The Mosiah/Benjamin Error, What’s the King’s Name?

[Shulem]

Dang It!, By Gosh!...

That is what Smith must have thought the moment he was informed that king Benjamin was long dead during the time Ammon proselyted king Limhi, telling him of king Benjamin’s super interpretation powers!



Seriously, though, let’s take a deeper look into the cover-up, shall we?

Printer’s Manuscript

After work on the 1830 edition was completed, the printer’s manuscript likely remained in the possession of Joseph Smith and his associates. In 1837, a new edition of the Book of Mormon was prepared, and the text was “carefully re-examined and compared with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr. the translator of the Book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O. Cowdery.” Textual evidence, however, indicates that the two editors used only the printer’s manuscript and the first published edition—not the original manuscript—to prepare the text for the second edition. In addition to 1830 compositors’ marks, therefore, the manuscript contains emendations made by Joseph Smith in preparation for the publication of the 1837 edition.

<snip>

Years later, during the winter of 1836–1837, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery marked up the printer’s manuscript in preparation for the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon. Most of the changes for that edition involved grammatical corrections or stylistic changes. The differences found in the 1837 edition compared with the 1830 are not always found marked in the printer’s manuscript, but when present, they are in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. The preface to the second edition states that Smith and Cowdery “carefully re-examined and compared with the original manuscripts.” However, a comparison of the original manuscript, printer’s manuscript, and first edition indicates that only the printer’s manuscript and the first edition were used to prepare the second edition.

We know that Joseph Smith as Editor in Chief was personally responsible for all changes made to the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon. Now if you turn to page 155 of the manuscript document:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... y-1830/155 (404 Page Not Found)

See how there is no notation or scribal change made in the manuscript for “king Benjamin had a gift from God.” The sentence in the handwritten manuscript remains untouched and intact! There is nothing to indicate a change was made via the manuscript!

Why? Because it was a cover-up and there was to be no record of the change! No discussion. No transparency!

The Editors at The Joseph Smith Papers provide a footnote (441) for Benjamin in their typed facsimile (click on the book icon to the left of the image) and see 441.1837: “Mosiah”.

Thus we see that Joseph Smith never documented the change!

It was a COVER-UP and a lie!

And now, U know.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

[I Have Questions]

Considering the nature of this textual change, I am a bit surprised our critics have not made more noise than they have....one would think the critics would spend much more time on this particular textual anomaly than they have.

This thread is making plenty of noise and should prove quite a surprise for some people. The “textual anomaly” has become a scandal insomuch as the coverup and lie is the real problem. Will apologists take the time to answer these charges?

As it pertains to our critics, who often believe themselves to be “learned” (or informed) on LDS matters, it seems to suggest that our critics are stuck in a rut.

I am learned and quite informed about LDS matters and concerns. I am not in a rut. This thread proves that!

In other words, our critics are asking the same tired questions over and over again, apparently unaware of the growing body of LDS scholarship that tends to substantiate LDS truth claims. The critics are elegantly, or not so elegantly, tied to a world that no longer exists, a world where substantive answers are becoming more and more available.

The tables have been turned and you are in a rut!

I think this thread is quite elegant, thank you.

Which specific LDS truth claims have been recently substantiated by a growing body of scholarship?

[Shulem]

Which specific LDS truth claims have been recently substantiated by a growing body of scholarship?

Bear in mind, the FAIR apologetic paper was published some 25 years ago and was deemed cutting edge Internet apologetics at the time. But it’s rudely presented, condescending, and serves as a smug smack down against critics who ask the same tired questions over and over again. The very idea of a growing body of scholarship in defending this anomaly is a smoke and mirror trick and fails to consider why Smith changed the name in the first place and by what authority did he do so in light of the claims he read the name “Benjamin” by God’s infinite power. What right did Smith have to override God’s word? That is what the apologists fail to understand. Instead, they think their growing body of scholarship in finding excuses of why it was okay for Ammon to tell Limhi that it was Benjamin rather than Mosiah is nothing short of a song and dance. They dream up plausible apologetic possibilities of how it could be this or that. It’s an apologetic case of looking for any answer to justify Book of Mormon wording rather than address the elephant in the room. The apologists want to take our eye of the ball and they have done an excellent job doing that until now with the presentation of this thread. Wouldn’t you say?

[Brack]

Royal Skousen offers a song and dance in attempting to explain some of the changes made in the Book of Mormon. He avoids the controversy of what originally appeared on the seer stone (instrument) by the power of God’s miraculous hand and not of man. Skousen gives Smith a blank check to change textual theology in what he explains were mere clarifications. But in reality, he is covering up Smith’s original coverup in making changes to divine text given by God. He points out how “Joseph made the changes, to be sure, but he didn’t leave any notes or explanation.” That is a coverup!

For example, 1 Nephi 11:18:

the virgin which thou seest is the Mother of god

the virgin which thou seest is the Mother of God

the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God

the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of the Son of God

Skousen claims the change was best interpreted as clarification and offered a tidbit that mocks Smith for insensibilities, saying “Perhaps he [Smith] didn’t like the Catholic sounding expression.”

Give me a break! The Book of Mormon translation was supposed to be from God and it was God that miraculously caused the writing to appear on the stone whereby the translator read it and the scribe recorded it.

Please visit one of my other threads that demonstrates how Smith changed his doctrine to suit his changing beliefs and why he changed certain text in the Book of Mormon without providing any accountability or reason for having done so:

The First Vision

The Book of Mormon changed made within 1st Nephi 11:18 (Page 25 of original Book of Mormon) from the "mother of God" to the "mother of the Son of God" in 1837, is one of the most interesting and fascinating changes to the Book of Mormon. While I don''t completely agree with Royal Skousen on why that Book of Mormon Passage was changed, it is ironically similar to the reason why the 20th century Mormon critic Walter Martin gave to the reason why that passage was changed.

5. The Roman Catholic Church should be delighted with page 25 of the original edition of the Book of Mormon, which confirms one of their dogmas, namely, that Mary is the mother of God.
“Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God.”
Noting this unfortunate lapse into Romanistic theology, Joseph Smith and his considerate editors changed 1 Nephi 11:18 (as well as 1 Nephi 11:21, 32; 13:40), so that it now reads: “Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of the Son of God.”

Link