein change took place after pressure mounted, after asked by you and another. Hope for the best for you. Again, the OP is not about "changes in the Church." It's about corrections to textual errors in the Book of Mormon (see the thread title). OD 1 is not even in the Book of Mormon. It's in the Doctrine and Covenants. There have been many textual corrections to the Book of Mormon over the years, but none of these have come about in response to "outside pressure."
Recommended Posts