Changes to the Book of Mormon

[Bsix]

Using the "changes" to the Book of Mormon as evidence that the Book of Mormon is not true...is a highly subjective standard. It is highly personal. I can respect that. Everyone's milage varies.

I fall into the camp that believes traditional Christians who disbelieve or propagandize against the Book of Mormon on the basis of the changes are using a double standard. It is apparent that they do not apply the same skepticims of the Bible as they are of the Book of Mormon when considering these sorts of facts. That is their right.

I for one find the changes to the Book of Mormon to be a testament to its divine origin...not the opposite. Let me explain why.

As one who was raised as a traditional Christian, I do think it legitimate to use the evolution of our English Bible as a benchmark for considering the Book of Mormon.

Let's start with the all the changes to the Book of Mormon. The antiMormon propagandist Utah Lighthouse Ministry carefully counted every supposed 'change' to the Book of Mormon. They came up with the famous "3,919" changes to the Book of Mormon.

3,919 changes to a book of about 270,000 words. That is a littleover a 1% change rate. Almost all of these changes are pretty simple spelling and style changes...not doctrinal changes.

The King James Bible has around 250,000 changes. For a book that originally had about a million words, the KJV has about a 25% change rate.

I personally find that the BOM holds up pretty well under such a comparison.

Now, don't get me wrong. I LOVE the Bible. It is the word of God. I am not attacking the Bible when I acknowledge its evolution in the English language. I am just noting that if I can accept and love the Bible with so many changes...accepting the BOM with far fewer changes is not a stretch of faith.

We should also look at what the changes to the Book of Mormon are.

We need to remember the translation and publishing process.

1. The Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith (a human) who dictated it to a scribe (another human). This was apparently a fairly rapid process with many of the rigors of review we might expect.

2. A hand scribed copy of the original manuscript was created -- the printer's copy. This was another human process.

3. The manuscript copy was then handed over to the printer who made edits on his own accord. (More human intervention)

4. The limitations of printing technology -- the hand setting of every character also led to changes. (Trivia. Because of the BOM was essentially manufactured as a series of repeated small print runs with mixed signatures...virtually NO copies of the original BOM are identical.)

The result is that the original Book of Mormon is about 3,919 words (out of 250,000) different from the 1981 edition.

That is under 5 words per 520 word per page of the Book of Mormon.

The printers changes alone (over 1,500) account for around 3-changes/page of those differences.

In this day and age of standardized spelling and grammar...spell checkers...easy printing...find/change technology...is it any wonder that there might be two human goofs per page of a long writing process. Joseph mumbled occasionally...the scribe misheard...spelled a word incorrectly. How may hand transcription goofs were there in the hand creation process to create the printers version? And, we have described the changes at the printer.

I find it amazing that there are so few of these sorts of changes.

Now...consider the KJV Bible.

It had EVERYTHING going for it.

-- The finest scholars at the finest universities created this translation.

-- The translation had the endorsement of the King, government, church, and establishment.

-- The process was well funded.

-- The translators were not persecuted.

-- The translation was given years...and many rounds and reviews to get it as perfect as possible.

-- The Bible was printed by the finest printers in the land.

All that...and still the KJV is has had nearly 25% of its original words changed or removed. The Bible is the word of God...even with this level of changes.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, had none of the advantages the Bible had in the translation process.

-- The translator (Joseph Smith) was relatively uneducated and young.

-- The translation was produced under constant persecution.

-- The translation process did not enjoy the support of the government and other institutions.

-- The printing was done by a frontier printer.

-- The translating and printing was generally underfuned.

-- The translation process was relatively rapid and without institutional reviews.

All that and the Book of Mormon has a 1% change rate compared to a 25% change rate for the Bible. I find that AMAZING...and evidence that there was a divine hand in the BOM.

Regards,

Six

[evangelist]

Emma writing word for word what Joseph dictated, not Joseph translating word for word.

Who is Emma, is that an apostle or angel??

one love

[TAO]

Who is Emma, is that an apostle or angel??

one love

Emma was Joseph's wife. Emma Smith.

[David T]

I may have missed it, but it doesn't appear as if anyone posted the relatively new addition to the new LDS.org, in the Study by Topic section, under the entry "Book of Mormon, Changes To" - it discusses this in a nice amount of detail, and gives examples. I was quite pleasantly surprised that this was included in the new site.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Who is Emma, is that an apostle or angel??

one love

Oh boy. If you are going to be a critic of the LDS church it would behoove you not to be so ignorant of the most basic history of the church.

