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

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

So the answer to my question, "Do you have anything else?" would be a "no" then.

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Hemispheric origins for the BoM may have always been a "false claim" however it was also the dominant way that early church leaders and members envisioned the BoM including Joseph Smith.   I personally agree with you that the claim was false, but I also believe that any historicity claims for the BoM are false.  And the so called archaeological evidence isn't persuasive.  

The outside pressure for the 1981 change seems obvious to me based on the timing and context of societal issues for a change to that specific passage.  The default position on all changes is that changes are made in the context of culture and current events and in response to that context.  Unless someone can show me evidence that this default position is incorrect on this specific case, then I'm sticking with it because that's how human nature works.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Hemispheric origins for the BoM may have always been a "false claim" however it was also the dominant way that early church leaders and members envisioned the BoM including Joseph Smith.   I personally agree with you that the claim was false, but I also believe that any historicity claims for the BoM are false.  And the so called archaeological evidence isn't persuasive.  

The outside pressure for the 1981 change seems obvious to me based on the timing and context of societal issues for a change to that specific passage.  The default position on all changes is that changes are made in the context of culture and current events and in response to that context.  Unless someone can show me evidence that this default position is incorrect on this specific case, then I'm sticking with it because that's how human nature works.  

That "outside pressure" forced the change in 1981 is really nothing more than your own conjecture, then, that you intransigently refuse to let go of.

What about the change as Joseph Smith originally made it in 1840? Did "outside pressure" force that as well?

[hope_for_things]

27 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.

It would be interesting to better understand the context and outside influences on that 1840 change were.  Perhaps Joseph was responding to the Missouri experience when he softened the language from white to pure on that passage.  Just thinking in general, this was a time when Joseph had experienced extreme change in the church, and loss of many confidants and he was re-writing the narrative as well as trying to appeal to the government for help.  I think 1840 was before some of the more flamboyant rhetoric and behavior that happened during later Nauvoo.  I would be interested in knowing more context around that 1840 edition and the surrounding historical events.  

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Its not that important of a distinction to me personally, but I understand what you're saying.  

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The FairMormon website provides some enlightenment on this question:

 

 

Thank you for looking this up.  I figured it was something like that.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So the answer to my question, "Do you have anything else?" would be a "no" then.

I'm sure I could dig up more examples.  The more interesting changes to me occurred in the earliest editions, the doctrinal changes around the concepts of the Godhead.  The later changes and edits I haven't studied much, as it hasn't been a point of interest for me personally.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

JLHPROF writes:

Quote

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.

The obvious answer then, is that they don't accurately describe God. God is wholly external to our experience here in mortality. I am reminded of something that comes with the prayer that Jesus offers in the Book of Mormon - where it notes:

Quote

And behold, the heavens were opened, and they were caught up into heaven, and saw and heard unspeakable things. (3 Ne. 28:13)

On some level, our 'crooked broken scattered and imperfect language' simply prevents us from accurately describing God. Just as our limited experience in mortality prevents us from truly understanding what it means to be like God - and so also prevents us from really understanding the characteristics that God has. Which means that we are (at least as often as not) left with describing God through metaphor and comparison with our own existence.

Quote

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.

The opposite is also true though right? If we are in God's image, then everything we do must be from God? If we practice polygamy, then God must be a polygamist? If we have the priesthood ban, then God must have wanted it for some mysterious reason (and we shouldn't question it)? Despite the passage in the D&C which explains that we have a choice on whether we gain Zion by purchase or by blood (D&C 63:29), there is always some assumption that God decided that the way for Israel to achieve their promised land was by wiping out the existing inhabitants.

On some level, these represent perhaps polar positions, and they can both be wrong together - but our absence of knowledge (especially written or prophetic knowledge) isn't something to be afraid of. This is why the most important revelation we ever receive isn't from a prophet, and won't come from a text, but is the personal revelation - the personal experience that we gain.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm sure I could dig up more examples.  The more interesting changes to me occurred in the earliest editions, the doctrinal changes around the concepts of the Godhead.  The later changes and edits I haven't studied much, as it hasn't been a point of interest for me personally.  

I suspect that if you had more compelling examples at the ready you would have presented them by now.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not that important of a distinction to me personally, but I understand what you're saying.  

