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

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I'm not arguing against making corrections, only questioning the intensity if any of the effect of the errors in theology. 

[clarkgoble]

40 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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."

"Racist" as a term is fairly ambiguous. (Especially given recent shifts in use tied to power dynamics) The line between xenophobic and racism to me tends to be tied to what degree a group is part of ones community versus true outsiders. So to me Samaritan treatment by Jews is racism. This is all complicated by Jewish prohibitions of marrying outside of the covenant and rules about intermixing with gentiles. Throw in that apparently the Nephites were farmers or at least more established and their enemies at the beginning more hunter/gathers and things get complicated. 

But it's true racism, especially in an American context is complicated. While treatment of Africans is obvious the social construction of "white" in America is quite complex. So you get Europeans not being considered white simply because they weren't British, German or Scandanavian. (With Irish being even more complicated) Yet sometime in the mid-20th century they and many hispanics become white. 

Jewish "racism" is much more tied to religious apostasy. Thus the more Canaanite Samaritans who avoided the exile are persecuted and hated, largely due to minor religious differences. The inside/outside category is socially determined and in one sense doesn't make a ton of sense. 

For the Nephites it's complicated since they were pretty open to prosylatize, perhaps because they thought all non-Nephites were technically Jewish due to the separation from the Lamanites early on. (I'm here assuming Lamanites quickly merge with and are swamped by indigenous peoples) This is a situation in many ways quite unlike what the Jews experience after the exile, although the pre-Hezekiah period is again pretty complicated. (Think Moses before returning to Egypt) The fact that the group they designate as Lamanites are easy to distinguish in some circumstances (but not in others - it's inconsistent) adds to all this. Trapping of this as I mention persist through the main narrative period from Benjamin until Christ comes. 

So while racism in the American sense doesn't fit exactly due to the very different context, I'm not sure there's a better term especially given the fundamental issue is how regular people will interpret these various passages. It's just easier to acknowledge the Nephites prejudged the Lamanites often unfairly.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If anyone is interested in reading about the 18th-century development of what we today would call racialist discourse, I strongly recommend Douglas and Ballard (eds), Foreign Bodies: Oceania and the Science of Race 1750–1940, which you can download for free. Reading modern racialist notions back into any pre-18th-century text is an act of presentism.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Robert F. Smith]

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 first example was inserted in the introduction for the 1981 edition, and later removed as false.  It was always a false claim, which the actual text of the BofM did not support, and should not have been inserted in the first place -- the Lamanites could not have been "the principle ancestors" of the vast majority of the Amerinds who have been here for tens of thousands of years.  Nor is there any lack of archeological evidence for the BofM, and no DNA evidence is a problem for the BofM.  That is folklore by anti-Mormons.  In any case, this is not a textual problem for the BofM at all because it was never part of the text.

The second change came in by Joseph Smith in the 1840 edition, but was ignored in subsequent editions until the 1981 edition.  I know of no outside pressures for that change.  Perhaps you could find a source of pressure for us.  I suppose we could also cry out for a change of Daniel 12:10 "Many shall be purified and made white, and tried," to something more innocuous, but I'm not sure there is a demand for it.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Thanks.  I went back and picked up on that just now.

[Darren10]

18 hours 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).

NOTE: Internet troubles kicked in as I tried to post this reply. I will try in another post since I saved my reply at hone and emailed it to myself. I am using my phone which I hate doing.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Darren10

[Marginal Gains]

15 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.

 

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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.  

We also need to keep in mind that all records of God’s dealings with man, are an individual authors interpretation of events. Sometimes second or third hand. Given the natural tendency of some to tribalism, there’s a risk that what is being portrayed is really the authors bias rather than an accurate reflection of Gods choices.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Glenn101]

11 hours 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.

I do not really see the church ever replacing the KJV as the official version with a custom version because the KJV is still probably the most dominant version in the homes of most people with whom the missionaries will come into contact in the U.S. and England. It would be great to have one as a study guide though.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

It would seem that in looking at the Nephites from a modern lens, one could label them collectively in certain eras (when the Nepites were largely unrighteous) as Nephite Supremists. Based upon the history of periodic unprovoked attacks by the Lamanites the fearful part of xenophobia was justified.

