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

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I agree that we should have respect for the scriptures.  But as with the examples in the OP I don't think making the change that you've listed would change any of the doctrine presented in those verses. 

Depends on what you understand to be doctrine.  "Sun" versus "Son" might be important, and you might want to take a look at Royal Skousen's appendix in his 2009 Yale edition of the BofM.  Then tell me that there are no doctrinal differences.  Of course, if one doesn't really care at all about being accurate then any slapdash and slipshod approach will do.

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Vast changes in the BofM have already been made, in many of its editions, but especially in the 1920 and 1981 editions.  And those changes were not made based on outside pressure.

 

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well then let's keep pushing for changes again.  Maybe it'll happen soon. 

Stem;

Did you read the part where Robert wrote that the, "changes were not based on outside pressure"? 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

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 Motmon 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. 

Likely because after the first few generations both Nephites and Lamanites had the same skin color.

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wouldn't Greek scholars be needed as well?

 

I don't know. Everything they talk about "sounds Greek to me". 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Darren10

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Depends on what you understand to be doctrine.  "Sun" versus "Son" might be important, and you might want to take a look at Royal Skousen's appendix in his 2009 Yale edition of the BofM.  Then tell me that there are no doctrinal differences.  Of course, if one doesn't really care at all about being accurate then any slapdash and slipshod approach will do.

On a tangent, what is your understanding of the phrase "Sun or Righteousness"?  I find it's use in Ether intresting.

Edited September 7, 2017 by ksfisher

[Darren10]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Likely because after the first few generations both Nephites and Lamanites had the same skin color.

I would agree. Also, I am not so certain their physiological skin colors were all that different to begin with. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Darren10

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

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?

1.  Documentary Hypothesis, multiple sources for the Hebrew Bible.  

2.  Scholarship on the gospels, their differences in authorship and narrative.  

3. Then take any book like Job and do a critical analysis of the text including the best scholarship.  

So much to learn, a wealth of interesting things.  

[Darren10]

On 9/6/2017 at 2:24 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

In that article the Church disavows theories which purported that people of darker skins had them because of some sin in the past. The Nephites never looked upon anyone and thought, "you have dark skin color. Someone in your ancestry sinned resulting in your skin color."

Edited September 8, 2017 by Darren10

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

 

Stem;

Did you read the part where Robert wrote that the, "changes were not based on outside pressure"? 

I'm not sure why there is so much defensiveness to the outside pressure comment when it comes to changes in the church.  The church can't function in a vacuum chamber.  It's constantly responding to outside pressure as we all are individually as well.  It's just a fact of life.  

[Darren10]

On 9/6/2017 at 2:49 PM, 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?

 

*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

True enough. The Church did disavow itself from those teachings. Not from the Book of Mormon though. 

Note: this is one more example which shows why I place my faith in the Standard Works and from declarations unamynously signed by *both* the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. While a statement by only the First Presidency is extremely reliable and the Prohpet absolutely may speak for the entire church, a unamynous agreement between both groups is what creates an unshakable foundation to show "what Mormons believe". 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure why there is so much defensiveness to the outside pressure comment when it comes to changes in the church.  The church can't function in a vacuum chamber.  It's constantly responding to outside pressure as we all are individually as well.  It's just a fact of life.  

I do believe outside pressure affects the Church and changes it makes. The Church constantly considers outside pressure bit the manner in which stem structured his claim was hat outside pressure is the  Church changes. That's not true beyond it creating and influence of consideration. The Bretheren take their considerations to God and allow the Hoyl Spirit to guide its changes, not the pressure itself. 

[cdowis]

5 hours 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

There is no necessity for a change.  The text as it stands does not contradict the doctrine of equality if you carefully, with an open mind, read what it actually says, instead of pouring your modern interpretation into the text.   As Jacob made clear ==>>

Jacob 3 [8] O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

It was a matter of practicality rather than of racial preference.

Edited September 7, 2017 by cdowis

[Darren10]

On 9/6/2017 at 7:02 PM, 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.

I agree but ditching the KJV all together as the only Bible version it officially endorses? I hope that does not happen. 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Darren10

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I do believe outside pressure affects the Church and changes it makes. The Church constantly considers outside pressure bit the manner in which stem structured his claim was hat outside pressure is the  Church changes. That's not true beyond it creating and influence of consideration. The Bretheren take their considerations to God and allow the Hoyl Spirit to guide its changes, not the pressure itself. 

That's really just a matter of interpretation of events.  One mans interpretation is that the process is very natural and another believes it's very divinely guided.  I can't see how it's not both or how anyone can effectively separate those kinds of subjective claims.  

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

 

Stem;

Did you read the part where Robert wrote that the, "changes were not based on outside pressure"? 

Yes and I responded favorably

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure why there is so much defensiveness to the outside pressure comment when it comes to changes in the church.  The church can't function in a vacuum chamber.  It's constantly responding to outside pressure as we all are individually as well.  It's just a fact of life.  

The topic here is not "changes in the Church." The topic is very specific: textual corrections to the Book of Mormon.

Read the thread title. Then  read the OP. Finally, show us, if you can, any textual correction to the Book of Mormon that has come about in response to "outside pressure."

If you want to talk about changes in the Church (as though that dead horse hadn't already been beaten to an inert and bloody pulp) start your own thread to do so.

