LDS General Member Response please. Which is more accurate?

Question

There were many changes to the Book of Mormon made a few decades ago. While I understand the Official LDS response to why the changes were made, I want to understand which is more accurate. The book that Joseph Smith translated letter-by-letter "by the power of God." from the Golden Plates (reference:History of the Church, i, p.54-55). Now I agree it may not have been letter-by-letter as the History of the Church is not necessary 100% accurate. But compared to the Book of Mormon published in the 1800's vs the Book of Mormon published today there are several differences. One for instance is; Second Book of Nephi, p.117; (1830): "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people."
To Today's version; 2 Nephi 30:6: "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and delightsome people."
In your opinion which is the most accurate of the message god intended to be put in to the book?

Answer 1

For Chad: That's a HUGE change! And it comes right on the heels of the DNA evidence that debunks the truth of the Book of Mormon! They keep trying to stay ahead of science, but they're still one step behind it!



They also changed the racist part when it came to light.



I'm just so glad that MY God never changes! He is the same yesterday, today and forever!



God bless!

Answer 2

WOW!!! One little word change and everyone is up in arms!! I have read different versions of the bible, and there are so many word changes in the different versions that it changes the whole meaning of them. So are these changes wrong too? If you are going to use that one for the Book of Mormon, you need to be fair and include the bible also. Discrediting a book because of one tiny word change (or a few, as the case may be) is not the most intelligent way to go about it.



In the early 1800s, spelling and grammar were not yet standardized. Joseph dictated the translation to scribes who spelled many words in ways that are nonstandard today. Hundreds of spelling variants had to be corrected in the first edition and in subsequent editions of the printed text.



The driving force for virtually all changes has been to (1) ensure that the printed text is faithful to the original manuscript and (2) to ensure that the text is accessible and readable. Alleged departures from the original text generally turn out to be simple clarifications or reworkings of awkward grammar rather than doctrinal changes.



As far as "white" versus "pure": White is pure- the color white is used to show pureness. Look at all the angels coming in white clothing, or the image you see of angels with white wings. So, white is always a color that shows purity. It was never meant to mean skin color. Some people may have taken it that way, since not too long ago in our history, pretty much everyone thought that being Caucasian was better then being black. We know that isn't true, and that all of us are God's children, regardless of skin color. The change was back to the original wording.



Anyone can get a reprint of the original Book of Mormon from LDS bookstores. To me, these changes mean that God is still talking to us, that He means to clarify and resolve issues and doctrine. He has done it in times past, why not now. Nowhere that I have found says that God is done talking to us, and that He doesn't have the deciding factor in what He wants to say. To say that He has finished talking to His children limit Him. That isn't the work of God, but of man. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Answer 3

Many changes huh? Well you just showed one of the two. Grammatical errors by the scribes are just that...grammatical errors. There have only been two things actually changed and you pointed out one. In this instance, white and pure do mean the same thing. If you want something to criticize look at all the different so called translations of the bible. They really change the meaning drastically. That is why we use the King James. It is the most correct translation. But when It comes to either of these holy books I have prayed about them and I know their purpose. You can do the same. It will help if you ask God what He thinks.

Answer 4

When Joseph first translated the Book of Mormon, he admitted it was not perfect as he did it. It was subject to the errors of men. (BTW, I have never heard the "letter by letter" statement.) Thus, errors and typos were corrected as subsequent editions were published.



The change you refer to actually dates to 1837. Joseph Smith made the change in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, though it was not carried through in some other editions, which mistakenly followed the 1830 instead of Joseph’s change. (No computers for text comparison back then!) It was restored in the 1981 edition, but that was nearly 150 years after the change was made by Joseph.

I go with the pure and delightsome version. I think this is what the original author in the Book of Mormon meant.



This issue has been discussed extensively in the Church's magazines (e.g. the Ensign), and the scholarly publication BYU Studies.



Edit: Wow, Chad. You are so far off course here that I don't even know where to begin! Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

1st - You can't even spell "Lamanites" correctly, so I doubt you got the rest of it right.

2nd - I have several copies of different editions of the Book of Mormon here, and NONE of them have a "Forward". I have looked through all of them and I can't find the text you mentioned. Also have a brand new BofM here, nothing in that even close to what you claim.

3rd - "The Lamenites are the primary descendants of the American Indians." Are you retarded? Descendents are the generations that FOLLOW!!! If this is really what was put in the "Forward" of the Book of Mormon, it would have read that the "The Lamanites are the primary ANCESTORS of the American Indians"!! Dang, dude, you can't even make stuff up correctly!

4th - The whole DNA thing has been so completely debunked that it's laughable that you would even bring it up any more! Do your research, don't just spew invective.



New edit: Since truth_plain_and_simple does not accept email, I'll just post the address for all to see to regarding his challenge.. Obviously, I cannot produce a copy of the 1837 Book fo Mormon on a website, but this scholarly article will easily address the question: http://www.geocities.com/marcschindler1/vignette.htm



Best answer, please? (I need the points!!!!!)



Newer edit -

Chad: My initial point is still, so what? The introduction to the Book of Mormon is not scripture, and has never claimed to be such. This doesn't take away from the truthfulness of the book at all. The old statement was not doctrine, and neither is this new one.



Again, plain-truth and Chad, PLEASE do your research instead of just screaming accusations, most of them inaccurate, the rest skewed, and then retreat when presented with the facts. The "pure" translation was included in the 1837, 1841, 1852, 1879 and 1920 editions, and the 1981 edition finally cleared everything up. For a scholarly look at this, go to:

http://www.geocities.com/marcschindler1/vignette.htm (Of course, I doubt Chad will look it up. That would involve reading, sometimes requiring understanding of polysyllabic words, and he likes to get his research from youtube.)



