- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
John Dehlin put this out on his facebook today and wondered what you all thought about it: Can’t wait to read it when I get to a computer without a facebook filter. I would like to know where JD is at now – in regards to the church and faith.
I like the changes to the footnotes and chapter headings. Let me re-phrase that:
I love the changes to the footnotes and chapter headings.
They really aren’t changes to “The Book of Mormon” – but they point toward a very different interpretation of the passages, and I really, really, really like the new focus. (Fwiw, I also think it’s much more consistent with the OT meanings in similar passages – and all of the references were in the OT time period section of the BofM.)
I second what Cwald says… can we read this off Facebook please? Some of us don’t use it. Good stuff. Good changes. This is the text copied from the Facebook page:
Looks like the LDS church has made some changes to the Book of Mormon regarding “blackness,” curses and skin color. See email from Marvin Perkins listed below
=========================
Friends,
Most of you have recognized the new LDS.org website. Some of you have recognized that with the new site also came changes to chapter headings and footnotes in the scriptures. Not nearly is significant in number as the changes in the 1981 edition of the LDS scriptures, but equally confirming on the messages being conveyed. Here are a list of the changes that I’m aware of, along with some thoughts and two very compelling short videos below. I’d love to hear your thoughts as you prayerfully review the changes asking “what would the Lord have me understand about these recent changes?”
1 Nephi 12:23- The footnotes for “dark” have been removed (Jacob 3:3 and Alma 3:7 (6-19)) and replaced with 2 Nephi 26:33
2 Nephi 5- the words in the chapter heading “the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness” were changed to “the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed,”
2 Nephi 5:21- The footnotes for “curse” (2 Nephi 1:17 and Alma 3:6 (6-19)) were removed and replaced with “TG Curse”.
2 Nephi 5:21- The word “blackness” has a new footnote which is 2 Ne. 26:33.
Alma 3:6- The footnotes for “curse” have been changed from 1 Ne. 2:23 and 2 Ne. 5:21(21-24) to 2 Nephi 5:21; 26:33.
Mormon 5 Chapter heading removes “The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy and loathsome people” and replaces it with “Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them“
Mormon 5:15- The footnotes for “become” no longer reference 1 Ne. 2:23 and Alma 3:19(16-19) but are replaced by 2 Nephi 26:33
Moses 7:8,22- The words “blackness” and “black” both get new footnotes which lead to 2 Nephi 26:33.
From prayerfully studying the scriptures laid out in the Blacks in the Scriptures DVD series and the talk on “How To Reach African Americans” we understand that a curse is a separation from God because of sin, including loss of the spirit, a diming of the light of Christ within, a separation from His path and ways thereof (see 1 Nephi 20:23 then follow footnote for curse to Job 24:13)
We also understand that skin being spoken of in reference to “black” or “white” is referring to the state of the spirit and not a literal or physical skin color change. There are some that are still in the process of gaining a testimony of these gospel principals. I think that these recent changes should aid in this process. Notice that the changes in the chapter headings of 2 Nephi 5 and Mormon 5 get the reader so much closer to understanding the curse as a “separation” than does the earlier language.
Secondly, notice all of the redirecting, in addition to new footnotes pointing us to 2 Nephi 26:33. This is significant because as we’ve studied all of the scriptures laid out in the attached scripture reference guide for “black” and “white”, by the time we get to 2 Nephi 26:33, we understand that Joseph Smith could have easily translated the word “black” as “wicked” meaning the spiritually dark, as well as the word “white” as “righteous”, referring to the state of the spiritually pure and clean. Well I say he could have easily translated it as such and he actually did. See Alma 11:44. You’d think you’re reading the exact same passage, but this time you see the wicked and the righteous, in place of black and white.
So I sincerely hope that this is helpful and that you’ll pass this onto others and engage in productive conversations about these new changes from the Church.
And now for the video. Now the Lord has told us over and over that He is no respecter of persons. He teaches us in 1 Samuel 16:7 that He doesn’t look on the outward appearance as does man. We see many times in the Book of Mormon where the Nephites, Lamanites and Amlicites had to do specific things to themselves just to be able to distinguish themselves from each other. They would not have had to do this if there were an actual skin color change. (See Alma 3). We also see in the Book of Mormon times when the Nephites passed themselves off as Lamanites just by telling them that they were Lamanites. This also could not have happened if there were a literal skin color change. By the way, anyone ever seen anyone’s skin color change after a baptism? So this video is riveting. It starts slow, so please be patient and know that it gets really gripping. After viewing it, ask yourself if a loving Father in heaven and our Savior Jesus Christ, would create these dynamics seen in these children in a matter of minutes and hours. I think the scriptural truths will resonate as you view these and confirm the understanding set forth with the newest changes to the scriptures from the church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BrFHq-t2VY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UbNp15zDtE&feature=related Day two of the experiment saw those who thought they were better, find out that they were worse and that those with different color eyes were better. I was amazed at how quickly the high self worth of that group plummeted. The lower sense of self worth caused them to not apply themselves, believe in themselves or approach their work with undivided thought, instead, partly thinking about their second class status. Even couched in kind tones, today we find many in the church who utilize labels of separation like your people, our people etc. We are one.
Sincerely,
Marvin
Quote:
We also understand that skin being spoken of in reference to “black” or “white” is referring to the state of the spirit and not a literal or physical skin color change. There are some that are still in the process of gaining a testimony of these gospel principals. I think that these recent changes should aid in this process.Just spin. The changes in chapter headings are welcome but the rest is just spin.
