The Mosiah/Benjamin Error, Reinterpreted

[Shulem]

The fourth chestnut involves the replacement of the name Benjamin with Mosiah in two places (in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1). Joseph Smith was apparently the one who changed the first instance (in the 1837 edition); Orson Pratt made the second one (in the 1849 edition). The problem has to do with how the chronology is interpreted in the book of Mosiah. The two original readings with Benjamin are very likely correct. Although Benjamin is unexpected, it appears that king Benjamin lived long enough to be still alive when Ammon and his men returned to Zarahemla with the people of king Limhi (in Mosiah 22).

QUESTIONS:

1) Who informed Joseph Smith that "Benjamin" in the 1830 edition of Mosiah 21:28 was an error and needed to be replaced with Mosiah?

2) Why didn't Smith make the second correction with Ether 4:1 in the 1837 edition?


Does it not require revelation to emend revelation? Skousen continues:

All this variation in the accidentals clearly shows that the transmission of the text is human rather than inspired; it has all the signs of human transmission. But the original revelation to Joseph Smith, I would argue, shows that the specific words and phrases, although subject to variation in the accidentals, were controlled for.

Skousen is putting lipstick on the pig. He's a dirtbag!

Oink!

[Limnor]

The fourth chestnut involves the replacement of the name Benjamin with Mosiah in two places (in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1). Joseph Smith was apparently the one who changed the first instance (in the 1837 edition); Orson Pratt made the second one (in the 1849 edition). The problem has to do with how the chronology is interpreted in the book of Mosiah. The two original readings with Benjamin are very likely correct. Although Benjamin is unexpected, it appears that king Benjamin lived long enough to be still alive when Ammon and his men returned to Zarahemla with the people of king Limhi (in Mosiah 22).

Skousen’s explanation is unintentionally hilarious to me.

He essentially ends up conceding exactly what he’s trying to avoid: that someone—an editor, redactor, or narrator—made a human decision while compiling the text by acknowledging the presence of confusion that would only arise if the author were juggling invented characters and timelines rather than transcribing an ancient record.

What makes it even funnier is that his conclusion—that Benjamin must have lived longer than we thought—is a way to preserve the illusion of coherence, when the simpler explanation is a human drafting slip during composition or later editing.

In effect, Skousen admits:

“The text reads like it was written and later fixed.”

Exactly, Mr. Skousen, exactly.

[Limnor]

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.

I absolutely love how your mind works, Gad.

I’d ask you to consider the following:

The Benjamin–Mosiah “slip-up” isn’t just a swapped name — it’s a continuity failure tied to who supposedly had the gift of translation.

It’s not like confusing Fred with his son Flint; it’s like confusing two people who both invented zero-point energy.

If Benjamin and Mosiah each translate sacred records, then switching names mid-stream collapses the logic of authorship and revelation.

It was either one or the other.

That’s why Skousen’s fix—stretching Benjamin’s lifespan or calling it an “interpretive issue”—quietly admits the text was edited by human hands because it exposes that the text behaves like a work in progress, not a continuous dictation.

You can see the redaction layers in the plates vs records language: early sections talk about “records” being kept, copied, and abridged (a very human scribal process), while later ones elevate those same records into “plates.”

So the question isn’t whether Joseph dictated; it’s whether what he dictated was his own revelation or an alteration of pre-written material shaped by others (Rigdon’s theology included).

Either way, the seams show, and it is probably enough to highlight the error, but to me, it is a major clue into how the book was composed.

[Gadianton]

it is a major clue into how the book was composed.

We already know it's not revelation just by common sense. I'm less interested in contradictions show he made it up, as even without contradictions, it's obvious he made it up. So the question is, how did he make it up?

I assume you mean that Rigdon had Spaulding's stuff ready to go. The parchment layer is Rigdon, the plates talk is Smith. what light does that shed on the composition? Mosiah 8 would have been written first, and it says plates. Mosiah 25 doesn't say plates. Did Smith have the Rigdon story as the base material, he puts his on spin on Mosiah 8, but then spaces it when he gets to Mosiah 25 and let's the Rigdon material flow unedited?

what's the explanation?

[Limnor]

So the question is, how did he make it up?

You’ve captured my only interest in the book.

I assume you mean that Rigdon had Spaulding's stuff ready to go. The parchment layer is Rigdon, the plates talk is Smith. what light does that shed on the composition? Mosiah 8 would have been written first, and it says plates. Mosiah 25 doesn't say plates.