[Bobbieaware]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

1.  Documentary Hypothesis, multiple sources for the Hebrew Bible.  

2.  Scholarship on the gospels, their differences in authorship and narrative.  

3. Then take any book like Job and do a critical analysis of the text including the best scholarship.  

So much to learn, a wealth of interesting things.  

How does the use of King James Bible make all of the above not possible to do?

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

 

Sounds like you're getting too defensive.  Of course changes by the leaders constitutes changes in the church.  I don't know why you're being so tedious here.  I've  already responded to past textual changes in this thread.  

Edited September 7, 2017 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Depends on what you understand to be doctrine.  "Sun" versus "Son" might be important, and you might want to take a look at Royal Skousen's appendix in his 2009 Yale edition of the BofM.  Then tell me that there are no doctrinal differences.  Of course, if one doesn't really care at all about being accurate then any slapdash and slipshod approach will do.

Didn't Skousen himself say none of the errors change any of the theology?

 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The topic here is not "changes in the Church." The topic is very specific: textual corrections to the Book of Mormon.

Read the thread title. Then  read the OP. Finally, show us, if you can, any textual correction to the Book of Mormon that has come about in response to "outside pressure."

If you want to talk about changes in the Church (as though that dead horse hadn't already been beaten to an inert and bloody pulp) start your own thread to do so.

He is interested in people's thoughts regarding why changes have not been made by top leaders.  That would constitute changes in the church.  The corrections the premise holds are already there to implement the changes.  Why no changes in the church on this?  

I think something has gotten in the way of you seeing clearly Scott.  Peace to you

Edited September 7, 2017 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds like you're getting too defensive.  Of course changes by the leaders constitutes changes in the church.  I don't know why you're being so tedious here.  The be already responded to past textual changes in this thread.  

Just trying to make sense of why you keep pressing your point about "outside pressure" causing "changes in the Church" when it has nothing to do with the thread topic, which is textual corrections to the Book of Mormon.

But I can see you're not disposed to explain yourself, so I'm ready to drop the matter now.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just trying to make sense of why you keep pressing your point about "outside pressure" causing "changes in the Church" when it has nothing to do with the thread topic, which is textual changes in the Book of Mormon.

But I can see you're not disposed to explain yourself, so I'm ready to drop the matter now.

That's good because it's obvious the op is asking about why no changes by top leaders, or in other words,  the church.  It's a good move Scott.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He is interested in people's thoughts regarding why changes have not been made by top leaders.  That would constitute changes in the church.  The corrections the premise holds are already there to implement the changes.  Why no changes on the church on this?  

I think something has gotten in the way of seeing clearly Scott.  Peace to toy

If corrections to the text have been made in the past that were not driven by "outside pressure," I don't see why you think "outside pressure" would be essential going forward. That's the long and short of it.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If corrections to the text have been made in the past that were not driven by "outside pressure," I don't see why you think "outside pressure" would be essential going forward. That's the long and short of it.

I have already responded to this.  I guess we'll see.  It's a wonder the changes haven't been implemented as yet.  It looks like it'll take more pressure, either from within or without.  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

On a tangent, what is your understanding of the phrase "Sun or Righteousness"?  I find it's use in Ether intresting.

Malachi 3:20 (KJV 4:2) “the Sun of Righteousness will arise with healing in his wings” -- Hellenistic Judaism did identify Yahweh with the Sun (Helios),[1] and the glyptic art of the ancient Near East is rife with winged sun-disks – often accompanied by uraei – which are commonly taken as the symbol of the king or head of pantheon.  In the Levant, of course, winged sun-disks were everywhere the symbol of Semitic ʼEl.^[2]  Ether 9:22 is one more indication that the Jaredites came from a north Mesopotamian area influenced by that same iconogarphy.  Coriantumr saw Yahweh.

Jesus is the "Rising Sun" in Luke 1:78, and his “face shone like the sun in full strength” in Rev 1:16.

Psalm 84:11 "Truly sun and suzerain is Yahweh God" (M. Dahood trans)

4Q541 (4QAaronA/4QAhA) (24 [25] frags dated to ca 100 B.C.; a second copy in 3 frags is 4QTestLevi^c) frag 9 "He will atone for all the children of his generation, and he will be sent to all the children of his [pe]ople. His word is like a word of heaven, and his teaching is in accordance with the will of God. His eternal sun will shine, and his light will be kindled in all the corners of the earth, and it will shine on the darkness..."

---

[1] Lucille Roussin, “Helios in the Synagogue: Did Some Ancient Jews Worship the Sun God?” BAR, 27/1 (Mar-Apr 2001):53-56; D. Kelley & E. Milone, Exploring Ancient Skies: A Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy, 2^nd ed. (Springer, 2011), 220, citing J. Campbell, 1964/1970:274-275; cf. Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988 Abridgment), 121.

^[2] Y. Yadin in J. A. Sanders, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century (Doubleday, 1970), 202-203; cf. A. Ben-Tor, Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Palestine (Scholars Press, 1978), for the context of glyptic art of ancient Near East; E. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols. (N.Y.: Pantheon, 1953-1968); K. van der Toorn, “Sun,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI:239; J. Glen Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel, JSOT Supplement 111 (Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); Mark S. Smith, “The Near Eastern Background for Solar Language for Yahweh,” JBL, 109 (1990):29-39.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Robert F. Smith