LDS 4000 Changes To The BOM

[Solomon Smith]

So did copyists make errors or not?

With all the manuscripts in existence I’m sure there were some discrepancies but they are minimal compared to the 4000 errors in the BOM.

 

[sfs]

With all the manuscripts in existence I’m sure there were some discrepancies but they are minimal compared to the 4000 errors in the BOM.

You should have a chat with the guy who wrote, "PS: There were zero changes made to the biblical text. The scribes had to copy the scriptures perfect," and set him straight.

 

[Solomon Smith]

You should have a chat with the guy who wrote, "PS: There were zero changes made to the biblical text. The scribes had to copy the scriptures perfect," and set him straight.

Clearly I am aware that there are some differences in some of the manuscripts. I am aware that some manuscripts have complete sections missing.

 

[sfs]

Clearly I am aware that there are some differences in some of the manuscripts.

Saying that there are zero differences in the manuscripts is a really bad way of conveying the idea that there are more than zero differences.

 

[Solomon Smith]

Saying that there are zero differences in the manuscripts is a really bad way of conveying the idea that there are more than zero differences.

Many of the manuscripts do have zero differences.

 

[sfs]

Many of the manuscripts do have zero differences.

Which manuscripts have zero differences from what scholars think is the most likely original text of the Bible?

 

[No Swansong]

When scribes copied manuscripts if they made any mistakes they had to throw the whole thing away.

Only in some Monasteries. Certainly not in all.

 

[Solomon Smith]

Only in some Monasteries. Certainly not in all.

During the early centuries the original Greek was not copied in monestaries. The OT was copied by Hebrew scribes and the NT was circulating throughout the early church. The Hebrew scribes did indeed dispose of manuscripts with errors.

 

[Ripheus27]

Regardless of the issue of Bible copyist errors or BoM translation errors or whatever, it is still dubious for Joseph Smith to have claimed that the BoM is the most true book in the world, will lead one to God better than all other books, etc. First off, why would the D&C or the Pearl of Great Price not also lead to God just the same? And what about all the certified words of LDS prophets? Couldn't those be collected into more scripture? Isn't the point of the LDS Church to have continuing revelation?

Now maybe Smith's claim about the value of the BoM isn't accepted by the LDS Church as itself scriptural, but why wouldn't it be?

 

[Ironhold]

Regardless of the issue of Bible copyist errors or BoM translation errors or whatever, it is still dubious for Joseph Smith to have claimed that the BoM is the most true book in the world, will lead one to God better than all other books, etc. First off, why would the D&C or the Pearl of Great Price not also lead to God just the same? And what about all the certified words of LDS prophets? Couldn't those be collected into more scripture? Isn't the point of the LDS Church to have continuing revelation?

Now maybe Smith's claim about the value of the BoM isn't accepted by the LDS Church as itself scriptural, but why wouldn't it be?

JS was talking about the theological truths of the book as compared to other words of scriptures of the day. The Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price had yet to be compiled.

 

[BigDaddy4]

If you're willing to do a fair bit of reading, then FARMS has an explanation.

Book of Mormon/Textual changes - FairMormon

The gist of it is that the vast majority of the alleged 4000 changes are typographical in nature, the kind of things that even the Bible itself has had happen.


And as far as CARM goes, the National Enquirer has a better batting average. Slick is yet another self-professed "Good Christian" who isn't willing to let the facts get in the way of his narrative.

Why do you keep trotting out this lame excuse when your "witnesses" to the BoM translation tell us that what JS wrote HAD to be correct or he couldn't proceed?
Bolded for emphasis
I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.

I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation

Page 11 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Part First, Chapter 1. Also, Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

​

Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.

Reported by Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," Millennial Star, Volume 44, pp86-87.

 

[Ironhold]

How far in the link did you read?

The vast majority of the changes were run-of-the-mill editorial changes such as would be expected in any given work; even the Bible has had changes like that over the years.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Did Whitmer or Harris lie?

 

[Ironhold]

You do realize that a lot of the changes were made by subsequent printers, right? And that these required further changes to fix?

 

[drstevej]

Why did Joseph Smith change justified to sanctified in the JST of Romans 8:28-30. The is no know textual support for this alteration. The change suits Smith's works based salvation.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You do realize that a lot of the changes were made by subsequent printers, right? And that these required further changes to fix?

Not so correct then, eh?