[caudicus]

Removed, links to temple content not appropriate on this board

[Pahoran]

cut and paste of links deleted

Umm, Caudicus, it's probably not a good idea to link to sites that have explicit Temple content.

And what "Saints Alive" (of all people) call "significant" merely reflects upon what is useful to them, not what matters to us.

Regards,

Pahoran

[caudicus]

I merely Googled "changes to the Book of Mormon."

I don't see anything about temple stuff on either link.

Whether or not anyone is using the information for agendas, the information is being shared there, and one who is curious, like the OP, can confirm that there have been many changes to the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you can provide us with your own biased links.

These were just some of the first ones that came up that addressed the number of changes, and the fact that many of them are not meaningless or unimportant.

If you think that anti-Mormon sites containing temple content are the only truthful sites you are not a good match for this board.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

These were just some of the first ones that came up that addressed the number of changes, and the fact that many of them are not meaningless or unimportant.

As I recall the vast majority of the changes were puncuation or spelling or some other grammatical change. I believe 7 acutal words were changed. One of which is the word "white" that was changed to "pure". Also there is the word "Mother" that was added. If you think there is a significant word chagne lets discuss. So far I am aware that no doctrine was changed. I will hope that you will take this challenge to offer up your best evidence of doctrinal changes due to a word change.

[Pahoran]

I merely Googled "changes to the Book of Mormon."

I don't see anything about temple stuff on either link.

Not only is explicit Temple content easily found on both the Utah Lighthead Misanthropes and Snakes Alive sites, they are notorious for that kind of incivility.

Whether or not anyone is using the information for agendas, the information is being shared there, and one who is curious, like the OP, can confirm that there have been many changes to the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you can provide us with your own biased links.

These were just some of the first ones that came up that addressed the number of changes, and the fact that many of them are not meaningless or unimportant.

You misspelled "controversial claim."

Regards,

Pahoran

[evangelist]

<b>Rather than providing evidence to support the Book of Mormon, Mormons often ask Christians to read the Book of Mormon and pray to see whether or not it is from God. As the Book of Mormon says,

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost

.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You can kick and scream using the philosophies of men to try and discredit the Book of Mormon , but it is, and always will be, true, and the truth it contains will ride triumphant over the vain attempts of its ignorant critics to fight against it.

[mapman]

. . .

What does this have to do with changes to the Book of Mormon?

[evangelist]

According to The Book of Mormon, a group of Israelites emigrated in 600 B.C. from Jerusalem to America. This group of Israelite emigrants eventually became the "Lamanites," and then in the introduction to the Book of Mormon it says that these "Lamanites" are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" (my emphasis). Confirming that this is the actual Mormon teaching, the first introductory paragraph in the Book of Mormon states that these "Lamanites... are a remnant of the house of Israel." --So, native Americans --commonly called "Indians"-- are declared by The Book of Mormon to be of Hebrew ancestry.

But is the Israelite ancestry of American Indians historically accurate?

In recent years, anthropologists have run DNA tests on various groups of American Indians, and it has been determined that there is no match of Israelite (Hebrew) DNA with that of any American Indians.

Professor Thomas W. Murphy --chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, WA-- had been raised as a Mormon, and he decided that he would see if DNA analysis would confirm that many Native Americans are descended from ancient Israelites. About his investigation, the LA Times reported: "He analyzed data collected by a multimillion-dollar 'molecular genealogy' project at Brigham Young [university] as well as other, similar projects that track ancestry from people worldwide via DNA in blood samples." He was looking for genetic markers in Native Americans which would be identical to those found in actual descendants of ancient Hebrews.

--What did Murphy find? ---He determined that modern Israelis and American Indians do NOT have common ancestors, because the genetic markers are too different. American Indians do not have Hebrew ancestry. In fact, it has been determined that American Indians are actually descended from eastern Asian stock (more like ancient northern Chinese). As a result, Murphy concluded that, "the Book of Mormon is a piece of 19th century fiction." A molecular biologist, named Simon Southerton (a former Mormon bishop), investigated the same sort of DNA genetic evidence (discussing it in his book entitled Losing a Lost Tribe), and his conclusion was: "The DNA evidence backs up decades of archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and anthropological research that indicates there is no Israelite influence in the Americas before Columbus arrived." Southerton states: "Decades of serious and honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed," and he adds, "The only conclusion I could reach from this research was that The Book of Mormon does not contain a true history."