To a believer in the divinity of scripture, the distinction between the scripture itself and commentary or study aids pertaining to the scripture is or ought to be important indeed.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That "outside pressure" forced the change in 1981 is really nothing more than your own conjecture, then, that you intransigently refuse to let go of.

What about the change as Joseph Smith originally made it in 1840? Did "outside pressure" force that as well?

I just replied about this to Kfisher, but I would like to know more about the history in 1840 and the pressures that influenced Joseph.  I'm convinced that Joseph is responding to environmental stimuli when it comes to everything, its not just one change or another change.  My operating paradigm for how humans operate is that they are responding to their environments, biologically and socially.  Every message I write on this message board is a response to thoughts that I have in my head that are influenced by what I've read and what I'm experiencing.  

There are no responses to anything that don't have some level of outside influence.  This is how humans operate.  

[JLHPROF]

13 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.

Which we know to be impossible.
So there must be some error in our thinking.  Our compassion must be somehow misapplied.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The obvious answer then, is that they don't accurately describe God. God is wholly external to our experience here in mortality.

In which case there is no point in believing in a God we know nothing about.

If we say we "believe in God" then we must know something about him.
If we dismiss the descriptions of God because we don't like them, then we know nothing about him and have nothing to believe in.
 

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  I'm convinced that Joseph is responding to environmental stimuli when it comes to everything, its not just one change or another change. 

I don't think that you should be so hard and fast on this.  There may have been changes that as Joseph read over the text of the Book of Mormon he himself realized that there were better ways of conveying the message.  Others changes may have been influenced by the promptings of the Spirit or questions by others members of his family or the church. 

I also don't believe that we can ever fully understand the culture that existed in 1840 and how those influences played out in the text of the Book of Mormon.  We would need to walk the proverbial mile in Joseph's shoes, which is, of course, impossible.

[Benjamin McGuire]

JHLPROF writes:

Quote

If we dismiss the descriptions of God because we don't like them, then we know nothing about him and have nothing to believe in.

Not really. It is much better to dismiss this false dichotomy that you present us with.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.   

So the nail is in what coffin? The hemispheric paradigm or the authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself? Belief in the hemispheric model is not essential to acceptance of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Quote

Those changes to pure and delightsome were not just coincidence in my mind from a timing perspective, they were influenced by the current events.

I think you are highlighting "timing" as it suits your argument and ignoring it if it doesn't.

The timing was that the change in the Book of Mormon text was part of a landmark, elaborate, years-long process of creating new editions of the LDS scriptures that involved, among other things, carefully comparing the text of the Book of Mormon with earlier editions to restore accuracy as needed in the rendition. That makes far more sense to me as an explanation than some supposed but unsubstantiated "outside pressure."

Quote

 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".

As ksfisher has pointed out, and as was pointed out in the FairMormon quote I posted, pure and white were synonyms in the vernacular of the 1800s when the Book of Mormon came forth. If it's Joseph Smith revising his own work, I'm satisfied that it is on the up and up. I frequently revise my own posts here on this message board to better reflect my intended meaning.

Quote

 

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.

 

That Joseph was "evolving the text with his evolving theology" is a typical Protestant anti-Mormon objection that is far from definitively established. What some mistake for a trinitarian expression of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being "one God," for example, is merely an affirmation of the true doctrinal understanding that the members of the Godhead are separate beings but one in purpose.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I just replied about this to Kfisher, but I would like to know more about the history in 1840 and the pressures that influenced Joseph.

As far as I know, no one knows for sure that it was Joseph who made the change in 1840....that's just an assumption (and I understand why, but we can't be certain regarding who made the change).  

Also, there were other verses that spoke of  "fair and delightsome" and used the words "white" and "skin of blackness" that were not corrected or changed in the 1840 edition.  Such as in 2 Nephi 5:21:

Quote

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.

Here's some history regarding the change that I found (I have not really looked into this in detail, so others can correct any errors below):

Quote

The very first edition of the Book of Mormon to contain the phrase "pure and delightsome" was the third edition, published in 1840. 

By 1837, the first edition was "sold out", or given away, and a second edition was printed. In 1839, Joseph Smith sent the Quorum of the 12 to England on missions. By December of 1839, the second edition was depleted. There were some delays in getting funds, but by October of 1840, Ebenezer Robinson published the 3rd edition in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was this edition that changed the words to "pure and delightsome". 