Glenn

 

[Marginal Gains]

56 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

It would seem that in looking at the Nephites from a modern lens, one could label them collectively in certain eras (when the Nepites were largely unrighteous) as Nephite Supremists. Based upon the history of periodic unprovoked attacks by the Lamanites the fearful part of xenophobia was justified.

Glenn

 

But it was written from a Nephite perspective, by a Nephite. The Lamanite attacks may not have been deemed ‘unprovoked’ if we had both sides of the story.

[sunstoned]

18 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Prejudice is far older than 19th Century America. But you knew that. Why? Jesus during his mortal ministry went only to the Jews. Was Jesus from god?

I agree prejudice has been with us for as long as recorded history.  That doesn't excuse it though.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Scott Lloyd writes:

Quote

But I also agree with Skousen, who said that no  theology is at stake with the errors or the corrections thereof.

I don't agree with Skousen on this issue. Skousen in many ways reminds me of a protestant view of scripture more generally (I had some discussion about this in my 2016 Fair Conference presentation). This is exactly how many protestants deal with the problem of textual issues with the Bible. Royal reminds me of a statement made by Bart Ehrman in his 2009 book Jesus Interrupted:

Quote

There are certain views of the inspiration of Scripture, such as the one I had pounded into me as a late teenager, that do not stand up well to the facts of textual criticism. For most Christians, who don't have a conservative evangelical view like the one I had, these textual facts can be interesting, but there is nothing in them to challenge their faith, which is built on something other than having the very words that God inspired in the Bible. . . . In any event, as I indicated, these theses themselves were almost entirely noncontroversial. Who can deny that we have thousands of manuscripts? Or hundreds of thousands of variants? Or that lots of the variants involve spelling? Or that scholars continue to debate what the original text was in lots of places? All of these statements are factually true.

The one statement that has stirred up controversy is my claim that some of these variations are significant. This view has been objected to by some conservative evangelicals and no one else that I know of. That gives me pause—why is this criticism coming only from people with a particular set of theological views?

Skousen and I have very different views on the nature of the translation, and the implications that the translation has for reading the text. But it's complicated. Part of what complicates it is the idea of what the meaning should be. I find that we place potential meanings into a hierarchy - but that hierarchy is driven by context. There are many different ways to read texts. If we value the original intent of the author as the most important, then we look for ways to more fully participate in the narrative audience (this might include learning original languages, trying to understand the cultural and historical perspective of the author and so on). Or, we might value the meaning that most closely reflects our current understanding of theology and practices (and this involves likening the scripture unto ourselves). Or it might be the value in a polemical debate (in which case, we might have no problem stripping context and proof texting to make a point). None of these things are inherently bad as long as we are aware of what we are doing. The problem comes when we liken scriptures unto ourselves and then claim that we are tracking the original intentions of the author. In other words, even within the limited interpretive history of the LDS Church, we have sometimes radically altered our interpretation of the text (and this happens in particular as our theology gets altered). At any rate, before I bore everyone, I simply want to point out that we do in fact have significant changes - and that these kinds of issues are quite normal. Whether or not they have a profound impact on our theology depends as much on how we read (and which model of interpretation sits atop our personal hierarchy) as anything else. And this is no different from the gap between those who believe that some of the textual issues with the Biblical text are significant, and those who believe that they aren't.

Skousen may know more than anyone else about a very narrow aspect of the Book of Mormon (as a modern production). But this expertise isn't particularly germane to the question of the meaning of the text (in all of the many potential readings), or to the theology present in those readings (unless, of course, we start from assumptions shared by those conservative evangelicals that Bart Ehrman refers to above).

Ben McGuire

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Will that make the scriptures more true?

