Conference tecrus::mormonism

Why have changes been made in the printed editions of the Book of Mormon?

Answered by Robert J. Matthews, dean of Religious Education, BYU.  Ensign,
March 1987, pp. 47-49

     ********************************************

The simplest answer is that changes and corrections have been necessary to
correct copying and printing errors and to clarify the message of this book
of scripture.  Corrections of this sort are normal whenever new editions of a
book are printed.  Mistakes such as typographical errors, misspellings,
misplaced or dropped words, and ambiguities noted in the first edition are
usually corrected in the next.  Errors like these multiply when one language
is translated into another.  And if the source of the communication is divine
revelation, the process becomes even more complex.

The Prophet Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, for example, said they saw and
heard things they could not communicate in the language they had:

"Great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom
which he showed unto us, which surpass all understanding in glory, and in might,
and in dominion;

"Which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and
are not lawful for man to utter;

"Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and
understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who
love him, and purify themselves before him." (D & C 76:114-116)

President John Taylor told of when he and the Prophet Joseph Smith were
discussing the second coming of the Savior and the role of various prophets
who held priesthood keys: "He wished me to write something for him on this
subject, but I found it a very difficult thing to do.  He had to correct me
several times....It is very difficult to find language suitable to convey
the meaning of spiritual things." (Journal of Discourses, 18:330)  President
Taylor was a man of considerable intelligence, very gifted in the use of
language.  His discourse and writing flowed smoothly and clearly, but he
experienced, as have others, the difficulty mortal man has when he attempts
to write the things of God.

The Prophet Joseph Smith was well aware of this problem.  During his lifetime,
three editions of the Book of Mormon were printed.  Each time, he amended the
text in a few places to more correctly convey the intended meaning of his
translation.  Other changes in these and successive editions were made to
correct typographical errors, improper spelling, and inaccurate or missing
punctuation and to improve grammar and sentence structure to eliminate
ambiguity.  None of these changes, individually or collectively, alter the
message of the Book of Mormon. (1)

Let us survey the corrective literary process that took place from the
original translation of the gold plates by the Prophet Joseph Smith to the
printing of the various editions.  Here we will deal particularly with
changes in the original manuscript, in the handwritten copy of the original,
and in the printed editions of 1830, 1837, 1840, and 1981. (2)  The first
three editions are especially valuable because they were printed during the 
Prophet Joseph Smith's lifetime; some copies contain his editorial comments.

Corrections took place at every stage--while transcribing and editing the
original manuscript, while copying the manuscript, and while setting type
from that manuscript.  As each edition was prepared for printing, the
errors that had been noted in the preceding edition or editions were corrected.

The Book of Mormon Documents
----------------------------

The Prophet Joseph Smith did not leave us a detailed account of the daily
translation process of the Book of Mormon but said it was accomplished
through the "mercy of God, by the power of God."  (D&C 1:29)  His usual
procedure was to dictate to a scribe as he translated from the plates.  Oliver
Cowdery was the principal scribe and was assisted by Martin Harris, Emma
Smith, probably John Whitmer, and an additional unidentified person.  The
words on the manuscript were essentially the Prophet's, but each scribe added
his or her own spelling variations.

Spelling was not as standardized in those days as it is now, and many felt at
liberty to vary the way they formed words. (3)  For example, in what is now
1 Nephi 7:20, 'ware sorraful' was changed to 'were sorrowful' in the first
printed edition.  'Plaits' in the manuscript (1 Ne. 13:23) became 'plages' in 
the printed edition.  These and similar changes show why editing was necessary
to make the manuscript more understandable.

The document these several scribes produced as they wrote at the Prophet's
dictation is the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon in English
translation.  It was competed about 1 July 1829.

The Oliver Cowdery was directed by the Prophet to make a second copy.  This
he did, writing most, but not all, of it himself.  This manuscript is called
the "printer's" or "emended" manuscript.  It was made before any printing
was attempted.

The original manuscript has not survived intact; it became water-soaked while
stored in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House, and about two-thirds of it
rotted away.  The 144 remaining pages, in the Church vaults in Salt Lake
City, contain most of 1 Nephi; a portion of 2 Nephi 1; portions of Alma 11
and 19; Alma 22-63; parts of Helaman 1-3; and part of 3 Nephi 26. (3)  The
printer's manuscript, on the other hand, is in good condition.  It is a part
of the collection of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints in Independence, Missouri.

As one might expect, any handwritten copy will differ in some ways from its
original.  The printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon differed from
the original for two principal reasons.  First, unintentional variations are
impossible to avoid in a transcription of 464 pages.  Second, there is evidence
of some deliberate editing, such as smoothing out phrases, substituting one
word for another, correcting spelling errors, adding punctuation, and other
intended improvements.

It was this "emended" manuscript that was taken to the printer for typesetting
for the first edition of the Book of Mormon.

