The Mosiah/Benjamin Error, Reinterpreted

[Shulem]

I’d give it at least a 9 now, with potential for 10. It would be nice if there was a bit of evidence to corroborate.

That's a marked improvement. Thanks!

Which, incidentally, is the problem with “proving” Ammon was Parley P Pratt, or Alvin as Abinadi, or any of the examples from your thread.

Yes, it's all conjecture.

[Limnor]

The simplicity of the “editorial goof” minimizes the significance of the error within the greater picture of the situation.

The name swap doesn’t just fix chronology, it is an indicator of change in purpose and authority.

The “miraculous finding” of the Small Plates of Nephi, conveniently including the specific prophecy of the future translator, Joseph himself, provides exactly the sort of reset a redactor would need to redirect the story toward himself.

When seen together, the loss of the Book of Lehi, the “discovery” of the Small Plates, and the Benjamin/Mosiah substitution form a redactional act in which Joseph Smith inserts his own prophetic legitimacy by inserting himself into the narrative lineage.

In 1828, the dictated “Book of Lehi” was lost through Martin Harris—I’ve argued that it was purposefully lost—and Joseph’s subsequent revelation (D&C 10) forbade retranslating it and promised that the Lord had “prepared other plates” covering the same period.

Where Lehi’s record was described as historical, the “miraculous finding” of the Small Plates of Nephi are notably self-referential: they contain explicit prophecies that a future seer will bring these things to light (2 Nephi 3:11–15).

That seer—Joseph Smith—re-enters the text as its own foretold translator. The “replacement” plates transform “accidental loss” into fulfillment of prophecy.

The Words of Mormon exists precisely to glue that new source into place. Mormon declares that he found the Small Plates, felt “that which was upon them was pleasing unto me,” and inserted them into his larger abridgment (WoM 1:3–6).

The language of discovery, pleasure, and preservation mirrors Joseph’s own language about the newly “found” portion that fills the gap. It functions as an embedded editorial confession: the record keeper acknowledges a break, inserts a justification, and authenticates the substitution as providential.

Throughout Mosiah, the early reformist voice (Benjamin/Mosiah I) yields to the administrative one (Mosiah II).

In the 1830 text, “King Benjamin” is still the possessor of the interpreters (Mosiah 21:28; Ether 4:1); by 1837, he becomes “King Mosiah.” That editorial shift parallels the external replacement of Lehi’s lost record by the Small Plates.

In both cases, an earlier prophetic foundation is overwritten by a new authority: the seer of moral reform (Rigdon/BENJAMIN) supplanted by the institutional translator (Joseph/MOSIAH II).

The editorial mistake, while simple on the surface, reflects the transfer of authority from the Rigdon/King Benjamin to Joseph/Mosiah.

[Shulem]

“editorial goof”

How did you come up with editorial goof?

Was it not a translation from God goof?

Did the Holy Ghost Spook lose track of the story and make a mistake while whispering the name in Joseph's ear? Or, how about Smith simply screwed up?

[Limnor]

“editorial goof”

How did you come up with editorial goof?

Was it not a translation from God goof?

Did the Holy Ghost Spook lose track of the story and make a mistake while whispering the name in Joseph's ear? Or, how about Smith simply screwed up?

Haha right?!

If Joseph is Mormon conducting editorial review prior to publication, then yes, it was absolutely Joseph’s goof.

[Limnor]

Essentially, Mormon, in Mosiah, performs the same act Joseph performs in 1828–29: replacing a lost or fragmented record with a divinely authorized synthesis, with Mormon (or Joseph if the two can be separated) performing editorial duties,

Within the Book of Mosiah both Mormon and Joseph describe the editorial redemption of loss, one within the story, the other in its creation.

The Tanners called it the black hole if I remember right.

[Shulem]

According to Royal Skousen, the change was likely made in 1837 to avoid an apparent contradiction where Benjamin is both dead and alive at different points....

Likely? No!

You can remove that word entirely as well as the word "apparent" and simply say:

According to Royal Skousen, the change WAS made in 1837 to avoid negate A contradiction where Benjamin is both dead and alive at different points....

Skousen is trying to put lipstick on the pig when it grunts and farts its translation from the Holy Spook. The Printer's Manuscript contains the name "Benjamin" just as dictated from the mouth of Joseph Smith via the Holy Spook.

[Limnor]

I agree - what I’m offering is an alternative to Skousen.

[Shulem]

I think it infinitely more likely that the change was made to cover up the goof that King Benjamin was already dead by then.

Some might see that as a “smoking gun”

Apologists (liars) may like to chalk it up as a mistake made internally by the writers of the ancient text and that Joseph Smith, being fallible, simply followed suit while translating with Oliver for the 1830 edition. Or in other words, the ancient writers got a little confused and in process of keeping records on the plates, somehow they allowed the name Benjamin to override that of Mosiah.

Smith translated under the supposed power of the Holy Spirit® and had all manner of divine assistance for translating or retelling the stories correctly with divine accuracy approved by that Spirit®. But in this case, we can clearly see how the Spirit was absent and that Smith was guilty of formulated the name Benjamin in his mind as he uttered that name in which Cowdery wrote: "Benjamin."

So, let's throw the baby out with the bath water! The Book of Mormon is a manmade work in its entirety.

[Shulem]

I agree - what I’m offering is an alternative to Skousen.

I can appreciate that.

Skousen is an apologetic dodo who thinks within the bounds the Church has set. He's a retard because he's limited in scope in what he can think and write!

[I Have Questions]

Some might see that as a “smoking gun”

Apologists (liars) may like to chalk it up as a mistake made internally by the writers of the ancient text and that Joseph Smith, being fallible, simply followed suit while translating with Oliver for the 1830 edition. Or in other words, the ancient writers got a little confused and in process of keeping records on the plates, somehow they allowed the name Benjamin to override that of Mosiah.

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