ALarson Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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? Oh I stated that I understood why the assumption was made. 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Which makes it even less definitive that the phrase "white and delightsome" was ever intended to convey a racist meaning. We can't know that for sure, IMO. Especially considering that later Prophets used it in a racist manner (regarding Lamanites skin getting lighter as they became more righteous, etc.). 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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? We don't know if that's why the change was made. If that was the purpose for the change, it's difficult to understand why he wouldn't have changed all the references, IMO.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: 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. Pretty hard to quibble with a statement in the front of the 1840 edition saying it had been "carefully revised by the translator." It could have said "carefully revised under the direction of the translator." But it didn't. It said "by" the translator. Edited September 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Benjamin McGuire Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 Scott Lloyd writes: Quote Sorry, but that strikes me as a distinction without a difference. I suppose that isn't surprising, but it just suggests to me that aren't understanding my point. I think perhaps the best example to use of this sort of thing is the problem of the sticks discussed by Ezekiel. This gets applied to the Book of Mormon first by William Phelps (1833), and the idea becomes so popular that it subsequently gets used in the D&C (1835). And when we get around to talking about Ezekiel in the Old Testament, we have this idea of Ezekiel prophesying about the Book of Mormon. But, the comparison that Phelps makes is flawed. He misreads the text. This happens partly because he encounters the text of Ezekiel in translation (the KJV). And it happens partly because he is scouring his recently acquired book (Jahn's Biblical Archaeology) for ideas that will support his new found faith in Mormonism. And it happens partly because Mormonism as a whole (but Phelps in particular) is trying to relate their faith to an Old Testament religion as part of their restorationist ideals (just see what happens with the simultaneous suggestion that Phelps makes that the Nephite Interpreters and even the seer stones are just examples of the Urim and Thummim). There isn't anything wrong with reading Ezekiel and trying to understand how the Book of Mormon and Bible are supposed to work together in the religious movement through the imagery of that text. It can work quite well. The problem is in trying to suggest that this is exactly what Ezekiel was prophesying about. Because that is absolutely not true. It isn't even true that Ezekiel was presenting us with a prophesy with multiple meanings. You actually have to misread the text of Ezekiel to make it work (deliberately or otherwise). As long as we understand that we are likening the scriptures unto ourselves - as long as we recognize that our interpretations belong to us, this isn't an issue. It's only a problem when we try to assert that our interpretation was what was originally intended. When we claim that our context is exactly the same as the context of the original author of scripture.
ALarson Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Pretty hard to quibble with a statement in the front of the 1840 edition saying it had been "carefully revised by the translator." I think it's a safe assumption to make that Joseph changed that one word from the original one used. However, even FairMormon is careful to state the change was "probably" made by him. Joseph did not prepare the sterotype and someone else could have made the change then (unlikely), but Joseph never made a statement about the change as far as I know. Which is also the reason we do not know why the change was made. But once again, if it was for racist reasons, why didn't he change all of the verses containing similar wording or references? Edited September 7, 2017 by ALarson
clarkgoble Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: But, the comparison that Phelps makes is flawed. He misreads the text. This happens partly because he encounters the text of Ezekiel in translation (the KJV). And it happens partly because he is scouring his recently acquired book (Jahn's Biblical Archaeology) for ideas that will support his new found faith in Mormonism. And it happens partly because Mormonism as a whole (but Phelps in particular) is trying to relate their faith to an Old Testament religion as part of their restorationist ideals (just see what happens with the simultaneous suggestion that Phelps makes that the Nephite Interpreters and even the seer stones are just examples of the Urim and Thummim). There isn't anything wrong with reading Ezekiel and trying to understand how the Book of Mormon and Bible are supposed to work together in the religious movement through the imagery of that text. It can work quite well. The problem is in trying to suggest that this is exactly what Ezekiel was prophesying about. Because that is absolutely not true. It isn't even true that Ezekiel was presenting us with a prophesy with multiple meanings. You actually have to misread the text of Ezekiel to make it work (deliberately or otherwise). Not quite clear what part you think is misreading. I assume you mean conflating book of Joseph/Judah with people of Joseph/Judah and having two books (Bible/Book of Mormon) with the gathering and (in some interpretations) personal redemption from the grave. So it's not a prophecy of the Book of Mormon, the way many used it. (I vaguely remember it even being used formally by missionaries at one time) I just raise this as I suspect it's not clear to some what you're arguing against. The Phelps use at best is a pesher rather than a contextual interpretation. Scriptural writings just can't contextually be read in except by more figurative interpretations. i.e. taking the bones not just as an image of restoration but as a sense of the dead coming to light via texts.
