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

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

Vast changes have already been made in the BofM text, without any outside or inside pressure.  They began with Joseph Smith himself in the 1837 edition, and have continued into the present. It is as though you haven't bothered to read this thread yet.

[stemelbow]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Vast changes have already been made in the BofM text, without any outside or inside pressure.  They began with Joseph Smith himself in the 1837 edition, and have continued into the present. It is as though you haven't bothered to read this thread yet.

I hear ya.  It'll be interesting to see what happens with these proposed changes.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour 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 OP and my comments were solely based on changes to the text of the BofM.  Why are you derailing the thread?

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I have heard him make that point many times, but I still challenge anyone wondering to take a look at his long list in that 2009 Appendix.  I think that there are substantive changes to the text which need to be made, and that they do have some small theological effect.  However, no gross effects.  The problem with the KJV is far more serious, and can be a nightmare to interpret.  What is noteworthy is that some Conference addresses include citation of translations other than the KJV.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[hope_for_things]

38 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.

Recent changes to the title page, not sure if you consider that textual, but changing the wording of the Lamanites no longer being the principle ancestors I would consider outside influenced by DNA and lack of Archeological evidence.  

Also changing the white and delightsome in 2 Nephi 30 which is related to this thread I also think was influenced by the broader society.  Those are a couple off the top of my head.  

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

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

 

Probably not tied directly to the KJV, only that there is a tendency for Mormons to be scared of engaging in other translations that I've seen.  I think both studying the scholarship and using other translations are important.  

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Yes, and God expects his people to think for  themselves for the most part.  Come to Him when some really important and difficult issue arises.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The OP and my comments were solely based on changes to the text of the BofM.  Why are you derailing the thread?

Certainly not trying to derail the thread.  I think your comment and others that BoM textual changes weren't influenced by outside forces isn't an accurate interpretation of history. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Certainly not trying to derail the thread.  I think your comment and others that BoM textual changes weren't influenced by outside forces isn't an accurate interpretation of history. 

Perhaps you would like to educate me on those outside influences which led to changes in the text.  What historical data are you using?

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you would like to educate me on those outside influences which led to changes in the text.  What historical data are you using?

Observations of events same as others I suspect.  I mentioned a couple changes in a earlier post that I believe to be influenced by outside events.  

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Certainly not trying to derail the thread.  I think your comment and others that BoM textual changes weren't influenced by outside forces isn't an accurate interpretation of history. 

So which Book of Mormon textual changes have been influenced by outside forces?  

You mention the title page, but I think you really mean the introduction.  The introduction is not part of the translated text of the Book of Mormon.  

My understanding of the change in 2 Nephi 30:6 was that it was made by Joseph Smith.  He changed white to pure in that verse.  What outside pressures were working on him that led him to make that change?

"The Prophet Joseph Smith made an important textual emendation to this passage in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, where the phrase “a white and a delightsome people” was changed to “a pure and a delightsome people.” According to Royal Skousen, “The 1840 change of white to pure seems to be a conscious one and was probably made by Joseph Smith as part of his editing of the 1840 edition. The change does not appear to be an accidental error based on any visual or phonetic resemblance between the two words.”

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-white-and-delightsome-people

Edited September 7, 2017 by ksfisher

[mfbukowski]

error

Edited September 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[sunstoned]

3 hours 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 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. 

Apologetic hand waving aside, If helps you to believe then go ahead and think that.  Trouble is, that is not what the text of the BoM says.  In the following verse, what do you think most non bias people would think a skin of blackness would mean?  It is obvious it is not fair and delightsome.  

". . . 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 (2 Nephi 5:21)."

Here is just one of the verses that speaks of the cursing upon their skins.

"Behold the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins . . ." (Jacob 3:5).

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Every record we have of God's dealings with man indicate that he has always chosen some races/tribes/families/individuals over others.
It is only our modern "compassion" that doesn't allow us to attribute that to God.  Basically, we have to make God in our own image to change what we actually know about God.

I agree with your interpretation of the scriptures on this.  What really bothers me is precisely the point that you have brought up.  That is our (modern society) compassion seems to be much higher than gods.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

In the following verse, what do you think most non bias people would think a skin of blackness would mean?

It depends on their backgrounds and expertise. Though I've recently left my academic career, I'm a trained historian (PhD), and I know that any reference to 'black skin' and 'white skin' in European source materials before the 18th century is not racial in any contemporary sense and often has absolutely nothing to do with the colour of skin. For example, I've worked in 16th-century materials where the Europeans identified the people living along the coast of New Guinea as having white skin in contrast to people living in the interior having black skin. I also have accounts by Jesuits that frequently refer to a village chief as being white in contrast to the rest of the village. And I have heaps of letters that assure people back in Europe that the Japanese where white like Europeans.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

My understanding of the change in 2 Nephi 30:6 was that it was made by Joseph Smith.  He changed white to pure in that verse.  What outside pressures were working on him that led him to make that change?

"The Prophet Joseph Smith made an important textual emendation to this passage in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, where the phrase “a white and a delightsome people” was changed to “a pure and a delightsome people.” According to Royal Skousen, “The 1840 change of white to pure seems to be a conscious one and was probably made by Joseph Smith as part of his editing of the 1840 edition. The change does not appear to be an accidental error based on any visual or phonetic resemblance between the two words.”

I find it interesting that few are aware that "white" and "pure" are synonyms, according to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary.  It was merely a clarification.

Quote

 

WHITE  5. Pure; unblemished.