However, about the same time, the Quorum of the 12, desperate for Book of Mormons to hand out to the people of England, decided to print their own in England, and did so, faithfully reproducing the second edition -- in this case, retaining the words "white and delightsome". 

So, now, there were two different versions of the Book of Mormon -- an English version and an American version. No other edition published by the Utah branch of the Church contained the phrase "pure and delightsome" until 1981, when it was changed back to the 1840 Cincinnati version. 

However, James Wright, a non-Mormon publisher in New York City, printed a commercial version of the Book of Mormon, and for some reason, based it on the 1840 edition, thereby including the phrase "pure and delightsome". Wright's version originally had an "anti-Mormon" preface regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon, and didn't sell well. He had printed -- but not bound -- about 4,000 copies. So, what to do with them? 

Wright decided to turn them into a pro-Mormon edition, re-wrote the introduction, and sold the entire printing to an LDS splinter group. This edition eventually became the basis for the RLDS's first edition of the Book of Mormon. Later, in 1908, the RLDS church changed the wording back to the original 1830 edition's "white and delightsome", noting in that preface, that the words "white and delightsome" were, in fact, Joseph Smith's original wording. 

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

 

Sorry, but that strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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

Never said there was. That being said I think it is mistake to posit prejudice where other considerations my well exist, especially in a religious context.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's some history regarding the change that I found (I have not really looked into this in detail, so others can correct an errors below):

 

Source?

 

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Source?

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2010/04/20/what-will-it-be-white-and-delightsome-or-pure-and-delightsome-cognitive-dissonance-2/

Like I said, I have not verified all the info within that chronology and others can make corrections if they see errors.  I'll try to see what more I can find as well.  I just thought it was interesting to read through and was mainly responding to Hope_For_Things comment regarding wondering about the history involved.  

ETA:

Found this that at least supports some of what was in the chronology regarding the change:

Quote

The third edition of the Book of Mormon was stereotyped and printed in Cincinnati in 1840. The story of the Church’s printer, Ebenezer Robinson, accomplishing this mission has been available since 1883. What has remained a mystery is exactly where in Cincinnati this event took place; there is no plaque marking the spot, no walking tour pamphlet, no previous images, and its history contains conflicting documentation. This article will attempt to untangle the mystery by using old descriptions, maps of the area, and images.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/where-in-cincinnati-was-the-third-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-printed/

Edited Again To Add:

It states this in the paper, but then gives no original source to support this information:

Quote

 

The Prophet agreed to the project and then sat down with Robinson to “carefully revise” a copy of the second edition of the Book of Mormon (1837), which Robinson would take to Cincinnati. During the process of revision, the Prophet referred to the original manuscript. It appears it was the last time the Prophet corrected the Book of Mormon prior to a printing, making the resultant 1840 third edition an important source for the Church’s 1981 printed edition, which Latter-day Saints use today.13

 

Footnote:

13. Emily W. Jensen, “Publishing 1840 Book of Mormon No Easy Task,” Deseret News, May 22, 2009. Reporting on a presentation given by Kyle R. Walker at the Mormon Historical Association given on May 22, 2009, Jensen wrote that Walker noted, “It was the final edition of the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith would personally revise.”

 

I don't know where Walker got his information?  It would be interesting to know if there is an actual record supporting his claim.

On the FairMormon website, it states:

Quote

 

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."

 

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think that you should be so hard and fast on this.  There may have been changes that as Joseph read over the text of the Book of Mormon he himself realized that there were better ways of conveying the message.  Others changes may have been influenced by the promptings of the Spirit or questions by others members of his family or the church. 

I also don't believe that we can ever fully understand the culture that existed in 1840 and how those influences played out in the text of the Book of Mormon.  We would need to walk the proverbial mile in Joseph's shoes, which is, of course, impossible.

Its all interconnected.  Joseph reads something, Joseph thinks something, Joseph feels something, its all happening in Joseph's head.  Whether you think a supernatural external force is acting on Joseph (I'm agnostic on that data point) or you think that its all happening inside of Joseph's mind & body, Joseph is still processing thoughts and information in the context of his experiences and his life's narrative which includes all his senses have perceived over the course of his life.