I don't know. I haven't reviewed all the proposed changes and made an evaluation. I'm just assuming they are good to go. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

ksfisher writes:

Quote

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

The ones we are most likely to see in this category are the changes made in the 1837 edition (by Joseph Smith). In particular, the several places where Joseph Smith introduced the phrase "the son of" into the text are changes that are likely to have been made as a response to external criticism on the part of Alexander Campbell. You can see discussion of this in Skousen's work, Analysis of Textual Variants, Part 1, pp. 230 ff.

[clarkgoble]

9 hours 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. 

Robert made the main point of not confusing English homonyms with synonyms or metaphors. I'd add that how the Sun is applied to a deity matters a great deal - particularly in the end of the middle platonist period and neoplatonist era up through Augustine. Part of the reason for this is the rise of hellenistic astronomy and whether or how the sun is a planet. Typically in later platonism you have the sun still being a planet but in more complex ways. (Sometimes a blend of heliocentrism and geocentrism, sometimes with an other central orbital point, typically the sphere of fixed stars is greater than the sun which moves) In earlier traditions (especially non-Hellenistic) the sun is an obvious metaphor for greatest. In later ones it gets more complicated due to how orbits are viewed. (You see the same thing in Abraham 3 for instance where God isn't tied to the sun but to the mysterious kolob which is a rotational point - possibly Sirius or some other north star)

Once you throw in the issues of a pantheon view of deity rather than a more strict monotheistic or abstract notion, these small matters can become very significant. That's true in platonism where the One starts to have a complicated logic to it during the late middle period. In the pre-philosophical period where there were broad similarities with influence from Egypt on one hand and Babylon on the other it matters whether you're talking about the head god (Zeus, El, etc.) or a lower being (Baal, etc.) So the difference between Son and Sun can be the difference between the highest figure or a lower figure. So for instance in Egypt for a long time there's solid reasons to distinguish Ra and Horus. During later periods they become more mixed, especially in the Roman areas. Likewise Israel starts distinguishing El from YHWH/Baal and then merges them. 

In the Book of Mormon it's complex because the Lehites are coming during an important transition period in the ANE - but particularly so for Israel which is centralizing the cult and trying to eliminate broadly Canaanite elements from the religion. You then move to a radically different area with unknown syncretistic development for around 500 years before the main part of the narrative. Brant Gardner and others have suggested where the text takes place matters a great deal for understanding it. If mesoAmerica is loosely the context, then that can have a huge issue on son/sun distinctions. So you have the Mayan Kinich Ajaw as a sun god. Izamna is the head god loosely corresponding to El in the Canaanite region but I believe Izamna is also an aspect of Kinich Ajaw. 

So these words can have significant impacts in how we interpret the text. I think Robert's completely right in that.

Now the counterargument is that they may be significant to scholars but not more casual readers. i.e. most members. I again tend to agree with Robert that while Skousen seems to acknowledge no huge theological implications, they can lead to misreadings. (It's trickier with the Book of Mormon since for those of us accepting a loose translation there's far less to the text than the particular words/phrases may suggest) My sense is that the biggest take away from Skousen is noting places where particular texts go to the older words rather than Joseph's revisions. i.e. not really textual errors but significant revisions. Here's a few I'd note:

founder vs. foundation (1 Ne 13:6; 1 Ne 14:17; 2 Ne 26:22) I think this changes the apocalyptic meaning of the Church of the devil. But more significantly it changes how we view secret combinations IMO.

foundation vs. preparator (1 Ne 15:35) This is one that definitely needs changed from the current version. In one Satan is making hell for people whereas in the other hell is much more emergent out of satan as a kind of intellectual base.

they-servants vs. servant-he (Alma 62:36) No doctrinal impact but a significant narrative change if more than one person is guarding Ammoron. This is a very late change by Joseph though (1840).