Orson wrote:Quote:…Mormon 5 Chapter heading removes “
The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy and loathsome people” and replaces it with “Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them“ Moses 7:8,22- The words “blackness” and “black” both get new footnotes which lead to 2 Nephi 26:33.
We also understand that skin being spoken of in reference to
“black” or “white” is referring to the state of the spirit and not a literal or physical skin color change.There are some that are still in the process of gaining a testimony of these gospel principals. I think that these recent changes should aid in this process…So I sincerely hope that this is helpful and that you’ll pass this onto others and engage in productive conversations about these new changes from the Church.
I guess my question is why should some of these changes be necessary in the first place if it was really translated by the gift and power of God? Apparently this process is not nearly as reliable as most TBMs have been led to believe. Trying to claim that “white and delightsome” means essentially the same thing as “pure and delightsome” (another change made in 1981) looks like it is more of an apologetic PR move to me than anything else. Even though I think the changes are positive they mostly just give me one more reason to assume that the BoM is a 19th century work of fiction not to be taken literally as the “word of God” or “most correct of any book on earth.”
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I guess my question is why should some of these changes be necessary in the first place if it was really translated by the gift and power of God? Apparently this process is not nearly as reliable as most TBMs have been led to believe.
The text in the chapter headings that describe the content of the chapter are a much later addition. They were written by a church committee, and Bruce R. McKonkie was a key member of that committee. So were talking about something added 100 or so years after the Book of Mormon was first published.
It doesn’t dodge the fundamental problems in the chapter headings, but it does put it into perspective. Personally, I try to think of it like this: Don’t get in the way of someone when they are trying to make a change that you want. Kudos to them for changing them! (better late than never?)
I think these changes are fantastic. I like your take on it Brain. However, it does make SWK look pretty silly. It does make BRM look pretty silly. It is just another VERY RECENT example of why the 14 Fundamentals nonsense is so blatantly false and dangerous.
Brian Johnston wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:I guess my question is why should some of these changes be necessary in the first place if it was really translated by the gift and power of God? Apparently this process is not nearly as reliable as most TBMs have been led to believe.
The text in the chapter headings that describe the content of the chapter are a much later addition. They were written by a church committee, and Bruce R. McKonkie was a key member of that committee. So were talking about something added 100 or so years after the Book of Mormon was first published.
It doesn’t dodge the fundamental problems in the chapter headings, but it does put it into perspective. Personally, I try to think of it like this: Don’t get in the way of someone when they are trying to make a change that you want. Kudos to them for changing them! (better late than never?)
Right, but McConkie was an apostle and therefore supposedly an inspired prophet, seer, and revelator that should have been able to help us understand the proper interpretation of these scriptures. In the case of the Mormon 5 header it looks like they just copied part of it almost verbatim from the text that is still in
Mormon 5:15: Quote:this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites. I’m not trying to say they shouldn’t have made these changes, all I’m saying is that for me these changes highlight many of the fundamental problems I have with the idea of the Book of Mormon being the literal “word of God” because it looks to me like a product of the environment it was published in while the Church claims this is real history from about 600 BC to 400 AD. The problem is that TBMs will typically associate Lamanites with Native Americans so some of these comments that might not have sounded so bad to people in 1830 are not politically correct at all now and some of it is downright offensive to many people nowadays.
GBSmith wrote:Just spin. The changes in chapter headings are welcome but the rest is just spin.
I agree that some of this, perhaps most of it is spin. I do not understand what it is like to be an African American or black member of this church. I do know that I found alot of the “less valiant pre-mortal spirit” teachings during my mission in books like Answers to gospel questions and Doctrines of Salvation etc. Some feel that in addition to priesthood and temple access for all worthy members there should be a public apology and repudiation of those former ideas. I do not know that an apology will ever be forthcoming, but this appears to be a positive step.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I guess my question is why should some of these changes be necessary in the first place if it was really translated by the gift and power of God? Apparently this process is not nearly as reliable as most TBMs have been led to believe. Trying to claim that “white and delightsome” means essentially the same thing as “pure and delightsome” (another change made in 1981) looks like it is more of an apologetic PR move to me than anything else. Even though I think the changes are positive they mostly just give me one more reason to assume that the BoM is a 19th century work of fiction not to be taken literally as the “word of God” or “most correct of any book on earth.”
It would seem (from what I’ve read in RSR)that JS kept making changes to the D&C, and not just adding new sections but splicing parts together and even altering the meaning of passages. I wish there would be more acceptance of the church leadership making such changes now. If JS could make such changes as his understanding developed, why can’t his successors make similar changes after a century and a half of “new understanding.”
I do not know if JS literally read off gold plates, or if the thoughts of ancient prophets were “beemed” into his head, or if Josephs own cultural upbringing, mental framework, and even prejudices colored the translation. But I know that the words as they stand enshrined in scripture and the emphasis that they are given in the headings and the footnotes do have an affect on many persons both for good and not so good. I for one welcome the changes.
:clap: Fwiw, I don’t read the chapter headings, for the same reason schism mentioned. I like the footnotes, Topical Guide, Index, and other study helps – since I’ve seen what can happen without any context for scripture study, but the chapter headings just don’t do anything for me.
Old-Timer wrote:the chapter headings just don’t do anything for me.
Don’t tend to find them inspiring myself, but I often use them to find things. They’re not as good as they might be, and very subjective, i.e. not what the original writer may have intended, but they’re much better than nothing.
Too late now really, but one of my gripes with the BoM and LDS scriptures is that some of the verses are so long compared to the Bible equivalents.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.