 

[dzheremi]

I don't buy that JS limited his view to the BOM being only most 'theologically correct' book ever (as in post #20, whatever the heck that's supposed to mean), because it was taught from as though it were the actual history of actual people, as it claims to be in its own introduction. Mormons thereafter identified particular individuals as being descendants of the BOM people. What is 'spiritual' about that to begin with, and if it was not meant to be taken to be so literally a retelling of historical and geographical fact, then why did Mormon leaders encourage it so with their own statements?

See the following, presented under the title "Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon Geography". These are his statements, made during his lifetime, not "anti-Mormon" in the slightest, and wholly incorrect.

Your own leaders have taught this stuff since the beginning, Mormons, and while I certainly do think it takes quite a lot of faith to believe it (because there is no evidence), the fact that it is intertwined with your belief in your scripture means that the scripture cannot only be limited to being 'theologically correct', since it is understood by Mormon leaders themselves to be making non-theological claims about the actual, factual (or non-factual, in this case) state of human migration, settlement, and civilization in particular places.

It seems to me that the Mormon is trying to have it both ways: it is only the most theologically correct book in the world, so it doesn't matter that it is full of errors on other actually scientifically falsifiable matters (e.g., DNA tests showing no Hebrew ancestry for any Native American Indians), because it only needs to be theologically correct, and that basically just requires saying it is, since that's a non-testable claim (there are no scientific tests for theological accuracy, since that's not a scientific claim to begin with, by its very nature). Yet on the other hand your own leadership going back to Joseph Smith himself are not content with making such unfalsifiable claims, and must go further so as to identify this people and that people as evidence for the BOM even though they aren't.

As I feel like I've been saying for years, just stop making quasi-scientific claims as to the historical reality of your book and the accompanying religion it is founded upon and there will be no problems. Until then, expect that you will have no rest from being rightly lambasted for believing nonsense that has impartially proven to be wrong.

"Most correct book in the world", my behind. If you truly do believe that, I've got some primo real estate to sell you in Zarahemla. It goes for real cheap, since the soil is all fairy dust and unicorn farts.

 

[A New Dawn]

Joseph Smith said "that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book," (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461). Allegedly it was translated by the power of God. Nevertheless, it has some 4,000 changes in it. Some are mere spelling corrections, but others are significant changes. Why is this so if the book of Mormon was translated accurately by the hand of God? Why would the Mormon Church continue to change the work even after Joseph Smith's death?

Some of the Many Changes in the Book of Mormon | CARM.org

When the printers manuscript was sent to the publisher for printing, it did not contain punctuation and it was left to the editor or typesetter to include whatever punctuation they thought was appropriate. Most of the changes result from fixing those punctuation errors. The rest are textual changes that do drastically alter the meaning of some of the more significant passages of the book (as was mentioned in another thread there were several changes to verses in Nephi that alluded to a more modalistic view of God and they were changed to correspond to a more Trinitarian view). And the LDS then completely altered the chapter/verse set-up from the original, which created some mild confusion (don't know that any of it was textual.)

 

[Peter1000]

I don't buy that JS limited his view to the BOM being only most 'theologically correct' book ever (as in post #20, whatever the heck that's supposed to mean), because it was taught from as though it were the actual history of actual people, as it claims to be in its own introduction. Mormons thereafter identified particular individuals as being descendants of the BOM people. What is 'spiritual' about that to begin with, and if it was not meant to be taken to be so literally a retelling of historical and geographical fact, then why did Mormon leaders encourage it so with their own statements?

It doesn't matter what you buy or not.
Joseph Smith said "that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book,"

It is of no matter what you or anyone says about what he was talking about, theologically or scientifically. I happen to believe he was talking more about the theological aspects of the BOM, but even the scientific aspects continue to come true, so it could be correct on that basis too. For instance:
When JS first said that a man built a boat and sailed from the Red Sea area to America, he was practically hung for saying such a fabulously false claim. And that attitude among scientists has remained until about 15 years ago, when the scientific community has been so unindated by data that a 5th century bc boat could cross the ocean, that they have reluctantly had to change their textbooks to not only religiously print that man came to America by walking across the Bearing Straits, to having to print that man also came by boat from other parts of the world. Wow, what a scientific win for JS, after 170 years of being ridiculed as a false prophet. Just 1 of 30 scientific aspects of the BOM that have come to pass.

But science was not the primary reach of the BOM, it was that a man could get closer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book. Those precepts are also taught in the bible, so it was rather audacious of JS to seemingly slight the Bible. Did he not understand that all of Christendom would falll on his neck and crush it. But there is no refuting that the principles taught in the BOM are Christian principles that will help a man be close to God and have EL.

So why fight that? Good principles that will help a man get closer to God?

 

[Peter1000]

Did Whitmer or Harris lie?

No, all that they said was true.