 Other places are misreads or typos moving from the original manuscript that have doctrinal impact. Again here's a few from a quick search.

word vs. sword (1 Nephi 12:18) Justice became God's word rather than his sword. It affect Isaiah interpretation but also how God acts.

sin vs. sins (1 Ne 10:10; 2 Ne 31:4) Some might quibble but to me this is a pretty big theological difference since it implies Jesus takes sin in abstract rather than individual sins as in the penal theory

nursed vs. nourished (1 Ne 22:8) Significant over whether the gentiles are feeding or healing someone. Since Nephi is commenting on Isaiah one could argue the point is the same, but it is theologically significant

repair vs. retain (Alma 39:13) There's an obvious theological difference between retaining our wrongs vs. repairing them. Again, not necessarily something that's going to lead people astray given we understand repentance theologically. 

 

Now if by theologically significant we mean a much narrower sense of leading us to incorrect theological theories, I'd probably agree nothing matters too much. That's due to us typically having many texts out of which we derive our theology. I can't think of a theological point that rests on a single text with textual errors. We might quibble with artifacts of translation by looking at a quoted/paraphrased KJV passage where the translation of the Hebrew/Greek is problematic. But that's different.

Edited September 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[champatsch]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

foundation vs. preparator (1 Ne 15:35) This is one that definitely needs changed from the current version. In one Satan is making hell for people whereas in the other hell is much more emergent out of satan as a kind of intellectual base.

Proprietor vs preparator.

Interesting points, Clark.  Skousen probably takes the narrow sense of theologically significant, to be careful and deferential.  Ben could take that into account.

Ben, I would like more clarity on what you wrote. Perhaps an example or two. Thanks.

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

Apparently changing that one word from white to pure just coincidentally happened 3 years after the 1978 priesthood doctrine change?   Also, the headings with more overt racist tones have been softened and edited.  At any rate, I wasn't aware there was this apologetic line around changes to text in the BoM vs. changes to headings or the introduction page.  So apparently I waded into some battle grounds that I never knew existed before. 

Any changes to the text or introduction or headings or anything in the book that happens at the same time as similar current events and cultural changes, I'm just going to assume on face value that they were influenced by the wider culture.  Could there be some coincidences with respect to timing on these issues, sure.  Are church leaders and members who work on these committees immune to their environment, and somehow able to work in mental isolation where they never are influenced by the broader society?  No, never, not even close.

Also, I don't see any value in perpetuating a myth that church leaders are somehow exceptional when it comes to being immune to influence by outside forces.  This is silly.  

Edited September 7, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

I don't agree with Skousen on this issue. Skousen in many ways reminds me of a protestant view of scripture more generally (I had some discussion about this in my 2016 Fair Conference presentation). This is exactly how many protestants deal with the problem of textual issues with the Bible. Royal reminds me of a statement made by Bart Ehrman in his 2009 book Jesus Interrupted:

Skousen and I have very different views on the nature of the translation, and the implications that the translation has for reading the text. But it's complicated. Part of what complicates it is the idea of what the meaning should be. I find that we place potential meanings into a hierarchy - but that hierarchy is driven by context. There are many different ways to read texts. If we value the original intent of the author as the most important, then we look for ways to more fully participate in the narrative audience (this might include learning original languages, trying to understand the cultural and historical perspective of the author and so on). Or, we might value the meaning that most closely reflects our current understanding of theology and practices (and this involves likening the scripture unto ourselves). Or it might be the value in a polemical debate (in which case, we might have no problem stripping context and proof texting to make a point). None of these things are inherently bad as long as we are aware of what we are doing. The problem comes when we liken scriptures unto ourselves and then claim that we are tracking the original intentions of the author. In other words, even within the limited interpretive history of the LDS Church, we have sometimes radically altered our interpretation of the text (and this happens in particular as our theology gets altered). At any rate, before I bore everyone, I simply want to point out that we do in fact have significant changes - and that these kinds of issues are quite normal. Whether or not they have a profound impact on our theology depends as much on how we read (and which model of interpretation sits atop our personal hierarchy) as anything else. And this is no different from the gap between those who believe that some of the textual issues with the Biblical text are significant, and those who believe that they aren't.

