**UPDATE** to Vern Holley Book of Mormon Place Names Theory

[Marcus]

That particular word is a new one for me, but the fact that an original Book of Mormon word/phrasing/usage got changed is not. For example, Skousen has made a few executive decisions about what word that the Book of Mormon should have in it (as opposed to what JOSEPH SMITH HIMSELF put in it) that just boggle the mind. Who knows how many other changes have been made. I'll take a look.

ETA: I just read your more recent posts, I see you have as much trust as I do in apologetics!!

I share the distrust, but there is a practical difficulty. Much of the detailed work has been done within a devotional mindset. I just don’t have the time or access to research all of the primary source material.

So if you want to investigate manuscript variants or printing changes or that type of thing, you have to mine the work that’s already been done but distrust or ignore completely the conclusions.

At least that’s how I view it.

Usually I just look at the Joseph Smith papers site (If I recall correctly) which has the scan of the extant original manuscript. This process is typically generated by Skousen or Carmack or someone I'm reading making a reference to differences/changes, etc. If these changes sound suspect I investigate further.

So far, this thoroughly nonscientific process has netted, more than 50% of the time in my estimation, a significant issue with apologist's assumptions.

If it's that easy and predictable to catch apologists in logically insupportable analyses, I can only imagine what a systematic review of the changes would net.

[Shulem]

So if you want to investigate manuscript variants or printing changes or that type of thing, you have to mine the work that’s already been done but distrust or ignore completely the conclusions.

Limnor,

I Shulem rarely work that way and spend little time reviewing or analyzing apologetic writings -- including Interpreter, FAIR, etc. I prefer to work from scratch and rebuild the structure myself and if need be, reinvent the wheel! It has been my experience in life that when working with molded materials that have been processed by apologetics is when I have the least amount of inspiration doing my own work. I work from scratch, ground zero, and figure it out for myself without being influenced by lying apologists who wear rose colored glasses and ignore the elephants in the room. They work from the premise that the Church is true and look at matters in ways to support that conclusion. I work from the opposite -- and in the end, I almost always have a royal flush in my hand. Mormonism is proven false at every turn and in every way. It is simply another religious lie invented to control people. Religion is always, always, about controlling others and not in a good way.

ETA: I just read your more recent posts, I see you have as much trust as I do in apologetics!!

My dear, recently I have been asking AI certain specific questions that only AI could answer so quickly and thoroughly. When AI explains an apologetic excuse, it's convoluted and makes little sense and is contradictory. AI knows the Church is false and how original Mormonism was a sham. It knows! OMFG, AI knows!

It's alive!

[Limnor]

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Skousen has identified through his research what appears to be an interesting text seam. Skousen has identified Scribe 2 of the printer’s manuscript taking over from Oliver at Mosiah 25:14, and then Oliver taking back over at Alma 13:20.

Why was Mosiah 25:14 a place for another person to take over the copying?

Mosiah 25 is the “cut and paste” seam after the Zeniff/Noah/Limhi and Alma stories. Mosiah has these separate records read to the people, and then continues with the previously established storyline.

This is why I find Skousen useful. His research identified a seam for reasons entirely independent of my hypothesis.

I can then ask why that seam exists, independent of Skousen’s explanation, and whether there is something about the source text that can explain the phenomenon.

Maybe it is nothing, but maybe it has value in explaining composition.

One explanation might be that dictation captured in the original manuscript needed to be stitched back together. At the point of Mosiah 25 Joseph had to figure out how to re-merge those original manuscripts back into one, and the printer’s manuscript scribe is the one who captured that effort.

Another point I find interesting, in light of the discussion about Angola/Angolah, is Oliver seems to have had the authority to make changes to proper names as he saw fit:

…there are a few cases where Oliver consciously decided to change the spelling of a Book of Mormon name when he copied the name from O into P. Here are two clear examples where the first occurrence of the name is extant in O, yet Oliver changed the spelling in P for some unknown reason: (1) Kishcumen (O) > Kishkumen (P) and (2) Morionton (O) > Morianton (P). For each of these names, the spelling in O is consistent yet systematically differs from the reading in P. Such examples show that Oliver felt free to make name changes whenever it seemed appropriate to him.

This could be seen as consistent with a group effort, or even reflect group conflict right up to the point of printing.

For what it’s worth, these links point to that research.

https://rsc.BYU.edu/days-never-be-forgo ... mon-scribe

https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/atv

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=jbms