So I am posting this to show the BOM need to make alot of changes in order to become a little true or at least a tenth truth as the bible!

one love

[evangelist]

The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon

- R. Totten - © 2004, updates 2005

The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon (from Joseph Smith): Are they true historically? People who believe these writings to be "scripture," consider them to portray actual history. The person of Jesus Christ, and his resurrection from the dead, must be an actual historical event for Christianity to be true.

--With some religions (such as Buddhism and Hinduism, with an Eastern worldview) it makes no difference whether their teachings (or writings) are associated with actual history, because they are basically just religious philosophy --but in contrast, both of the "Scriptures" of Christianity and Mormonism are clearly portrayed as though they give histories with real people, places and events. --But do they?

my source:

http://worldview3.50webs.com/history.html

one love

[caudicus]

If you think that anti-Mormon sites containing temple content are the only truthful sites you are not a good match for this board.

I don't comb through every site to see if they had temple content. I read the links, which I provided for informational purposes only, and those links had nothing about temple content on it. I don't know how truthful they are, but they did list, very accurately, many of the Book of Mormon changes.

Obviously, it is your right to remove the links, but please don't put words in my mouth.

Again, I explained that they were merely some of the first links that came up when I searched "changes to the Book of Mormon." I had no way of knowing these sites were notorious for anything, including "temple content."

Edit: I would be happy to see anyone post links to the 4,000 changes to the Book of Mormon that are moderator approved.

[Robert F. Smith]

Rather than providing evidence to support the Book of Mormon, Mormons often ask Christians to read the Book of Mormon and pray to see whether or not it is from God. Mormons also reference James 1:5 to support this practice:

Most Mormons claim they have received a "burning in the bosom"

[Robert F. Smith]

According to The Book of Mormon, a group of Israelites emigrated in 600 B.C. from Jerusalem to America. This group of Israelite emigrants eventually became the "Lamanites," and then in the introduction to the Book of Mormon it says that these "Lamanites" are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" (my emphasis). Confirming that this is the actual Mormon teaching, the first introductory paragraph in the Book of Mormon states that these "Lamanites... are a remnant of the house of Israel." --So, native Americans --commonly called "Indians"-- are declared by The Book of Mormon to be of Hebrew ancestry.

But is the Israelite ancestry of American Indians historically accurate?

In recent years, anthropologists have run DNA tests on various groups of American Indians, and it has been determined that there is no match of Israelite (Hebrew) DNA with that of any American Indians.

Professor Thomas W. Murphy --chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, WA-- had been raised as a Mormon, and he decided that he would see if DNA analysis would confirm that many Native Americans are descended from ancient Israelites. About his investigation, the LA Times reported: "He analyzed data collected by a multimillion-dollar 'molecular genealogy' project at Brigham Young [university] as well as other, similar projects that track ancestry from people worldwide via DNA in blood samples." He was looking for genetic markers in Native Americans which would be identical to those found in actual descendants of ancient Hebrews.

--What did Murphy find? ---He determined that modern Israelis and American Indians do NOT have common ancestors, because the genetic markers are too different. American Indians do not have Hebrew ancestry. In fact, it has been determined that American Indians are actually descended from eastern Asian stock (more like ancient northern Chinese). As a result, Murphy concluded that, "the Book of Mormon is a piece of 19th century fiction." A molecular biologist, named Simon Southerton (a former Mormon bishop), investigated the same sort of DNA genetic evidence (discussing it in his book entitled Losing a Lost Tribe), and his conclusion was: "The DNA evidence backs up decades of archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and anthropological research that indicates there is no Israelite influence in the Americas before Columbus arrived." Southerton states: "Decades of serious and honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed," and he adds, "The only conclusion I could reach from this research was that The Book of Mormon does not contain a true history."

So I am posting this to show the BOM need to make alot of changes in order to become a little true or at least a tenth truth as the bible!

The manuscripts and 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon contained no statement saying that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians." That statement is non-canonical and is similar to introductory statements or marginal readings and footnotes in modern editions of the Bible. Would you quote someone's statement about the Bible as Scripture itself? Of course not. So why do you do it to Mormons?

The same is true of the false statement that "a group of Israelites emigrated in 600 B.C. from Jerusalem to America." The Book of Mormon makes no such statement. It says that some members of the tribe of Manasseh (Israelite tribe) left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, which means 597-596 B.C. A slightly later group, which included a member of the tribe of Judah, left around 586 B.C. Thousands of years earlier, a group of people led by Jared and his brother left north Mesopotamia and came to the Western Hemisphere. Nowhere in the book is there any indication that these peoples were the ancestors of all or most Amerinds. Indeed, careful analysis of the book shows that all travel was within short distances from place to place, proving that the entire Book of Mormon story had to have taken place within an area no larger than Palestine. Moreover, the only place in the Americas within which a literate, high culture existed was in Mesoamerica. QED

The large-scale DNA tests which you and your sources claim have not yet been made. No serious attempt has yet been made to do adequate tests on ancient, skeletal DNA in this hemisphere. Modern Amerinds have so frequently intermarried with groups from outside the Americas that no such tests can be depended upon. In any case, DNA testing in this hemisphere is in its infancy. Anti-Mormon web sites cannot be depended upon for objective data about any such scientific matters.