Skousen may know more than anyone else about a very narrow aspect of the Book of Mormon (as a modern production). But this expertise isn't particularly germane to the question of the meaning of the text (in all of the many potential readings), or to the theology present in those readings (unless, of course, we start from assumptions shared by those conservative evangelicals that Bart Ehrman refers to above).

 

On the matter of likening the scriptures to ourselves, Elder Dallin H. Oaks has taught that the meaning of a given scriptural passage is not limited to what it may have meant at the time it was uttered/written. From his article "Scripture Reading and Revelation" in the January 1995 Ensign:

 

Quote

 

Second, we believe that God will give new revelations on the meaning of scriptures previously canonized, meanings that were not evident in earlier times. These new revelations are of two types: public and private.

Public revelations on the meaning of earlier scriptures come through those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. Examples of public revelations are the numerous additions and clarifications in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and in the Doctrine and Covenants revelations on the meaning of Bible passages. (For example, see D&C 77 on the book of Revelation and D&C 113 on some prophecies in Isaiah.) These public revelations usually illuminate scriptural passages that are doctrinal rather than those that are descriptive or directive.

Our belief in an open canon also includes private revelations to individual seekers of the meaning of existing scriptures. Such revelations are necessary because, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve observed, “Each pronouncement in the holy scriptures … is so written as to reveal little or much, depending on the spiritual capacity of the student” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985, p. 71).

Nephi attempted to teach his brothers that they could know the meaning of their father’s prophetic utterances, “which were hard to be understood, save a man should inquire of the Lord” (1 Ne. 15:3). Nephi told them if they did not harden their hearts and would keep the commandments and inquire of the Lord in faith, “surely these things shall be made known unto you” (1 Ne. 15:11).

If we harden our hearts, reject continuing revelation, and limit our learning to what we can obtain by study and reason on the precise language of the present canon of scriptures, our understanding will be limited to what Alma called “the lesser portion of the word” (Alma 12:11). If we seek and accept revelation and inspiration to enlarge our understanding of the scriptures, we will realize a fulfillment of Nephi’s inspired promise that those who diligently seek will have “the mysteries of God … unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost” (1 Ne. 10:19).

 

Even so, I do believe we need to be wary of taking scriptural passages out of context, especially if we are conveying our own personal interpretation to others.

Take, for example, this passage from the Sermon on the Mount:

Quote

He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

(Matthew 5:45)

We are wont to use that passage to bolster the point that trials and tribulations come indiscriminately to everyone as a matter of course, regardless of whether they are wicked or righteous. However, a careful reading in context conveys the opposite idea: that God pours out some blessings upon everyone indiscriminately as a matter of course, regardless of whether they are wicked or righteous. We forget or neglect that in the agrarian culture in which the Savior made that statement, rain was regarded as a blessing to be received with gratitude, not a trial to be dreaded.

 

Quote

 

43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

 

 

This very week, I read a report of a presentation at the recent BYU Education Week in which the speaker used that passage and applied the misinterpretation I noted above.

I almost did it myself a couple of weeks ago in writing an editorial, but as is my practice, I looked up the passage and read it in context before applying it.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Benjamin McGuire]

champatsch,

An interesting example would be 1 Nephi, 20:1 -

Current edition:

Quote

Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.

Original text:

Quote

Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.

What makes this fascinating is that it is clearly an interpretive insertion made into the text. We know something of the nature of this insertion (when it happened, and by whom, and how the view of this insertion changed over time). We also have had published speculation on why it was made. Skousen recommends that it be removed (he has a lot of discussion about it on pages 427-428 of Part 1). Part of Skousen's problem with this text (which is consistent with Skousen's view of the translation) is that it is an interpretive insertion, that adds something to the text that wasn't there to begin with. In terms of my discussion, such an interpretive comment gets made in the context  of trying to produce meaning for the text in a setting contemporary with the early LDS Church. And the direct correlation between the waters of Judah and baptism is a connection that would not be useful to the original audience of the text (Isaiah) and wouldn't be useful to the original audience of the Gold Plates (Nephi's people - since Nephi has reinscribed the text absent its original meaning in Isaiah), and so on. But this interpretive phrase fits an idea about scripture that is adopted to some extent by the early LDS Church when it is in its restorationist period, and looking to establish (often through prooftexting) connections between early LDS belief and practice and the Old Testament. And so in this way, the text encourages a theology that simply isn't present in either of the texts earlier contexts.