No whiter page than Addisons remains.

6. In a scriptural sense, purified from sin; sanctified. Psalms 51:7.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/white

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

9 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.

The most common descriptors of Native American skin color in the 19th century were copper, red, tawny, and olive.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

Will that make the scriptures more true?

[clarkgoble]

12 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.

I suspect they will - probably on lds.org. I suspect work is on some major revisions and they're just waiting for the Joseph Smith Papers to wrap up first.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Apologetic hand waving aside, If helps you to believe then go ahead and think that.  Trouble is, that is not what the text of the BoM says.  In the following verse, what do you think most non bias people would think a skin of blackness would mean?  It is obvious it is not fair and delightsome.  

". . . 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 (2 Nephi 5:21)."

Here is just one of the verses that speaks of the cursing upon their skins.

"Behold the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins . . ." (Jacob 3:5).

The easy answer is just to acknowledge the Nephites were racist and xenophobic. It's pretty clear from the text they were and I think ought be a warning to us. For much of the narrative the Lamanites are the good guys and are trying to warn the Nephites. Yet the Nephites are barely willing to even acknowledge Samuel the Lamanite. I'd add that the Nephite treatment of Lamanites in many ways parallels Jewish treatment of Samaritans. And of course the Jews were pretty xenophobic. (Thus the problems with the gospel going to the gentiles in the New Testament)

I'd add that the skin of blackness is probably better explained as paint or tattoos, which were common in the mesoamerican region. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect they will - probably on lds.org. I suspect work is on some major revisions and they're just waiting for the Joseph Smith Papers to wrap up first.

Think about the size of this task. After the English edition was corrected, all other editions would then need to be corrected. And then literally every single manual, etc. that has any of those verses. Huge.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Recent changes to the title page, not sure if you consider that textual, but changing the wording of the Lamanites no longer being the principle ancestors I would consider outside influenced by DNA and lack of Archeological evidence.  

Also changing the white and delightsome in 2 Nephi 30 which is related to this thread I also think was influenced by the broader society.  Those are a couple off the top of my head.  

The introduction to the Book of Mormon is definitely not part of the text, any more than the page numbers or copyright notice are. 

But the assumption that the Lamanite were the principal ancestors was problematic even before the DNA argument came along. The DNA argument was pretty much dead on arrival, because serious scholars and students of the book had already rejected the notion of Lamanite being the principal ancestors. A careful review of the internal evidence revealed that the traditional assumption could not be sustained. 

The phrase "pure and delight some" had already appeared in Book of Mormon editions that pre-dated those in which had been rendered "white and delightsome". The change brought it into conformity with the earlier edition.

Not very persuasive. Do you have anything else?

Edited September 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The easy answer is just to acknowledge the Nephites were racist and xenophobic. It's pretty clear from the text they were and I think ought be a warning to us. 

What racism do you see in the Nephites?  Xenophobic yes.  It seems like pretty much every ancient culture was to one degree or another xenophobic.  I imagine it had a lot to do with self preservation.  But I'm not sure that I see racism as in the way we use that term today.

"Brant A. Gardner remarked that “the Book of Mormon is, in fact, racist,” but quickly added that it is “not at all ['racist'] in the usual sense of the term.”6Rather than being a form of modern racism that bases antipathy on a difference of skin color, Gardner reads Nephite “racism” as an ethnocentrism “along the insider/outsider boundary, not the white/dark boundary.”7 Gardner concluded that “the ‘skin of blackness’ was certainly intended to be a pejorative term, but it was not a physical description."

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-white-and-delightsome-people

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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 “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.

Impressive scholarship. 

But if "Sun" is a metaphor for "Son," then I see no theological effect that the error has, although I do grant there is a loss in poetic or rhetorical or symbolic value. 

If this is typical of other items on Skousen's list, then I would have to agree with his assessment about theological effect. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Impressive scholarship. 

But if "Sun" is a metaphor for "Son," then I see no theological effect that the error has, although I do grant there is a loss in poetic or rhetorical or symbolic value. 

If this is typical of other items on Skousen's list, then I would have to agree with his assessment about theological effect. 

Well, Sun is not a metaphor for Son.  It is a complete mistake based on being a homonym, which is a common mistake for a scribe in English.  Since the words are very different in Hebrew, the source of the error cannot be ancient.  This failure results in a misunderstanding of the nature of deity, since we only understand deity through the ways in which He is described.  Since there are many failures of description in the KJV, it does work a hardship on the sincere Bible student to wend his way through a maze of false descriptions.  As things stand right now, for example, even sophisticated LDS historians have a very hard time understanding why it appears that the NT church is so utterly different from the OT.  There does not seem to be continuity to them from the world of the OT to early Christianity.  Indeed, they are subject to a complete misunderstanding of the correct relationship of the OT and NT, only because the English KJV terminology is so different between the two testaments.  This further leads to discomfort with what is sometimes seen as the "Christianizing" of the OT sections of the Book of Mormon, which seems incongruous to those not truly familiar with the ancient languages.  They base their failed judgment upon the thin veneer of difference injected by the various translators of biblical Hebrew set over against those who did the NT translation from koine Greek (beginning with Tyndale and culminating in the KJV).  Failure to use consistent terminology has led to the false impression of anachronism, which can lead to unbelief due to some incorrect theological assumptions.  So,  although it may seem to be nitpicking, the tendency to soft-pedal accuracy and consistency does have a cost.  I see no reason to continue to pay that cost, nor to allow those incorrect theological assumptions to gain credence.