The Mosiah/Benjamin Error, Reinterpreted

[Shulem]

mistake

Yes, mistakes like that are easily made when etching laboriously on metal plates. And Tippex doesn’t work so well on gold or brass.

Imagine being there and actually watching Joseph & Oliver translate while the Spirit® is upon them filling their minds with God knows what! The gift of translation in operation through the choice seer demonstrating divine communication from God to man is exactly what Smith claimed to do. Can you imagine being there and watching the whole thing? And why didn't the Spirit® or Oliver notice the error and correct Joseph in the very act of translation? Oliver could have stopped the process and reminded Joseph that Benjamin was already dead. The name that materialized or appeared on the magic rock in the bottom of his hat was wrong! Do we blame it on God or man? You clearly see how apologetics can't put lipstick on this pig and get away with it.

It *is* a smoking gun.

I say this in the name of Jesus Christ,

Amen.



PS. f-u Skousen.

[Limnor]

I’d like to build on the implications of the error of Benjamin/Mosiah, as the same editorial effort by Mormon/Joseph that replaces Benjamin with Mosiah also recasts the sons of Mosiah.

In the first instance, under the Benjamin-Rigdon layer, Ammon (Pratt) and his three companions, Amaleki, Helem, and Hem, are sent on a mission from Zarahemla/Kirtland/the Western Reserve into the land of Nephi/Joseph as envoys of inquiry dispatched to return and report on the progress of the book because “they wearied him with their teasings” in Mosiah 7:1.

In the later layer, under the Mosiah-Joseph voice, the sons of Mosiah are different. The new Ammon (now Joseph) now a royal son, is joined by his brothers Aaron/Oliver, Omner/Whitmer and Himni/Harris, and their expedition is redefined from conducting a mission of inquiry to one of revelation and spiritual conversion.

The “doubling” of Ammons and their brethren is indicative of the editorial transition.

As Benjamin yields to Mosiah, the delegation of Rigdon to spread his theology is usurped textually and historically to Joseph’s version of the Restoration, eventually culminating with him as the leader, effectively overthrowing Rigdon.

The first “sons of Mosiah” represent Rigdon’s scouts—the early followers who searched for the record and checked upon its progress. The second set embody Joseph’s commissioned missionaries, who now bear the vision of an angel and the news that a record exists that will cement his authority.

The repetition of Ammon and the emissaries reflects replacement, not redundancy. Succession: the earlier mission is overwritten by a later one, just as the older sermonizing kingship of Benjamin is overwritten by the prophetic kingship of Mosiah.

Together the doubled Ammons, like the swapped royal names, mark the redactional hinge where authorship and authority passes from Rigdon to Joseph.

What looks like a simple error actually contributes to an understanding of what may have actually happened.

[I Have Questions]

Together the doubled Ammons, like the swapped royal names, mark the redactional hinge where authorship and authority passes from Rigdon to Joseph.

What looks like a simple error actually contributes to an understanding of what may have actually happened.

I think this is a very interesting train of thought.

[Limnor]

Together the doubled Ammons, like the swapped royal names, mark the redactional hinge where authorship and authority passes from Rigdon to Joseph.

What looks like a simple error actually contributes to an understanding of what may have actually happened.

I think this is a very interesting train of thought.

Thank you IHQ, that’s exactly the thread I wanted to pull.

When viewed through the redactional framework described by both Joseph—through a convenient revelation to him—and Mormon’s words, the repeated Ammons and the Benjamin/Mosiah error reveal the shift in authorship and authority.

Rather than simple scribal confusion, these moments appear to intentionally maintain narrative continuity while indicating an editorial transition from Rigdon’s theological framework to Joseph’s emerging prophetic voice.

What seems like simple error may, in fact, be key evidence of the Joseph’s editing process itself.

That same pattern shows up in the “miraculous finding” of the Small Plates. The whole episode feels like a built-in justification for a narrative reset and the perfect way to drop the old record and bring in one that conveniently includes the translator’s own prophecy.

Within that frame, it’s not just patchwork, but a strategic narrative and editorial move that lets Joseph reposition himself inside the story in an attempt to preserve continuity while transferring authority.

We will probably never know for sure, but my guess is the original “lost” 116 pages had some veiled reference to Rigdon within them, and Joseph seized the opportunity to replace Rigdon with himself.

Joseph (within the Book of Mormon) speaking on behalf of “the Lord”:

2 Nephi 3:15 And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation.

2 Nephi 3:18 And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman.

Traditionally, in my reading from Mormon historians, this “spokesman” is often considered to be Oliver Cowdery.

My proposal is Joseph considered that spokesman to be Sidney Rigdon, not cutting Rigdon completely out, but relegating his role to that of support to Joseph.

[Dr. Shades]

What looks like a simple error actually contributes to an understanding of what may have actually happened.

In that case, the transition would’ve made it into the original book, not changed in later editions.

I maintain that Benjamin/Mosiah was a simple screw-up that needed to be corrected, nothing more.

