DiscussMormonism.com

"No Moniker" writes

You can buy a reproduction of the Book of Mormon as it was originally published in 1830. It's available under the title "Joseph Smith begins his work, Vol I". Mine was about $16 through the Tanner bookstore.

Anyway, it is riddled with poor grammar and spelling. Hence the need for 4000+ changes. The characters a shallow and each type is repeated several times. King Benjamin dies and then reappears alive later in the text. Someone gets his head chopped off and struggles for breath. The only reasonably good parts are the ones copied straight from the Bible.

GA BH Roberts concluded: “….it could with good reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are to be found in the ‘common knowledge’ of accepted American Antiquities of the time, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith’s ‘View of the Hebrews,’ would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is.” (BMS)

He concluded that Joseph Smith had sufficient imagination and was capable of producing the Book of Mormon even though he had little formal education. He was, however, prone to made silly mistakes. It is these telling inconsistencies and problems that Roberts lists: 1) evidence of an undeveloped mind, 2) repetition of the same themes, 3) repetition of the same villains, 4) repetition of same battles and wars, 5) conversions typical of 19th century conversions.

Roberts noted that “there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates a history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency.” (BMS)

“The evidence, I sorrowfully submit, points some will contend to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they [the anti-Christs] are the product of history, that they come upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red men of America” (BMS).

“...with strong implication that they have their origin in one mind,” Roberts wrote that the argument about the existence of God in the Book of Mormon is “amateurishness”. He further wrote that the “vindictive miracle” that fell upon the anti-Christs seemed to be “the dream of a pious young man….rather than a matter of actual experience.”

“What a story of faith! Beautiful story of mother-assurance! Is it history? Or is it a wonder-tale of a pious but immature mind?”

The Book of Mormon, it is claimed, is about real people who lived in real places and experienced actual historical events. However, there is not a single non-mormon scholar who studies the ancient americas in the disciplines of anthropology, archeology, linguists, zoology, botany, etc. who accept the book as an accurate portrayal. NOT ONE! That is the nail in the coffin.

Has anyone read the 1830 Book of Mormon described in this post? Your thoughts on revisions/editing?

Jersey Girl

You can read it for yourself here:

[way too large image deleted, but linked below]

http://www.inephi.com/1.htm

I believe most of the '4,000' changes were just grammatical errors - you know, the scribe screwed up. ;)

I bought my Wood's volume of the Book of Mormon in a Deseret Books bookstore. How shocking and revealing!

rcrocket

rcrocket wrote:I bought my Wood's volume of the Book of Mormon in a Deseret Books bookstore.

But for some reason I couldn't find the Tanners' "3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon" there. ;)

Dan Peterson's response:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/pdf.php?filename=NTE2MDYzMzEyLTktMS5wZGY=&type=cmV2aWV3

Gaz,

Daniel's response to what? Could you tell me before I go messing with a pdf?

Jersey Girl

The old B H Roberts thing about his questions regarding the Book of Mormon. It was found on a piece of paper on his desk or somethign after he died, and all the antis have a field day with it like it means he had no testimony or something. Its ridiculous.

The man was one of the greatest theologians in the churchs history. Here is a biography on him:http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/without/wol3/roberbh1.htm

His testimony is unquestioned.

Gaz, the document in question is not just something somebody "found"

on a piece of paper on his desk or somethign after he died, and all the antis have a field day with it like it means he had no testimony or something. Its ridiculous.

Many Mormons in good standing have read and accepted it as evidence that Roberts had some serious questions and doubts. Nobody questions the sincerety of his "testimony," but they are aware that he had doubts and questions. Faithful Mormons discussed this first and brought it to public attention. It is far from "ridiculous."

Juantia Brooks made use of Roberts's text in an essay she wrote in 1957 in partial fulfillment of a graduate course in research methods she was taking at the University of Utah from Professor Henry Webb (who I also, as it happens, studied with many years later).

Here is what Levi Peterson (another faithful Mormon) has to say about her use of the Robert's document in his biography of Brooks, Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian:

page 253-254:

"On April 12, Juanita traveled to Provo and addressed an assembly of English faculty and students at BYU. At home, she enlarged her speech into a documented paper, which she mailed to Webb, hoping that it would satisfy a requirement in his course. If it would not, she wrote: "it is not too important, because I wanted to do it anyway." Webb accepted the paper, an advanced if not entirely polished draft called "A Tentative Examination of Some Basic Mormon Concepts." In it Juanita discussed some disparities between historical fact and present belief among the Mormons. Temperance societies had propounded the dicta of the Word of Wisdom regarding abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea long before Joseph Smith had emitted that revelation, and a myriad of cooperative communities in Europe and America had preceeded the United Order of the Mormons. There were disturbing similarities between the Book of Mormon and a contemporary nineteenth-century American book, A View of the Hebrews, as Mormon historian and general authority B.H. Roberts had demonstrated in his surreptitious manuscript "Parallel" (a copy of which Juanita had come by twenty years earlier from Newel K. Young, the polygamous principal of the Richfield seminary).