Marginal Gains Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: 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. Which is why your personal relationship with God trumps everything else. And I do mean everything.
JLHPROF Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Which is why your personal relationship with God trumps everything else. And I do mean everything. We finally agree on something.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: 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. Why can't it be both part of a years long process and at the same time also in response to the current events? 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. 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. I didn't say you were Protestant or anti-Mormon, only that your scenario about Joseph "evolving" the Book of Mormon text to fit his "evolving theology" seems reminiscent of anti-Mormon attacks on the Church and its origins. Saying that references to "one God" fit the Protestant Trinitarian paradigm is merely confirmation bias that you have apparently bought into. And by the way, you can't profess the Book of Mormon is authentic if you disbelieve in its historicity, since the book itself purports to be an authentic ancient record.
thesometimesaint Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: We finally agree on something. I agree. What is also uncontested is that I can't speak for the whole Church. Only my participation in it. 1
hope_for_things Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 1 hour ago, ALarson said: I think it's a safe assumption to make that Joseph changed that one word from the original one used. However, even FairMormon is careful to state the change was "probably" made by him. Joseph did not prepare the sterotype and someone else could have made the change then (unlikely), but Joseph never made a statement about the change as far as I know. Which is also the reason we do not know why the change was made. But once again, if it was for racist reasons, why didn't he change all of the verses containing similar wording or references? I think its also interesting when you look at other changes/edits made to the BoM text, the Godhead passages that Joseph revised for example, Joseph didn't revise all of the passages in the BoM that show a more trinitarian or modalistic type of God, I'm thinking of the Mosiah passages and the 3 Nephi passages that were left alone. I think its fair to say that Joseph's theological impulses don't show a thorough or consistent application of his ideas. Passages in the BoM don't square with JST passages that have roots in the same source material. Joseph wasn't a systematic theologian, I think he was haphazard in his approach and it doesn't take that close of a reading of history to find these inconsistencies. I think that is part of what makes his theology so intriguing is just how reckless it is at times. It definitely shows how fluid his ideas were and what a creative and complex character he was. 1
hope_for_things Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I didn't say you were Protestant or anti-Mormon, only that your scenario about Joseph "evolving" the Book of Mormon text to fit his "evolving theology" seems reminiscent of anti-Mormon attacks on the Church and its origins. Saying that references to "one God" fit the Protestant Trinitarian paradigm is merely confirmation bias that you have apparently bought into. I could level the same accusation of confirmation bias your way. A perspective about God being a static and defined entity fits well into Calvinism and the paradigm of God being eternal, infinite and unchangeable. In my kind of Mormonism, God is changeable, fallible (God weeps) and not strictly bound. We all pick and choose which ideas work best for us, so whatever works for you. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: And by the way, you can't profess the Book of Mormon is authentic if you disbelieve in its historicity, since the book itself purports to be an authentic ancient record. I can claim it and I do claim it, consider it claimed. I believe the BoM is authentic but that it also has no shred of historical basis, there were no Nephites and Lamanites in the real world, the book is a complete literary work in the genre of midrash and I believe Joseph Smith was the author. Did it, will continue to do it, and happily proud of it.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I could level the same accusation of confirmation bias your way. A perspective about God being a static and defined entity fits well into Calvinism and the paradigm of God being eternal, infinite and unchangeable. In my kind of Mormonism, God is changeable, fallible (God weeps) and not strictly bound. We all pick and choose which ideas work best for us, so whatever works for you. I can claim it and I do claim it, consider it claimed. I believe the BoM is authentic but that it also has no shred of historical basis, there were no Nephites and Lamanites in the real world, the book is a complete literary work in the genre of midrash and I believe Joseph Smith was the author. Did it, will continue to do it, and happily proud of it. I respect your right to hold -- and even to defiantly state -- untenable and misguided opinions. What I meant is that you can't logically and coherently do so, as you believe and state things about the book that the book itself contradicts. Edited September 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
hope_for_things Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I respect your right to hold -- and even to defiantly state -- untenable and misguided opinions. What I meant is that you can't logically and coherently do so, as you believe and state things about the book that the book itself contradicts. Creedalism in Mormonism, Joseph should be turning in his grave.