Our problem isn't in the idea of reinterpreting the passage in terms of beliefs contemporary with the production of the Book of Mormon. The problem is making that change appear to be original to the source texts on which the Book of Mormon is based - and then incorporating that idea into the theology of early Mormonism as an (invented) proof text of sorts. As I noted earlier:

Quote

The problem comes when we liken scriptures unto ourselves and then claim that we are tracking the original intentions of the author.

Early Mormonism does this quite a bit.

The set of changes involving the phrase 'the son of' tend to do the same sorts of things.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Apparently changing that one word from white to pure just coincidentally happened 3 years after the 1978 priesthood doctrine change?   Also, the headings with more overt racist tones have been softened and edited.  At any rate, I wasn't aware there was this apologetic line around changes to text in the BoM vs. changes to headings or the introduction page.  So apparently I waded into some battle grounds that I never knew existed before. 

Any changes to the text or introduction or headings or anything in the book that happens at the same time as similar current events and cultural changes, I'm just going to assume on face value that they were influenced by the wider culture.  Could there be some coincidences with respect to timing on these issues, sure.  Are church leaders and members who work on these committees immune to their environment, and somehow able to work in mental isolation where they never are influenced by the broader society?  No, never, not even close.

Also, I don't see any value in perpetuating a myth that church leaders are somehow exceptional when it comes to being immune to influence by outside forces.  This is silly.  

The OP is talking about changes to the text of the Book of Mormon.  While the introduction and headings are included within the Book of Mormon they are not part of the Book of Mormon itself.

Your point about the change from white to pure coming 3 years after the ending of the priesthood ban has merit and deserves discussion.  I wonder why if Joseph Smith made the change from white to pure in 1840 that the change didn't stick and had to be reintroduced in 1981.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Apparently changing that one word from white to pure just coincidentally happened 3 years after the 1978 priesthood doctrine change?   Also, the headings with more overt racist tones have been softened and edited.  At any rate, I wasn't aware there was this apologetic line around changes to text in the BoM vs. changes to headings or the introduction page.  So apparently I waded into some battle grounds that I never knew existed before.

You mean to say it was not self-evident to you that the chapter headings and introduction in the LDS editions of the scriptures are study aids only and not part of holy writ? You needed to have that explained to you?

I find that very singular.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

We also need to keep in mind that all records of God’s dealings with man, are an individual authors interpretation of events. Sometimes second or third hand. Given the natural tendency of some to tribalism, there’s a risk that what is being portrayed is really the authors bias rather than an accurate reflection of Gods choices.

We do need to keep this in mind.
But the alternative choice isn't really any better is it?

If the traits attributed to God that we see as negative today are the result of the interpretation of the historical authors and all their prejudices  but they are the only record of God and man we have, then what is the result of dismissing them? 
Then we know nothing about God whatsoever and then our compassion really does result in our making God in our own image.

We see this with disaffected members today too.  For example the ones that say "Polygamy/Priesthood ban/Women not holding priesthood couldn't have come from God because God is so loving he'd never do that".
So we attribute those beliefs to the early leaders and not to God.
But then that calls everything else they said about God's actions and traits into question.

Either the scriptures and revelations from the prophets accurately describe God or they don't.  We don't get to pick and choose the characteristics of God that make us feel good and ignore the ones that bother us.
God is as he is, not as we would have him be.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Scott Lloyd writes:

Quote

Even so, I do believe we need to be wary of taking scriptural passages out of context, especially if we are conveying our own personal interpretation to others.