It was lamentable, Juantia argued, that the Church sought to excise its past, conveniently practicing, "denial by omission." What ever the borrowings of the early Mormons from their neighboring societies, whatever their failings and excesses, the "magnitude of their accomplishment justifies them. Whatever its surroundings, our early church was a great dynamo, generating such energy, such unshakable conviction and strong emotion that after many years and thousands of miles it could establish itself in this forbidding land." Moreover, as God's people, the Latter-day Saints had a calling to liberality. "We should be the most progressive and open-minded of all men, as wel as the most tolerant and kindly. We should really incorporate into our lives the 13th article of faith and keep it as a lamp to our feet.""

I quoted this at length for two reasons:

1) the accepted use of ellipses (...) is often miscontrued by readers unfamiliar with, I was going to say scholary work, but now that I think about it its really reading in general, as somekind of tricky tool of manipulation. At least that charge abounds from the TMB camp whenever asked to read exceprts cited by nonmormon writers. So, no ellipses, even though it would have made the citation a great deal sharper.

2) this passage, and the sentences written by Brooks embedded in it, to my mind stand in stark contrast to the apologetic essay you gave a link to---both in form and content! Not only do Brooks and Peterson assume that human beings can have many contradictory feelings and beliefs, they also are fine with issues of doubt and questioning. Moreover, they can discuss these things without stooping to the level of sneer and condescension:

"James R. Spencer’s small brochure has been circulating since the early 1990s. In and of itself, the pamphlet is of little importance. The points it raises are not original; others have argued the same case for well over a decade. And, indeed, Mr. Spencer’s arguments have long since been answered (although his brochure betrays no awareness of that fact).

Replying to such anti-Mormon materials as “The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts” is somewhat frustrating. First, it obliges an advocate of the restored gospel to take time off from the pleasant duty of affirmatively teaching the truth. One is tempted to respond much the way Nehemiah did, when Sanballat and Geshem the Arabian tried to distract him from his rebuilding of the temple: “I am doing a great work,” Nehemiah replied, “so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?” (Nehemiah 6:3). Answering such attacks as this requires, rather, that the discussion take place on ground chosen, often rather arbitrarily, by the critic. It distracts from the impressive quantity and quality of evidence now available in support of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.2 Second, and perhaps even more frustrating, it involves responding, yet once more, to objections that were successfully answered years ago and that, therefore, do not really merit renewed discussion—objections, moreover, that will almost certainly continue to be raised no matter how often and how convincingly they are settled."

Oh dear, the great man must deign to "come down" to this abject level and address something that is "not important," "not original" and "long since answered." I swear the faux world-weariness of this sounds like dialog spoken by George Saunders.

Well, if all this this true, than why put oneself through such a dreary and boring excercise?

Also note that the paper Brooks wrote was a reworked version of a talk she had just given at BYU. Apparently, that audience didn't find the topic "ridiculous."

rcrocket wrote:I bought my Wood's volume of the Book of Mormon in a Deseret Books bookstore. How shocking and revealing!

rcrocket

What was your take on the differences Jersey Girl is describing? I haven't seen this original copy.

Blixa wrote:Moreover, they can discuss these things without stooping to the level of sneer and condescension:

"James R. Spencer’s small brochure has been circulating since the early 1990s. In and of itself, the pamphlet is of little importance. The points it raises are not original; others have argued the same case for well over a decade. And, indeed, Mr. Spencer’s arguments have long since been answered (although his brochure betrays no awareness of that fact).

Replying to such anti-Mormon materials as “The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts” is somewhat frustrating. First, it obliges an advocate of the restored gospel to take time off from the pleasant duty of affirmatively teaching the truth. One is tempted to respond much the way Nehemiah did, when Sanballat and Geshem the Arabian tried to distract him from his rebuilding of the temple: “I am doing a great work,” Nehemiah replied, “so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?” (Nehemiah 6:3). Answering such attacks as this requires, rather, that the discussion take place on ground chosen, often rather arbitrarily, by the critic. It distracts from the impressive quantity and quality of evidence now available in support of the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.2 Second, and perhaps even more frustrating, it involves responding, yet once more, to objections that were successfully answered years ago and that, therefore, do not really merit renewed discussion—objections, moreover, that will almost certainly continue to be raised no matter how often and how convincingly they are settled."

Oh dear, the great man must deign to "come down" to this abject level and address something that is "not important," "not original" and "long since answered." I swear the faux world-weariness of this sounds like dialog spoken by George Saunders.

Well, if all this this true, than why put oneself through such a dreary and boring excercise?

Also note that the paper Brooks wrote was a reworked version of a talk she had just given at BYU. Apparently, that audience didn't find the topic "ridiculous."

Now, now, Blixa. According to Don Bradley, Daniel is just playing when he's being his normal condescending self and we shouldn't fault him for his attitude, no matter how wearisome it is. (And it's not "great man". Those of us on a certain team refer to him as The Great One. I'm sure you can figure out why.)