You’ll have to think about it not in terms of how the story reads chronologically as written and more in terms of where the “cut and paste” occurred.

Did Smith have the Rigdon story as the base material, he puts his on spin on Mosiah 8, but then spaces it when he gets to Mosiah 25 and let's the Rigdon material flow unedited?

what's the explanation?

It’s less a matter of “spin” and more a matter of “insertion,” from a “cut and paste” redaction model.

It’s less a matter of contradiction and more a matter of composition.

Step by step:

1) Rigdon supplied the original word document as base story—this was supposed to be “discovered” and returned to him.

2) Joseph’s cut and paste is where the plates and seer language get woven in. Mosiah 8 shows his hand—that’s the “translator of plates” moment.

3) Mosiah 25 returns to original word document—the cut and paste has been inserted and the text returns to the original untouched word document, the original Rigdon text in which Rigdon is the “translator and seer” and etc.

That’s why we see those uneven seams instead of a consistent voice. In short, the cut and paste was clumsy.

[Gadianton]

okay I get the basic idea now, thanks.

[Shulem]

The Translation of the Book of Mormon: A Marvel and a Wonder

But how was that translation accomplished? When Joseph received the plates, he could read and write no language other than English. In fact, he had little education. His wife Emma recalled that he “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictat[e] a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, … it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder.’”

<snip>

David Whitmer, whose family provided a place for Joseph and Oliver to complete the work of translation, provided this additional information: “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.”

<snip>

“When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. …

We may rightly infer that Joseph read the name/word "BENJAMIN" on the stone that lie at the bottom of his translation hat! Smith was said to translate by the power of God, one character at a time, word for word, as the characters appeared on the stone by the power of God, and not by any power of man.

QUESTION:

Who was at error for making the name/word BENJAMIN appear on the stone?

[ ] God
[ ] man

Let the apologists choke on that!

[Shulem]

In effect, Skousen admits:

“The text reads like it was written and later fixed.”

Exactly, Mr. Skousen, exactly.

Limnor,

Which text specifically does Skousen (dodo) refer to that was read?

[ ] Text written on gold plates
[ ] Text written on the stone at the bottom of the hat
[ ] Text written by Cowdery in the paper manuscript
[ ] All of the above

[Limnor]

In effect, Skousen admits:

“The text reads like it was written and later fixed.”

Exactly, Mr. Skousen, exactly.

Limnor,

Which text specifically does Skousen (dodo) refer to that was read?

[ ] Text written on gold plates
[ ] Text written on the stone at the bottom of the hat
[ ] Text written by Cowdery in the paper manuscript
[ ] All of the above

Skousen is talking about the English text as it was dictated and written down, not the supposed Nephite plates or words in the hat.

His point comes from the manuscript evidence: the wording shows signs of real-time revision and correction, like a draft being fixed as it was created.

So in that list, the answer is the text written by Cowdery—the dictated manuscript itself.

I’d expand his thought to say it reflects a kind of backward casting, where later wording is projected back into earlier portions of the text as Joseph refined his narrative while dictating.

Kind of a “double-error” in which first: mistakes that naturally arise during composition, and second: the retroactive “fixes” that project later phrasing backward into earlier text.

Edited to add: this deserves more thought and time—more later.

[Shulem]

Skousen is talking about the English text as it was dictated and written down, not the supposed Nephite plates or words in the hat.

His point comes from the manuscript evidence: the wording shows signs of real-time revision and correction, like a draft being fixed as it was created.

So in that list, the answer is the text written by Cowdery—the dictated manuscript itself.

[X] Text written by Cowdery in the paper manuscript

But does Skousen take into consideration the text read on the stone during dictation?

[X] Text written on the stone at the bottom of the hat

I’d expand his thought to say it reflects a kind of backward casting, where later wording is projected back into earlier portions of the text as Joseph refined his narrative while dictating.

Kind of a “double-error” in which first: mistakes that naturally arise during composition, and second: the retroactive “fixes” that project later phrasing backward into earlier text.

Edited to add: this deserves more thought and time—more later.

That's all find and dandy but surely the Mormons must account for what Joseph read on the stone at the bottom of the hat. What was the name written on the stone to signify the king? I trust we can agree there was no king's name any more than there is no king's name in the text of Facsimile No. 3.

So, what would the apologist say?

[ ] Benjamin
[ ] Mosiah