JLHPROF Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I could level the same accusation of confirmation bias your way. A perspective about God being a static and defined entity fits well into Calvinism and the paradigm of God being eternal, infinite and unchangeable. In my kind of Mormonism, God is changeable, fallible (God weeps) and not strictly bound. We all pick and choose which ideas work best for us, so whatever works for you. Your kind of Mormonism apparently contradicts scripture. 23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Creedalism in Mormonism, Joseph should be turning in his grave. Goodness knows I'm no fan of creedalism. People should be allowed to believe what they want. But contradicting scripture doesn't seem like an issue of creed. 1
hope_for_things Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Your kind of Mormonism apparently contradicts scripture. Goodness knows I'm no fan of creedalism. People should be allowed to believe what they want. But contradicting scripture doesn't seem like an issue of creed. What is a creed if it isn't a doctrinal statement based on an particular interpretation of scripture? You can't have this both ways, if you are against creedalism, then what is your latitude with respect to scriptural interpretation? Certainly there should be some basic values that people need to find in common otherwise there really isn't a religious community, for example, if I believed in the systematic killing of all red headed children as a religious tenant, that would be pretty hard for me to believe and still still be a part of this religious community. But as far as concepts about the nature of God or the historicity of scripture, I'm not sure how those those kinds of differences wouldn't be considered in the tradition of creedalism. Especially in light of the various opinions on these subjects that are a part of the Mormon tradition already. Just the nature of God idea has had vast evolution of thought and differences of opinion throughout the Mormon tradition. I think my perspectives fit well within the variety of opinions that have been expressed in the past two centuries.
Darren10 Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 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). "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." After you said, 'apologetic hand waving aside' I find it hard to conclude that you yourself are '"unbiased". So ,asking me about a 'nonbiased' view of a Book of Mormon reader seems, ummm, non conmvincing to me. I think that readers of the Book of Mormon would view "skin of blackness" as on set of skin physiologically darker than another set. So that the Lamanites' skin would be darker than the Nephites' skin. I myself thought that for decades. Getting into the "biased" apologetic studies at websites such as FAIRMormon I investigated their claim of a distinction between "curse" and "mark". I found their claim remarkably consistant with what the Book of Mormon text actually said regarding the matter. Here's the Jacob passage: "5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not aforgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were bone wife, and cconcubines they should have none, and there should not be dwhoredoms committed among them. 6 And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be amerciful unto them; and one day they shall bbecome a blessed people. 7 Behold, their ahusbands blove their cwives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their dunbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator? 8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be awhiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God." (Bold mine). No doubt the "curse" and "mark" are directly related one to the other. Here I do note that Jacob was speaking directly of righteousness when speaking about the Lamanites and his own people the Nephites. He declared the Lamanites more righteous than the Nephites. He associated righteousness with the curse and skin and noted that the Lamanites', 'skins will be whiter than yours'. Question, when did the Nephite skin become "darker" than the Lamanites? I cannot think of any time it did, however, righteous Lamanites, even before their skins turned white, were blessed, so long as they were righteous. Jacobs' words make less sense to me when applied to skin color (pigmentation) within the overall Book of Mormon narrative than would it apply figuratively with righteousness. Another thought is, perhaps, Jacob was using their own words against his targeted audience. Perhaps they were talking one with the other about how much better they were than the Lamanites and in that context speaking about the "curse" being directly on their skin. I do not think this is the most likely way to interpret this passage but I find it plausible, at least to some extent. I would like ot note that when I answered you I never looked at any LDS apologists have said about this passage of Jacob. I did follow what I have learned conceptually in distinguishing between "curse" and "mark" and used what I have studied about the topic since then. Is that an "unbiased" enough and answer for you?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Creedalism in Mormonism, Joseph should be turning in his grave. If anything is apt to make Joseph turn in his grave, I should think that more likely would be the serious suggestion by professing members of the Church that the book Joseph brought forth and translated by the gift and power of God, the book he published to the world and gave his life defending, is not the divinely revealed ancient text that it purports to be. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Your kind of Mormonism apparently contradicts scripture. Goodness knows I'm no fan of creedalism. People should be allowed to believe what they want. But contradicting scripture doesn't seem like an issue of creed. I agree. This has nothing to do with creeds. It has to do with whether or not one accepts and believes divine scripture for what it purports to be.