[evangelist]

The manuscripts and 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon contained no statement saying that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians." That statement is non-canonical and is similar to introductory statements or marginal readings and footnotes in modern editions of the Bible. Would you quote someone's statement about the Bible as Scripture itself? Of course not. So why do you do it to Mormons?

The same is true of the false statement that "a group of Israelites emigrated in 600 B.C. from Jerusalem to America." The Book of Mormon makes no such statement. It says that some members of the tribe of Manasseh (Israelite tribe) left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, which means 597-596 B.C. A slightly later group, which included a member of the tribe of Judah, left around 586 B.C. Thousands of years earlier, a group of people led by Jared and his brother left north Mesopotamia and came to the Western Hemisphere. Nowhere in the book is there any indication that these peoples were the ancestors of all or most Amerinds. Indeed, careful analysis of the book shows that all travel was within short distances from place to place, proving that the entire Book of Mormon story had to have taken place within an area no larger than Palestine. Moreover, the only place in the Americas within which a literate, high culture existed was in Mesoamerica. QED

The large-scale DNA tests which you and your sources claim have not yet been made. No serious attempt has yet been made to do adequate tests on ancient, skeletal DNA in this hemisphere. Modern Amerinds have so frequently intermarried with groups from outside the Americas that no such tests can be depended upon. In any case, DNA testing in this hemisphere is in its infancy. Anti-Mormon web sites cannot be depended upon for objective data about any such scientific matters.

A person looking for any kind of DNA and evidence was from a active mormon member and professional in this arena!

Look again is underlined, unless you call all mormons who don't agree with lies is anti mormons!

one love

[trim]

I just finished Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus wherein he states that Biblical scholars estimates for changes to the New Testament text over the years are 200,000-400,000. The changes come for a variety of reasons. It seems that ancient religious texts should be expected to have numerous changes. Given that the Book of Mormon benefited from comparatively modern methods of printing we should expect fewer changes, which is exactly what we find. These changes are indicative of the process of translating, copying and printing. If perfect and unchanged text is the basis for veracity then all scripture is in trouble.

[Urloony]

A person looking for any kind of DNA and evidence was from a active mormon member and professional in this arena!

Look again is underlined, unless you call all mormons who don't agree with lies is anti mormons!

one love

Wow, here comes another one. You watch a video and think you have a full grasp of this issue. Typical anti-mormon strategy is to put up "one of our own" as an expert. Lehi and crew were part of a much larger preexisting society already in the Americas. Any chance of finding "Lehi's DNA"(assuming anyone even knows what that would be) thousands of years later is remote at best. This issue has been beaten to death long before you arrived EV.

[Urloony]

I have heard anti mormons claim that the Book of mormon has been changed hundreds of times. I've never worried to much about it but I am interested in seeing what exactly those changes have been. Is there a site I can go to that lists chronologically all the changes that have been made since the first printing?

Royal Skouesn is the formost expert on BoM changes. He estimates well over 100,000 varients between the various publications and orignal ms and printer's ms. There is a great series of

WIth all these changes I'm glad we can rely on the Bible to have never been changed. If we only had a prophet to lead us.

[Calm]

A person looking for any kind of DNA and evidence was from a active mormon member

Exactly who do you consider an "active mormon member"?

[Urloony]

Look again is underlined, unless you call all mormons who don't agree with lies is anti mormons!

one love

I call anyone who doesn't agree with me an anti-mormon. Far be it from me to criticize Prof. Murphy, lest I be accused of ad hom. I'm sure he must lead the Sunday school class in his Ward.

Next you'll be asking for Alma's coins right?

[Robert F. Smith]

A person looking for any kind of DNA and evidence was from a active mormon member and professional in this arena!

Look again is underlined, unless you call all mormons who don't agree with lies is anti mormons!

one love

Well, if you like Thomas Murphy's narrow and superficial account, you might also want to accept the "science" of Dr. Richard Dawkins at http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/ . The laudable "mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering."

However, you might also want to read the recent article by Ugo Perego,