Need help with question about the BoM

[dw1994]

I was over at my parents house looking through my dads old BoM from when he went on a mission and I found something that I don't understand.

I came across 2 Nephi 30:6 and in his BoM the end reads

"their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

I know and checked to see but my newer BoM reads

their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a Pure and a delightsome people."

I was always taught that the BoM is the most correct book in the world and was a perfect translation.

I did a little looking and it looks like the change was made in 1981.

Why are there changes to the BoM if it is the most correct book and was a perfect translation?

Thanks for the help

[MarginOfError]

After completing the translation, Joseph Smith himself made edits. I think it's a little inaccurate to claim that the translation is perfect. No translation is perfect. I think it would be better to state that it is the "most correct book on the face of the earth." (introduction to the Book of Mormon)

I understand that to mean that the principles it contains are correct. That's a far cry from saying the translation is perfect.

[selek]

I was always taught that the BoM is the most correct book in the world and was a perfect translation.

You were misinformed (or perhaps misunderstood).

The Church has NEVER claimed that the Book of Mormon is a "perfect" translation- as such a thing is a logical impossibility.

To put it simply, there is no such thing as a "perfect translation" because any translation is automagically an interpretation.

Moreover, the Book of Mormon itself refutes the notion by stating on the title page that "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

This link (and others at the same website) can provide you additional scholarly information on the topic.

The Book of Mormon vs. the Critics: Nit-Picking for Fun and Profit « FAIR

I won't say the information is unbiased (another logical impossibility!), but it isn't being presented by people whose sole aim is to undermine testimonies and destroy the Church, either.

[skippy740]

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

The change was originally done by the Prophet Joseph, but was never updated.

Why was it done in 1981? What happened before 1981? The biggest announcement from the Church came in 1978... which prompted for additional corrections to chapter headings and footnotes in the LDS editions of the scriptures.

[Vort]

Just to let you know, I don't find it at all suspicious that your very first post here is to question the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on your accidental discovery of a relatively obscure wording change in your father's old missionary copy of the Book of Mormon. It's perfectly reasonable, and I have no doubt you are totally and completely on the up-and-up.

In the same vein, I am sure you will accept at face value my explanation that the change you mention was made by Joseph Smith himself, but through a publishing error was not propagated in later editions of the Book of Mormon until corrected in 1981. I have no doubt you will find this explanation both sufficient and enlightening.

This is why it's so nice to deal with people who are honest and up-front in their self-presentation.

Apropos of absolutely nothing:

hyp·o·crite

noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

Edited December 13, 2012 by Vort

[dw1994]

If Joseph made the change then why in a October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball using 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The Indian children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

Wouldn't the church authority know about the change? Then why did they still uses it?

So do we be leave that they will turn white?

Is that why the change was made? Because they are not turning white?

[selek]

To echo MoE's point above, the "unfinished" manuscript was dictated by Joseph to a variety of scribes, who then (IIRC) made a number of minor edits before it was sent to the printer.

The printer produced a printer's manuscript (and made a number of minor edits of his own) before the material was reviewed.

After the initial printing run was completed, additional edits were made.

Critics of the Church are more than happy to exaggerate the number and effect of these edits- with claims ranging (depending upon the level of gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth being done by the critic) from several hundred to hundreds of thousands.

The evidence- including side-by-side comparisons by reputable scholars- show that the corrections are almost invariably addressed spelling, punctuation, and grammar, rather than the substance of the sentence.

For all the wailing and tearing of hair that the critics are wont to do, these are substantially less invasive (and indeed less common) than the various edits done to the Bible over the last four decades.

It seems that most critics of the Church want to hold "our" holy book to a different and more stringent standard than they hold "their" holy book.

Yet they explicitly state- and desperately cling to- the very same false premise of inerrancy of which they (falsely) accuse us.

Funny, that.

[Vort]

I am sure it is total coincidence that you continue affirming your LDS status while simultaneously debating the truthfulness of the (true) explanations you have been given.

[skippy740]

If Joseph made the change then why in a October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball using 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The Indian children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

Wouldn't the church authority know about the change? Then why did they still uses it?