hope_for_things Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If anything is apt to make Joseph turn in his grave, I should think that more likely would be the serious suggestion by professing members of the Church that the book Joseph brought forth and translated by the gift and power of God, the book he published to the world and gave his life defending, is not the divinely revealed ancient text that it purports to be. Divine, just not ancient. I actually think Joseph would have acknowledged this fact if he were alive today. Brigham Young's statement even alluded to as much. I think the people closest to Joseph in some ways saw things much differently than our tradition has evolved to look at things today. The nature of revelation for example, why would the counselors have been in charge of helping to edit the revelations and providing input and even specific doctrinal ideas to Joseph on a frequent basis? Today people think the words Joseph spoke were sacrosanct, but even Joseph didn't consider them that way as he was more than willing to change the meaning and wording to be completely different than the original in many cases. Quote Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. I can't fault in your having a more traditional view of Mormonism and I obviously understand and appreciate the value of this dominant paradigm. But I find it sad that you're less charitable towards people like me who have different paradigms that I've honestly come to through serious reflection and study and a desire to still find good in the traditions of my family and upbringing.
hope_for_things Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I agree. This has nothing to do with creeds. It has to do with whether or not one accepts and believes divine scripture for what it purports to be. In other words, you support creedalism, you just don't like people pointing it out. Your interpretation of scripture within narrow boundaries is exactly what a creed is.
hope_for_things Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If anything is apt to make Joseph turn in his grave, I should think that more likely would be the serious suggestion by professing members of the Church that the book Joseph brought forth and translated by the gift and power of God, the book he published to the world and gave his life defending, is not the divinely revealed ancient text that it purports to be. One more thing, he didn't give his life defending the BoM, I can't think of any reputable historians that would make such a claim.
champatsch Posted September 7, 2017 Author Posted September 7, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Joseph wasn't a systematic theologian, I think he was haphazard in his approach and it doesn't take that close of a reading of history to find these inconsistencies. I think that is part of what makes his theology so intriguing is just how reckless it is at times. It definitely shows how fluid his ideas were and what a creative and complex character he was. More likely that Joseph wasn't a consistent editor, which isn't surprising when faced with 270,000 words to edit and no modern tools.
Glenn101 Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: 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. We have no opposing viewpoint because the Lamanites did not keep records on non-perishable material. That is not the fault of the Nephites. However if it had been Laman that said "I will go and do the things that the Lord hath commanded....." we would most likely be reading 1 and 2 Laman in the Book of Mormon rather than 1 and 2 Nephi.
champatsch Posted September 7, 2017 Author Posted September 7, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: the book is a complete literary work in the genre of midrash and I believe Joseph Smith was the author This is an extremely unlikely view. To entertain this view you must have an extreme view of Joseph's abilities in the realms of biblical intertextuality and English usage. The former has begun to be studied and is impressive. The latter has begun to be studied--the archaic vocabulary usage and morphosyntax--and is unexpected and remarkable. The entire verbal system of the Book of Mormon is archaic and extra-biblical and not pseudo-biblical. The same can be said for many other low-level linguistic features, which must be taken into account and studied carefully before an informed decision on the subject can be made.
Guest Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 On September 6, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Marginal Gains said: 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse...” https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng First of all charges have been made to 19th century grammar, and punctuation. Also, Moroni makes clear in the title page, that errors exist, due to their weakness. But what it also makes clear, ..."do not mock the things of God". You even point out one of those changes, how many do you desire.
Recommended Posts