The problem that we have is that we like this idea of "taking things out of context" as a way of describing what is going on - but this isn't exactly very clear at all. The problem (as I note) about likening scripture unto ourselves is not about taking things out of context. That would seem to be completely appropriate to the process (and Nephi does this regularly in the Book of Mormon). In fact, the notion of "taking things out of context" comes out of the relatively modern idea that texts have an absolute meaning of some sort, linked to the intentions of an author.

The problem is with taking things out of context but rather with taking the new context and pretending that it is the same as the old context - that is, that the new meaning was exactly what was intended all along. This is the transgression that leads to interpretive problems. As long as we understand that we are likening the scripture unto ourselves, there isn't this issue, and we can value the meaning appropriately in our hierarchy of meaning.

What we really see is often termed (in literary studies) as reinscription of a text - repurposing it in a new context (which as I just said inevitably involves taking something out of its original context). My favorite description of that process comes from the 2009 PhD dissertation by Felisa Vergara Reynolds (Harvard), titled Literary Cannibalism: Almost The Same, But Not Quite/Almost The Same But Not White. Literary cannibalism - what a colorful term. But I also found a useful discussion in Homi K. Bhabha's The Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994).

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

I think the DNA findings were more a nail in the coffin than dead on arrival, it was just one more piece of evidence that made the entire hemisphere paradigm impossible to believe.  

Those changes to pure and delightsome were not just coincidence in my mind from a timing perspective, they were influenced by the current events.  You're correct that it aligns with an 1840 edition of the BoM.  Skousen typically argues that we should go to the earliest texts, its interesting that you characterize aligning with the 1840 edition as bringing this into "conformity".  

Most of the other significant changes happened in Joseph's lifetime from what I've read, and in those changes Joseph was evolving the text along with his evolving theology which absolutely was influenced by outside factors as well.  

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The OP is talking about changes to the text of the Book of Mormon.  While the introduction and headings are included within the Book of Mormon they are not part of the Book of Mormon itself.

Your point about the change from white to pure coming 3 years after the ending of the priesthood ban has merit and deserves discussion.  I wonder why if Joseph Smith made the change from white to pure in 1840 that the change didn't stick and had to be reintroduced in 1981.

The FairMormon website provides some enlightenment on this question:

 

Quote

 

This change was originally made in the 1840 edition, lost, and then restored again in the 1981 edition

This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but because subsequent editions were based off the European editions (which followed the 1837 edition), the change did not get perpetuated until the preparation of the 1981 edition. The change is not (as the critics want to portray it) a "recent" change designed to remove a "racist" original.

The idea that the Church has somehow "hidden" the original text or manuscripts of the Book of Mormon in order to hide this is simply unbelievable. Replicas of the 1830 Book of Mormon are easily obtained on Amazon.com, and the text is freely available online. In addition, Royal Skousen has extensively studied the original Book of Mormon manuscripts and published a critical text edition of the Book of Mormon. The claim by the critics that the Church has somehow hidden these items is seriously outdated.

The change in the 1840 edition was probably made by Joseph Smith

This change actually first appeared in the 1840 edition, and was probably made by Joseph Smith:

• 2 Nephi 30:6 (1830 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a white and a delightsome people."
• 2 Nephi 30:6 (1840 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a pure and a delightsome people."

The 1837 edition was used for the European editions, which were in turn used as the basis for the 1879 and 1920 editions, so the change was lost until the 1981 edition

This particular correction is part of the changes referred to in the note "About this Edition" printed in the introductory pages:

"Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith."

It’s doubtful that Joseph Smith had racism in mind when the change was done in 1840 or other similar verses would have been changed as well.

The "pure" meaning likely reflected the original intent of the passage and translator

Furthermore, "white" was a synonym for "pure" at the time Joseph translated the Book of Mormon:

3. Having the color of purity; pure; clean; free from spot; as white robed innocence....5. Pure; unblemished....6. In a scriptural sense, purified from sin; sanctified. Psalm 51.^[1]

Thus, the "pure" meaning likely reflected the original intent of the passage and translator.