So do we be leave that they will turn white?

Is that why the change was made? Because they are not turning white?

I recommend actually READING and viewing the links that I provided in post #4. The answers you are searching for are there.

That is, if you're a seeker for truth.

[selek]

If Joseph made the change then why in a October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball using 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The Indian children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

Wouldn't the church authority know about the change? Then why did they still uses it?

So do we be leave that they will turn white?

Is that why the change was made? Because they are not turning white?

From the same source as the link above:

Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"white" changed to "pure" - FAIRMormon

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.

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 (current) 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.

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.

Mormonism and polygamy/Lamanites to become "white and delightsome" through polygamous marriage - FAIRMormon

Critics cite a statement made by Spencer W. Kimball in the October 1960 General Conference, 15 years before he became president of the Church:

"I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.[7]"

It is simply President Kimball’s own observation that he felt that the Indians were becoming a “white and delightsome” people through the power of God.

Then-Elder Kimball was likely unaware that Joseph Smith had edited the Book of Mormon text in 1837 to say "pure and delightsome," possibly to counter the idea that the change referred to was predominantly physical, rather than spiritual. This change was lost in future LDS versions of the Book of Mormon until 1981. (See here for more information).

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 (current) 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.

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.

As an honest observer of the facts can readily see, President Kimball's statement is open to interpretation.

In order to approach the conclusion that the "change" in the Book of Mormon is in fact an error- and that President Kimball's statement was intrinsically racist- one must bring those assumptions to the table himself.

The actual texts and statements themselves niether intrinsically demand nor explicitly support the critics interpretations.

Edited December 13, 2012 by selek

[Just_A_Guy]

I did a little looking and it looks like the change was made in 1981.

Why are there changes to the BoM if it is the most correct book and was a perfect translation?

I interned for a publisher in 2003. I worked both on editing manuscripts for new books, and preparing new editions of books already in print. And I can tell you that even in our modern age of computers and spell-checkers, "most correct book" is a very low standard indeed. See How We Got the Book of Mormon for a more detailed discussion of Selek's points regarding the various editions of the Book of Mormon and the textual problems perpetuated in each.

There's a lengthy corpus of literature out there about the translation of the Book of Mormon from a technical/linguistic standpoint. Brant Gardner's The Gift and Power would be a good start for you. Suffice it to say (and anyone who speaks a foreign language can bear this out): there's no such thing as a "perfect" translation of any text longer than a few paragraphs. Language is just too ambiguous and nebulous of a thing.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[bytebear]

By the way, there are 27 verses in the Book of Mormon that say "white" often in conjunction with purity. Why if the church was trying to hide it's supposed racism not change those verses?

[NeuroTypical]

I was over at my parents house looking through my dads old BoM from when he went on a mission and I found something that I don't understand.

Understandable. Believable. No red flags here.

If Joseph made the change then why in a October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball using 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The Indian children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

Huh. I guess you were also looking through your dad's old stack of '60's era Conference reports too, and just happened to pick up the October 1960 one, and just happened to thumb to the section to which you're referring.

They say that trust is one of the things that makes good communication flow easier. Perhaps you could set our minds at ease, and tell us a bit about yourself and your motives for coming here.

[livy111us]

This is quite an insightful piece from NAMI:

"How can one justify the change from "white and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 30:6 to "pure and delightsome"? "White" need not refer to skin color, as is clear from the following passages from the biblical book of Daniel: "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed" (Daniel 11:35). "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand" (Daniel 12:10).

In both of these passages, the meaning of the word "white" is most obviously pure; to "make white" is to purify (see also Mormon 9:6). When Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of "white" for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, he changed it to "pure," realizing that this better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi.

That the terms "white and pure" were considered synonymous by the rabbis is supported by the medieval Jewish kabbalistic text, Zohar 211b, which speaks of the purification of the souls of the dead by being "immersed in that 'river of fire'" mentioned in Daniel 7:10. The text says that "fire alone has the virtue of consuming every pollution in the soul, and making it emerge pure and white . . . for that soul will have to pass through the fire in order to come out pure and white" (Maurice Simon, and Paul P. Levertoff, The Zohar (New York:, 1958), 4:218-20.)"

[Seminarysnoozer]

I was over at my parents house looking through my dads old BoM from when he went on a mission and I found something that I don't understand.

I came across 2 Nephi 30:6 and in his BoM the end reads

"their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

I know and checked to see but my newer BoM reads

their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a Pure and a delightsome people."

I was always taught that the BoM is the most correct book in the world and was a perfect translation.

I did a little looking and it looks like the change was made in 1981.

Why are there changes to the BoM if it is the most correct book and was a perfect translation?

Thanks for the help

We do not have the perfect language, the Adamic language.

Read the book of Ether. The reason Mormon wanted that story in the compilation and the reason Moroni finished his father's work to put it in is, in part, to explain what happened at the tower of Babel. The language had changed from the perfect Adamic language to something way inferior because people focused too much on the wisdom of men as opposed to faith. The purpose of the writing is to increase our faith. The perfect writing or understanding comes only after the test of faith. If we are faithful in understanding the lesser part that is the Book of Mormon then we can receive greater truths. But this requires faith. The Title page explains about the book of Ether in the second paragraph and says; "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Mormon 9:" 31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

35 And these things are written that we may rid our garments of the blood of our brethren, who have dwindled in unbelief.

36 And behold, these things which we have desired concerning our brethren, yea, even their restoration to the knowledge of Christ, are according to the prayers of all the saints who have dwelt in the land.

37 And may the Lord Jesus Christ grant that their prayers may be answered according to their faith; and may God the Father remember the covenant which he hath made with the house of Israel; and may he bless them forever, through faith on the name of Jesus Christ. Amen."

In other words, the book of Mormon is kind of like if you took a college text and translated it for use in Elementary school. It is the perfect language dumbed-down to our imperfect language which are the "mistakes of men". The understanding of the words comes through faith. And so the reason that it is that way is for us to build up our faith first.

The book of Mormon uses the phrase "in other words" 13 times.

3 Nephi 26: "8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them. "

[Traveler]

Language is symbolic not exact. To understand scripture one must understand symbolic thought. Should there be textual changes to scripture?

Let me ask another question to demonstrate how stupid literal interpretation of things are - Who really is planning to make the Yule Tide gay?

Words have two properties concerning meaning. There is the extent of what a word can mean and then there is the intent that a word has. This problem is compounded several fold when translating languages. We see this spectrum of ideas in the traditions of Trinitarians. It is interesting to note that in explaining the Trinity the precise terms are vastly different than the terms used in scripture. That does not mean that the intent and extent of the terms are incorrect - but it does indicate inconsistency of thought.

Is it troublesome that a reference is changed from "White" to "Pure"? Not to a student of history that understands the purpose and teachings of Christ. But it is an opportunity for a Troll that has a "spirit" of contention guiding their primary purpose.

The Traveler

[Guest]

I don't see any error in the "white and delightsome" editions of the BOM just like I don't see any error in Elder Kimball's quote.

Just like, as Traveler very appropriately stated... I don't see homosexuality in Yuletide gay...

These things are what we, Filipinos, call a WORD HIJACK. Like what they did to Oriental...

[mnn727]

the Archaic (old) definition for 'White' was 'Pure'

Just like the word "troll" used to mean 'a monster that lived under a bridge'.

[BenRaines]

You are all so nice. Don't feed them. :)

Ben Raines

[PaPa]

I was over at my parents house looking through my dads old BoM from when he went on a mission and I found something that I don't understand.

I came across 2 Nephi 30:6 and in his BoM the end reads

"their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

I know and checked to see but my newer BoM reads

their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a Pure and a delightsome people."

I was always taught that the BoM is the most correct book in the world and was a perfect translation.

I did a little looking and it looks like the change was made in 1981.

Why are there changes to the BoM if it is the most correct book and was a perfect translation?

Thanks for the help

All scripture has gone through changes...white means pure.