[MG 2.0]

What looks like a simple error actually contributes to an understanding of what may have actually happened.

In that case, the transition would’ve made it into the original book, not changed in later editions.

I maintain that Benjamin/Mosiah was a simple screw-up that needed to be corrected, nothing more.

I think that is the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation (a basic error) is more plausible than a complex editorial theory involving hidden theological succession.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I’d like to take a moment to describe the methodology that underpins my reasoning. My intent will be to do the same for the First Vision reasoning.

I’m borrowing some tools from the intelligence community—mainly the idea of indications and warnings—and applying them to the Book of Mormon as a way to trace how the text might have developed over time.

Within that context, I’m treating things like language shifts, repeated patterns, and sudden changes in emphasis as “indicators” that could point to underlying decisions or redactions.

Please remember my goal is not about proving or disproving belief, but about using a structured way of thinking to notice signals that might otherwise get overlooked.

The idea is to look at the book the way an analyst would look at any complex system: identification of trends, recognition and implications of anomalies, and timing across event horizons.

[Gadianton]

Limhi was again filled with joy on learning from the mouth of Ammon that King Benjamin had a gift from God

Limhi must have been exceptionally gullible. Not even MG would believe it if let's say, an ambassador reported that Kim Jong Un wields a gift to translate records.

Most of you are aware of this issue,

First time I've heard of it, I don't know much about Mormon history or the production of the Book of Mormon.

The problem believers like MG and Skousen have with the "slip up" theory is that it's not just a name change, but the individual bearing the name has this fantastic gift of translation. So now we're not talking about confusing Fred, the brilliant engineer who discovered zero-point energy with Flint, Fred's son, but confusing Fred with Flint, who also discovered zero-point energy. Skeptics can more consistently accept the change, however, they still have somewhat of a challenge because why not also ditch the rest of the description that seems to still indicate Ben? Or why not say, oops, he died 30 years later?

I think other interpretations are possible. However, I'm not following why Mosiah 1 maps to Rigdon and Mosiah 2 maps to Joseph, or why the text would reveal a conflict between Rigdon and Joseph. I do not know enough about what was going on to even speculate. The little I've picked up over the years suggests that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon orally and his scribes wrote it down. So any theory about different people writing or influencing different parts of the text needs to include a theory of either a) how joseph was influenced to dictate the Rigdon part or b) explain how the manuscript wasn't merely a product of Joseph's dictation and explain how it was put together.

[Shulem]

The problem believers like MG and Skousen have with the "slip up" theory is that it's not just a name change, but the individual bearing the name has this fantastic gift of translation. So now we're not talking about confusing Fred, the brilliant engineer who discovered zero-point energy with Flint, Fred's son, but confusing Fred with Flint, who also discovered zero-point energy. Skeptics can more consistently accept the change, however, they still have somewhat of a challenge because why not also ditch the rest of the description that seems to still indicate Ben? Or why not say, oops, he died 30 years later?

Gad-baby,

What seems like a tiny thing (little error or molehill) is magnified into something great (mountain) because we see how the so-called choice seer who claimed to use divine instruments to aid in translation while under the influence of the Spirit® proved ineffectual in keeping this point of the story straight in his mind. This edit is proof that Smith did not read actual words that appeared on a divine stone by the providence of God and neither did the Spirit® whisper the word in his ear when the name "Benjamin" rolled off Joseph's tongue which was transferred to Oliver's pen. Smith, Cowdery, and the Spirit® were in serious error together as they mistakenly identified a person in the main story being in the wrong place and time. It wasn't just a "basic error" or a little blooper -- it was a colossal error and breakdown of Joseph's ability to maintain order while being emersed in a spirit of fakery.

This particular edit in Smith's 1837 Book of Mormon version *is* a smoking gun and no amount of lipstick can justify the obvious conclusion which proves the book is Smith's personal fiction being subject to future edits.

Oink!

[Shulem]

I maintain that Benjamin/Mosiah was a simple screw-up that needed to be corrected, nothing more.

Yes, it was an error, simple as that, I agree. And it may have been simple but is anything too hard for the Lord while pouring out his Spirit® and providing his divinely appointed translator with special gifts and devices to accurately restore the story?

I think that is the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation (a basic error) is more plausible than a complex editorial theory involving hidden theological succession.

So the apologist (snort) uses a limited scope and attempts to turn this into an either or situation, meaning the explanation to the error is more likely just a basic error as opposed to a complex editorial theory. The apologist is using deception (lipstick) in order to woo readers into thinking it was either this or that. But consider another explanation that is much more plausible which is the one I've promoted in this thread. Joseph screwed up while narrating fiction and pretending to translate gold plates while words miraculously appear on a stone/rock whereby an inspired translation from the Spirit® was made manifest.

I think everyone can see that apologetic oinks are just an illusion and a trick to take our eyes off the ball.

Never trust an apologist! They are all liars. All of them.