russ@dadla-b.UUCP (09/21/83)
In a recent submission I made the following comment about changes in the Book of Mormon: Jon, why do you keep harping on a point that has absolutely no meaning? To which Jon replied: >I think that this point has a lot of meaning. If the Book of >Mormon were really the inspired word of God, then I seriously >doubt that any Mormon would dare change it. According to Joseph >Smith's own testimony, there should have been absolutely no >reason to alter the Book of Mormon: >"We heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, >`These plates...have been translated by the power of God. THE >TRANSLATION OF THEM WHICH YOU HAVE SEEN IS CORRECT..." [emphasis >mine] (History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 54-55) >Note that in the above quote, God (or whoever) said that not only >did Joseph Smith get the translation right, but SO DID THE SCRIBE >who copied down Smith's words. So who is left to blame? You >guessed it, the printer! And the scribe that made later copies? Oliver Cowdery made a complete copy of the text to be used by the printer. He introduced some errors while making the second copy. Although the printer introduced his own errors reading from this printers copy. >I have already shown that God has contradicted Russ in his >assertion that the scribes introduced errors. And now I will >quote Mormon historian B.H. Roberts to show that Russ is also >incorrect about the printer introducing errors: >"Such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven >are they throughout the diction of the book, that they may not be >disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading >or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the `typos,' >or the unfriendliness of the publishing house...Indeed, the first >edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free of typographical >errors." (A New Witness for Christ in America, The Book of >Mormon pp. 200-01) Nevertheless, errors were introduced in the printing process. >I would also like to take this opportunity to expose another >popular Mormon claim that Russ makes: But nowhere has there been a doctrinal change made in the Book of Mormon. Changes would only be significant if they were an attempt to upgrade the text to bring it in line with modern thinking. >It just so happens that the current Mormon doctrine of God >teaches that there is really a plurality of Gods. But the >founders of Mormonism apparently had no such doctrine in mind >when the put together the Book of Mormon. This change in >doctrine accounts for the following alteration to 1 Nephi 13:40: 1830 edition Modern edition ------------ -------------- "And the angel spake unto me, saying: "And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records shall make known These last records shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal that the Lamb of God is THE SON OF Father and the Saviour of the the Eternal Father and the Saviour of world..." the world..." >Similar changes to the above were made to 1 Nephi 11:18-21 and 1 >Nephi 11:32. Jon tries to use this example to show that a doctrinal change has been made to the Book of Mormon, but the manuscript of the Book of Mormon written by Oliver Cowdery and now in possession of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains the added words. This was definitely a printer's error. >Another interesting change was made to avoid an embarrassing >internal contradiction. In Mosiah 21:28, a reference to "king >Benjamin" was changed to "king Mosiah" because from a chronology >earlier in the book, it appeared that king Benjamin should have >been dead at that time. This is definitely an error in the manuscript made by Oliver Cowdery, we don't have the original manuscript of this portion. But the question is where did the error come from? Was it an error in the dictation of Joseph Smith or did he correctly translate an error of Mormon, the abridger of the Book of Mormon? I am only saying that this is a possibility. In the title page of the Book of Mormon which is also a translation it says, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, . . ." There is no claim that the book is error free, but the errors are the mistakes of men. Now you may say, "boy is Russ using a weak excuse this time," but if you require a very literal interpretation of the statement that the translation is correct according to God; I also can require the same literalness and say that the translation is correct, but the original was in error. >However, the most telling change to the Book of Mormon occurs on >the title page and in "The Testimony of Eight Witnesses." In >both places in the 1830 edition, Joseph Smith was referred to as >the "author and proprietor," whereas the modern edition merely >gives him credit for being the "translator." Let me quote from B. H. Roberts: "In the first edition, the words 'Author and Proprietor' appear instead of the word 'translator.' The reason for this is obvious. Under the laws then existing the copyright was secured to 'authors and proprietors;' and hence on the title page of the first edition, 'Joseph Smith, Junior, author and proprietor,' takes the place of the line 'Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun.,' in the latter editions. The Prophet merely adopted the phraseology of the law. Preceding the preface to the first edition appears the following certificate of copyright, which is interesting not only as explaining the foregoing point, but also as preserving as important date in church history: Northern District of New York, to wit: Be it Remembered, That on the eleventh day of June, in the fifty-third year of the Independence of the United States of America, A. D. 1829, Joseph Smith, Jun., of the said District, hath deposited in this office the title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as author in the words following, to wit: [Here follows the title page with the words, 'By Joseph Smith, Author and Proprietor, Palmyra: Printed by E. G. Grandin, for the Author. 1830.'] In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, 'An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors [notice!] of such copies, during the times therein mentioned;' What else was Joseph to do? Have the book copyrighted as God or the Angel Moroni as the author? When Joseph says the the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the Earth, he is making a comparison with other books...he was referring to the concepts and ideas, that they would stand the test of time, as well they have. Even now the quibbling is not over the text of the Book of Mormon, but in how it come to be produced. >Oh, indeed? You should go back and re-read some of my past >articles. There are many severe problems with the content of the >Book of Mormon that your puny, selective "proofs" do not begin to >make up for. Why has not one shred of archeological evidence >been found to support the book? There have been many shreds of evidence to support the Book of Mormon. The items mentioned by J. D. Jensen are a few. I hope to be able to present more in the future. >Why do many phrases from the New >Testament (written after 34 A.D.) show up in a document that was >written by people that lost contact with the Middle East after >600 B.C.? Likewise, why are many passages plagiarized from the >Old Testament books that were written after 600 B.C.? Yes there are similarities. One of the lessons we learn from the Dead Sea Scrolls is the reworking of scriptures in applying them to themselves that their scripture was something that relied on previous scripture. The pattern was also evident in the Book of Mormon. It is entirely possible that the Book of Mormon prophets are quoting from the same sources. We know that there are many scriptures that are not contained in the Bible, and only a small portion of Christ's teachings are contained in the Bible. There are also similarities between the Book of Mormon and a Hymn in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but we know that Joseph could not have copied from the Dead Sea Scrolls. >Why is the book so concerned with all the great 19th century theological >controversies (infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, who may >baptize, free masonry, the call to the ministry, etc.)? Those same topics are covered in the Bible, is it concerned with 19th century controversies? I do admit that the Book of Mormon makes some stronger statements on some of them. But wouldn't you expect more scripture to touch on some of those sensitive issues? As you have a wider and wider base of scripture, it will be more specific on more and more topics. >Why does the book borrow from "The Westminster Confession and >Catechisms," which was written in 1729? I am not familiar with this. >Why do Greek words such as Timothy, Jonas, Alpha, and Omega appear >in the book when the Nephites could not have possibly had any >contact with Greek culture? Out of the over 200 non-Biblical names that appear in the Book of Mormon, it is strong evidence for the Book of Mormon that the couple of Greek names still fit into the pattern for Lehi's day. If this were a fraud, no such luck would be possible. I am surprized that you say that Jonas is Greek (Jonah?) but I do know of two greek names Timothy and Lachoneus. Quoting from Hugh Nibley: Since the fourteenth century B.C. at least, Syria and Palestine had been in constant contact with the Aegean world, and since the middle of the seventh century Greek mercenaries and merchants closely bound to Egyptian interest (the best Egyptian mercenaries were Greeks), swarmed throughout the Near East [R. H. Pfeiffer, "Hebrews and Greeks before Alexander," Jnl. Bibl. Lit. LVI (1937), 91-94, 101; and others] Lehi's people, even apart from their mercantile activities, could not have avoided considerable contact with these people in Egypt and expecially in Sidon, which Greek poets even in that day were celebrating as the great world center of trade. It is interesting to note in passing that Timothy is an Ionian name, since the Greeks in Palestine were Ionians (hence the Hebrew name for Greeks in Palestine: "Sons of Javanim"), and--since "Lachoneus" means "a Laconian"--that the oldest Greek traders were Laconians, who had colonies in Cyprus and of course traded with Palestine.[Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums II, i, 553] (An Approach to the Book of Mormon, p. 250) As far as the words Alpha and Omega, do you imply that any words from a foreign language should not be used in an English translation? The King James English translation of the Bible uses those words. Besides what should they have been translated as? A to Z? Surely that would be nonsense. They could have been translated as the beginning and the end, but so could the King James translators, but they didn't either. >And why on earth would the Nephites (people of Hebrew descent who >should have hated the Egyptians) choose to keep their records in >"reformed Egyptian"? Maybe you feel they should have hated the Egyptians, but that is not what we have learned about the people in Jerusalem around 600 BC. I think the Lachish letters would provide a good insight here. Hopefully I will get a change to post a review to the net. >The answer to these questions can only be that the Book of Mormon >is a 19th century fabrication. Or so you continue to claim. I am still not sure of the basis for your case. Admitedly I have left a couple of possibilies open, but there still is a geat deal of evidence that supports the case of the Book of Mormon that you have not refuted. Russell Anderson Tektronix
jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (09/23/83)
Well, I hope someone is still reading this stuff, because I think that we are narrowing in on a crucial point. In my last article, I produced a quote from God saying that neither Joseph Smith nor the original scribe could have introduced errors in the Book of Mormon. Russ replied: And the scribe that made later copies? Oliver Cowdery made a complete copy of the text to be used by the printer. He introduced some errors while making the second copy. I might have known -- it's the old "double scribe" trick! (More on this later.) I also produced a quote from Mormon historian B.H. Roberts who asserted that "the first edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free of typographical errors." In the face of this learned testimony from a Mormon expert, Russ stuck to his story: Nevertheless, errors were introduced in the printing process. I also pointed out three places (there are actually four) in the Book of Mormon that were modified to accommodate a doctrinal change, namely the plurality of Gods. Russ responded: Jon tries to use this example to show that a doctrinal change has been made to the Book of Mormon, but the manuscript of the Book of Mormon written by Oliver Cowdery and now in possession of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains the added words. This was definitely a printer's error. By way of rebuttal, allow me to quote Harry L. Ropp: Some Mormon apologists assert that the phrases in question were in the original handwritten copies of the Book of Mormon (Joseph had his scribes produce two copies so that, in case of theft, one would be preserved) and were omitted by the printer. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now in possession of one of the originals in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery [this would be the second copy]. In this manuscript two of the verses in question have the words "the son of" ADDED BETWEEN THE LINES. In the other two verses nothing has been added, and they read exactly as in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. The Church Historian's Library (an official arm of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints) has a portion of the second manuscript [the original copy]. It contains three of the four verses in question, and these three are in exact agreement with first edition. (The Mormon Papers, p. 42) Clearly, these doctrinal changes were an afterthought. I also pointed out one of the two places where "king Benjamin" was changed to "king Mosiah" to avoid an internal contradiction. Russ responded: This is definitely an error in the manuscript made by Oliver Cowdery, [but] we don't have the original manuscript of this portion. I wonder, then, how Russ is so sure who introduced the error? Russ then went on to rationalize as to why there should be mistakes in the "most correct of any book on earth," but I think that if God went to all the trouble to translate the gold plates through a common ruffian such as Joseph Smith, He would have also made sure that no one else screwed up. In addition, I mentioned: However, the most telling change to the Book of Mormon occurs on the title page and in "The Testimony of Eight Witnesses." In both places in the 1830 edition, Joseph Smith was referred to as the "author and proprietor," whereas the modern edition merely gives him credit for being the "translator." Russ replied: What else was Joseph to do? Have the book copyrighted as God or the Angel Moroni as the author? That might explain why the title page was changed, but it certainly doesn't account for why a signed statement was altered. I have now dealt with all of Russ' objections to my statements concerning Book of Mormon changes. In a separate article I will further explore the evidence that proves the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century fabrication. Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore