X-Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"christia@asuacad.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: V063KC44
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:11:00 EST
From:         The Nuzz <V063KC44@UBVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Revision of the Book of Mormon

Doug Gould responds to Mike Hartley...

[... ...]

dg> mh> Question: How can one make revisions to the English Manuscripts of the
dg> mh> Book of Mormon? Was the original translation inaccurate? How can that
dg> mh> be if, as the LDS claim, it was done by a miracle work of the Holy
dg> mh> Spirit?
dg>
dg> The Book of Mormon is "the most correct of any book on earth," according
dg> to the Prophet Joseph Smith, who should know, since he translated it by
dg> the "gift and power of God."  The original translation into English was
dg> accurate.  The problem stems from the fact that it was written in cursive
dg> on manuscript pages, then had to be typeset, and printed.  In the process
dg> of typesetting the manuscript, some words were unclear, and the printer
dg> had to use his best judgment--not necessarily by the inspiration of the
dg> Lord.  In other words, the manuscript, itself, as originally written by
dg> Joseph's scribes, under his inspired dictation, is correct.  But, by the
dg> time it came off the press it had some flaws, mostly minor.

Yes, Joseph Smith did teach that. In _History of the Church_, vol. 4, p.461,
Smith stated,

     ``I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any
     book on the earth...''

Earlier, in vol. 1, p. 54-55 of the _History of the Church_, Smith wrote that:

     ``...we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying,
     `These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been
     translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have
     seen is correct, and I commend you to bear record of what you now see and
     hear.' ''

Originally there were two handwritten translations of the BoM --- a copy which
was written by Joseph's scribes as he dictated it, and an ``emended'' copy
that was prepared for the printer. Unfortunately, most of the first copy was
destroyed through water damage. The second copy --- the copy given to the
printer --- was preserved by BoM witness, David Whitmer.

Enough digression. Smith's history agrees with Doug's posit --- that the BoM
as received was correct. However, Doug's posit that the typo's were due to the
error of the printer is suspect. Even Mormon historian, B.H. Roberts stated,

     ``That errors of grammar and faults in diction do exist in the Book of
     Mormon (and more especially and abundantly in the first edition) must be
     conceded; and what is more, while some of the errors may be referred to
     inefficient proof-reading, such as to be expected in a country printing
     establishment, yet 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 diposed 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. The errors are constitutional in
     their character; they are of the web and the woof of the style, and not
     such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition
     of the Book of Mormon is singularly free from typographical errors.''
     (_Defense of the Faith_, by B.H. Roberts, p.280-281; reprinted in _A New
     Witness for Christ in America_, by Francis W. Kirkham, v.1, p.200-201)

In a footnote on page 295 of the same book, Mr. Roberts stated:

     ``But after due allowance is made for all these conditions, the errors
     are so numerous, and of such a constitutional nature, that they cannot be
     explained away by these unfavorable conditions under which the work was
     published.''

I mention these to show that Mr. Gould's assertions are at odds with Mr.
Roberts'. I realize that Mr. Gould is a student of Mormon history, but I wish
to point out that Mr. Roberts is a Mormon historian. In the contradictory
opinions that are asserted, to whom does the onus of proof belong?

dg> I haven't had time to research the 3,000 revisions cited above.
dg> But I can illustrate one of them.  In 2 Nephi, chapter 5, verse 21, of the
dg> 1982 edition, we read:
dg>
dg>      . . . they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome
dg>                                          ^^
dg>
dg> speaking of the descendants of Nephi's brother, the Lamanites.  This was
dg> revised from earlier editions, which read:
dg>
dg>      . . . they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome
dg>
dg> It should be quite easy to see how a printer could leave off the "ly" in
dg> the word "exceedingly."  It's my understanding the "ly" was added, in this
dg> example, after a careful examination and comparison was made between the
dg> original manuscript and earlier editions of the book.  The vast majority
dg> of the revisions are of this type--very minor, not substantive, causing no
dg> alteration in the original meaning of the text.

It's ironic that you mentioned this one about ``...white, and exceedingly
fair...'' If you get a chance, take a look at 2 Nephi 30:6 in a 1964 edition
and then in the 1981 edition. Tell us what you find.

But back to the point that Doug puts forward. Doug would have us to believe
that the majority of the over 3,900 changes in the Book of Mormon from 1830 to
the present have to do with minor changes in spelling that were overlooked by
the printer. That is not the case. A great portion of the corrections in ``the
most correct book on earth'' were made to correct the grammar that the Mormon
god spoke out loud as being `correct.'

For example, there are many examples of where the first edition used the word
`was' instead of `were,' which was corrected in later editions. (The page
number given refers to the 1830 edition.)

``...Adam and Eve, which *was* our first parents;...''  page 15

``...and loosed the bands which *was* upon my wrists...'' page 49

``And great *was* the covenants of the Lord...''  page 66

``...and they were surrounded by the king's guard, and *was* taken, and *was
bound, and *was* committed to prison...''  page 169

``...and these interpreters *was* doubtless prepared...'' page 173

plus others...

The first edition used the `is' when it should have used the word, `are'

``...the tender mercies of the Lord *is* over all...''  page 7

``...there *is* save it be, two churches:...'' page 33

``...the words which *is* expedient...'' page 67

plus others...

`wrote' was changed to `written'...

``And thus ended the record of Alma, which was *wrote* upon the plates of
Nephi.'' page 347

``...therefore I have *wrote* this epistle...'' page 457

plus others...

`Done' was changed to `did.' `Neither' was changed to `either.' `Took was
changed to `taken.' `Began' was changed to `begun.' `For' was dropped, `a' was
dropped. `Exceeding fraid' became `exceedingly afraid' (3 places).

The Mormon god, who is asserted to have the most correct book on the earth,
has exceedingly bad grammar.

dg> I will need to defer
dg> comment on the few revisions that seem to change the meaning of the text
dg> until I have had a chance to study them.

     I appreciate the concession that there have been changes in the Book of
     Mormon that `seem' to change the meaning of the text. I thought that you
     may have ignored those posts.

dg> mh> And in any case, to correct a translation, you need the original.
dg> mh> Where is the original? Or a copy of it? I was under the impression that
dg> mh> only the English translation was available now, and was supposed to be
dg> mh> perfect from the very start.
dg>
dg> The Mormon Church has the original manuscript, not merely the English
dg> translation.  It's kept at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah.
dg> Joseph Smith didn't claim the book was perfect, only that it was "the most
dg> correct of any book on earth."

     The Mormon Church does not have the original manuscripts. They have the
     translation that Joseph Smith dictated to his scribes. The Golden plates
     of Moroni, the original manuscripts, are nowhere to be found.

dg> Actually, the Book of Mormon has been very well preserved, unlike the
dg> Bible which lacks the original manuscripts to compare to.

     The BoM lacks the original manuscripts. Did the Golden plates actually
     exist? Many of the witnesses said that they were only able to see them
     with `spiritual eyes.'

     On the other hand, archeologist are constantly finding codices and
     papyri that contain portions and segments of the Bible... The Dead Sea
     Scrolls, the John Rylands Papyrus, The Codex Sinaticus, The Codex
     Vaticanicus

dg> The Bible, by contrast, has been through many re-translations without the
dg> benefit of any original source documents.  How many various editions of
dg> the English Bible are available today?

     But the Bible has been translated from the manuscript copies that are
     avaliable in the original languages. These translations are based on the
     same manuscripts.

     The BoM, however, in the `reformed Egyptian,' doesn't exist to translated
     from. There is nothing to show that it ever existed. There is nothing to
     show that it was anything other than the product of the fertile
     imagination of a young man who was known to have been involved in
     occultic practices.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)