Chad, what you really mean by the freethinking crack is that I refuse to believe in a limited worldview of the truth like you. Those of us who are free thinkers also understand the value of an education, otherwise, it's easy to be deceived by televangelists and such. It is my freethinking approach that allows me to accept the fullness of the gospel and to receive its blessings, instead of shutting myself off in a little ignorant bubble. Education is critical to freethinking. You might consider getting one.

Answer 5

In my mind both passages are equally accurate. The scriptures, including the Bible and the Book of Mormon, are full of symbolism. Symbolically speaking, white = pure. Everyone knows that. But I suppose the change was made because not everyone catches on to symbolism, apparently. If it still said white instead of pure, it would still carry the same meaning, although critics of the book would not see it that way.

Answer 6

One of the definitions of "white" is "pure". Those who would find fault with the Church would use the word "white" as proof of racism...when in reality it was a descriptive word meaning purity. So, it seems to me, that even though Joseph choose "white", "pure" expresses the meaning better due to the idiocy of those looking to find issue with the Book of Mormon and the Church.

Answer 7

It's just a difference in the way people spoke then and now. Back then white --meant pure. They probably changed it so make it would be less offensive. People take offense over what they consider to be politically incorrect. Terms change over time but basically mean the same thing. It depends on their perspective.

Answer 8

this is not any longer atypical. in many situations this is the will of the LORD to no longer talk except God instructions it. in many situations prophets have spoken, and characteristic spoken wrongfully. im no longer asserting that's LDS restrively yet applies to all historic past. there are few verses which say ONE could desire to no longer tutor if there is not any longer the spirit cutting-edge. yet another which says open your mouth and lord will fill. there are management sayings which rebuke elders for speaking using fact they talk out of turn or without the holy ghost. i myself have been informed by capacity of a bishop to quit bearing my testimony. why? using fact i say it too plenty. yet everytime i felt like i exchange into Moved by capacity of the spirit to realize this. yet for the Prophet and chief, president, of the church you are able to still desire to attend to comprehend the interest of the lord to talk. or he's regulated to the class as speaking as a guy. he did talk in priesthood consultation which isn't revealed to international throughout convention. yet transcripts may be gained with copyright regulations on the 1st rate church internet site.

Answer 9

Well, 'white and delight some' and 'pure and delight some" are the same thing. The probable reason it was changed is because it was not meant to sound racial. (And I suspect Joseph was commanded in this as well) White is not referring to skin color, but some might make a mistake and think that way. White is referring to the pureness of Christ. "Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow" As you can see it's not referring to skin color. So white and pure mean the same thing and the change in words does not CHANGE the meaning, but merely CLARIFIES it.

Answer 10

Today's book, of course. That's why we have living prophets... to clarify doctrines from the past, and help TODAY's people to draw closer to God.



The purpose of any holy book is to bring about holiness WITHIN people. They're not meant as scholastic treatise, and debating about any holy book is completely contrary to its purpose.



The point is, how the book makes you feel, and how it prompts you to act. The feelings and promptings I get from the BOM are all very uplifting, enlightening and cause me to increase in love and faith.

Answer 11

it is more accurate to have the word "pure" like he originally translated it...but since it was not written down correctly the first time by his scribe...Going back to the way he translated it is a better idea.

Answer 12

Mormons have made over 4000 changes to their BOM, D&C and PGP books. http://www.irr.org/mit/changingscrips.html



They claim to be Christian, yet reject basic Christian beliefs. That's like saying "I'm an American but was born and raised in Siam, have never been to America and don't speak English". Google "lying for the Lord" and you get Mormon info.



Court records show Joseph Smith was a convicted con-artist. He was not a martyr, he was a criminal. The leaders of the church he founded are criminals because they continue the con, costing the salvation of countless good people.



They spend a fortune to learn the best recruiting methods for their cult. This link provides several pages that outline the training of their missionaries and explain how they con people. (the missionaries themselves are conned) http://www.lds4u.com/Discussions/commitment.htm



I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of anyone promoting this con on Judgement Day.

Answer 13

here is another change going out this year



book of Mormon forward:



The Lamenites are the primary descendants of the American Indians.



changed to:



The Lamenites are among the descendants of the American Indians.



this has been done to conform to DNA results of bones from Alaska to Chile.



The pure vs. white is to conform with political correctness. The white, as I'm sure you know, refers to skin color.



It is interesting to note that Mormons desire to read a 1500's English translation of the bible known as the King James version. There is nothing wrong with this translation really other than the relevance of word meaning in today's 2008 english, but there are no changes to that book.



As you pointed out, the book of Mormon is "claimed" to come to us in a more "god inspired" manner.



I'm sorry sir, you are at the foot of a large mountain. it is a mountain of insurmountable evidence against the LDS church. Most Mormons cannot see the forest for the trees, because to admit to one obvious error is somewhat like pulling the thread on a sweater.

Answer 14

You should watch the DVD The Book of Mormon vs. The Bible. That will answer a lot of your questions.

Answer 15

Is this true? If it is, it's amazing! I mean, the Mormons put their book alongside the Bible as though it's at least equivalent, and changing the bible is a big no-no, but it looks as though changing the Mormons book is no big deal. I suppose it has a good side, I mean, they can't be accused of being mired in unchangeable dogma. But still, if you make up a religion as you go, it kind of loses meaning and it's kind of hard to take seriously...



Oh I see; according to 'Kneebreaker' (such a pleasant name), you can just go with what you think is the best one and that Joseph Smith apparently admitted that there might be mistakes. I can imagine Joe saying, "Well, here it is folks, the Book of Mormon another testament of Christ. But there might be a few mistakes in it...."