As for 1840 historical analysis, I think we can get some good ideas about what may have been influencing Joseph based on contemporary events analysis.  Not sure if you've read Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's recent book titled House Full of Females, it is a must read and she does an amazing job pulling contemporary diary accounts of things together to give incredible insight about how people were experiencing these events at that time rather than later reflections on those events.   As a plug for that book, I think its one of the most important Mormon books to be written in the past decade.  

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As far as I know, no one knows for sure that it was Joseph who made the change in 1840....that's just an assumption (and I understand why, but we can't be certain regarding who made the change).  

Also, there were other verses that spoke of  "fair and delightsome" and used the words "white" and "skin of blackness" that were not corrected or changed in the 1840 edition.  Such as in 2 Nephi 5:21:

Here's some history regarding the change that I found (I have not really looked into this in detail, so others can correct any errors below):

 

Thanks for adding this, it is helpful.  For the 1840 change, I wouldn't be surprised if the change wasn't made by Joseph specifically because he really empowered so many in his close circle to help with editing many of the revelations in the D&C and helping in projects like the BoA and BoM.  I would still say Joseph is ultimately responsible for everything because he was the CEO, but its interesting that people want to assign credit or blame to others depending on how that suits their arguments.  

For example the section in the D&C on marriage being between one man and woman is regularly attributed to Oliver or someone else besides Joseph because it runs contrary to the narrative that Polygamy was the standard.  If the argument supports someone's orthodoxy then it gets attributed to Joseph, if it runs contrary well then it must have been someone else, I'm also thinking also of authorship for the Lectures on Faith as an example of this.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As far as I know, no one knows for sure that it was Joseph who made the change in 1840....that's just an assumption (and I understand why, but we can't be certain regarding who made the change).  

If the front matter of the 1840 edition indicates that it was "carefully revised by the translator," isn't it a pretty safe assumption that it was Joseph who did the revising?

Quote

Also, there were other verses that spoke of  "fair and delightsome" and used the words "white" and "skin of blackness" that were not corrected or changed in the 1840 edition.  Such as in 2 Nephi 5:21:

Which makes it even less definitive that the phrase "white and delightsome" was ever intended to convey a racist meaning. If Joseph were going to change the one word to avoid the appearance of racism, why didn't he go ahead and change the others while he was at it?

 

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So the nail is in what coffin? The hemispheric paradigm or the authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself? Belief in the hemispheric model is not essential to acceptance of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

The nail is in the hemispheric paradigm.  I'm not talking about authenticity, that is a subjective claim and is separate from testable claims in the sciences like archaeology.  The BoM is authentic if you believe it to be authentic.  I personally believe the BoM is authentic and a valuable text, but I don't believe in it's historicity.  

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are highlighting "timing" as it suits your argument and ignoring it if it doesn't.

The timing was that the change was change in the Book of Mormon text was part of a landmark, years-long process of creating new editions to the LDS scriptures that involved, among other things, carefully comparing the text of the Book of Mormon with earlier editions to restore accuracy as needed in the rendition. That makes far more sense to me as an explanation than some supposed but unsubstantiated "outside pressure."

Why can't it be both part of a years long process and at the same time also in response to the current events? 

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As ksfisher has pointed out, and as was pointed out in the FairMormon quote I posted, pure and white were synonyms in the vernacular of the 1800s when the Book of Mormon came forth.

Sure, its a slight change of meaning to be more sensitive current cultural ideals and its not a far departure from the original word definition, that is great.  I'm all for that kind of change.  I think they should make more dramatic changes, there is still a lot of racism in the church and in the BoM that goes contrary to the current values of the church, and I'd love to see some more editing to help align modern values with scriptural canon.  

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That Joseph was "evolving the text with his evolving theology" is a typical Protestant anti-Mormon objection that is far from definitively established. What some mistake for a trinitarian expression of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being "one God," for example, is merely an affirmation of the true doctrinal understanding that the members of the Godhead are separate beings but one in purpose.

Sorry I don't fit your stereotypes.  I'm not protestant or anti-Mormon, so in this case the perspective is coming from a current member.  I actually think your belief that doctrine is static is the protestant idea.  Mormonism for me is about embracing truth wherever it comes from, not being stuck in one description for the divine.  I find the evolution of Joseph's theology about the divine inspiring because it shows how over the course of a couple decades that the leader of the church can dramatically change his paradigms about the nature of God and that gives me great freedom and inspiration as I've gone through some pretty dramatic paradigm shifts myself.