Printed Editions
----------------

The first edition of the Book of Mormon was printed in 1830 in Palmyra, New
York, by the E. B. Grandin Company.  The principal typesetter and compositor
was John H. Gilbert, who also provided most of the punctuation and paragraphing.
Production was slow and fraught with the possibility of making errors, both
of sight and of judgment.  Comparison of first edition copies show that
corrections were made even during the press run, a practice common in those
days. (5)

Seven years later, the second edition--a minor revision--of the Book of Mormon
was printed in Kirtland, Ohio, by O. Cowdery and Company for P. P. Pratt and
J. Goodson.  Brothers Pratt and Goodson served as editors and caretakers and
made the following explanation about the efforts of the Prophet Joseph Smith
and Oliver Cowdery to prepare this revised edition (spelling and punctuation
are original):

"Individuals acquainted with book printing, are aware of the numerous
typographical errors which always occur in manuscript editions.  It is only
necessary to say, that the whole has been carefully re-examined and compared
with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr. the translator of
the book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O. Cowdery, who
formerly wrote the greatest portion of the same, as dictated by brother
Smith.
    Parley P. Pratt,
    John Goodson
    Kirtland, Ohio 1837"


In 1840, the third edition was printed in Nauvoo, Illinois, by Ebenezer 
Robinson and Don Carlos Smith.  Here the title page notes that this edition
has been "Carefully Revised by the Translator," again letting the reader
know that the Prophet Joseph Smith was directly involved with the editorial
changes in both this edition and its 1830 and 1837 predecessors.

Over the next 140 years, various other editions containing adjustments and
refinements were published, resulting in considerable format change but not
in many textual revisions.  Then, in 1981, the Church published an edition
with approximately 160 corrections.  Although most are grammar and spelling
improvements, several significant corrections and additions to the text
were made.  A detailed account of these corrections may be found in the
'Ensign' (Sept. 1976, pp. 77-82; October 1981, pp. 8-19) and in 'BYU Studies'
(fall 1982, pp. 387-423).  Two examples follow.

In Alma 16:5 two words sound similar, but the spelling is slightly different,
and the meaning is vastly different.  The Lamanites had taken Nephite
prisoners of war.  Zoram, chief Nephite army captain, went to Alma the prophet
and asked him to inquire of the Lord concerning the prisoners.  Until 1981, all
printed editions read, "therefore they went unto him to know 'whether' the
Lord would that they should go...in search of their brethren." (Italics
added.)  The original manuscript reads 'whither' rather than 'whether', and
it was corrected to read so in the 1981 version.  For years the interpretation
had been 'whether' (if) the Nephites should go in search of their brethren.
The true meaning is, rather, 'whither' (where) they should go.  The printer's
manuscript contains a rather awkward correction from 'whether' to 'whither',
showing that this had been discovered long ago, but the correction was not
assimilated into the scripture until the 1981 edition.

An interesting correction has been made in Alma 57:25, which deals with the
remarkable preservation of 2060 young soldiers: "And to our great astonishment,
and also the 'joy' of our whole army, there was not one should of them who
did perish." Until 1981, all editions of the Book of Mormon read 'foes'.
However, careful examination of the printer's manuscript shows that the correct
word is 'joy'.  The error occurred in earlier editions because the handwriting
on the manuscript is peculiarly formed at this point, and typesetters and
proofreaders simply misread it.  The word 'foes' does make sense as used in
the passage, but is not as appropriate as 'joy'.


Editing Bible Texts
-------------------

The same kind of editorial effort that has been exerted to correct and refine
the Book of Mormon over the past 156 years has been occurring for centuries with
the Bible.  Students familiar with biblical research know that the reason there
are several versions of the Bible in print today is that there are literally
thousands of biblical manuscripts available, none of them originals, and all
differ in various ways.  They are grouped in "families" because they appear
to come from several major textual ancestors.  Hence, the Catholic Vulgate
Bible represents a different textual lineage than the New English Bible.  The
King James Version represents still another.

Typographical errors have occurred in many editions of the Bible, especially
in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, when typesetting was
done by hand.  Since the first printing of the King James Version in A.D. 1611,
there have been many revisions and modifications made by British scholars.
This has resulted in a continuing increase in the number of words being set
in italics, which indicates an editorial attempt to enlarge or round out a
thought that was poorly expressed in the manuscripts or was difficult to
translate exactly.  Readers of today's King James Version may think that it
is an exact duplicate of what was printed 375 years ago, but it is not.  The
number of italicized words in Matthew alone increased from 43 in 1611 to 583 in
1870 because of revisions to the text. (6)

It is no secret that many changes and omissions occurred during the development
of modern Bible texts.  This creates a particularly serious situation since
neither the originals nor even a complete second- or third-generation document
is available for comparison.  In this respect, the text of the Book of Mormon
is on a much stronger footing since the entire printer's manuscript is
available, plus parts of the original dictated manuscript and the 1837 and 1840
editions, which were revised by the translator himself.  Because comparison
with these early versions was possible, the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon
is the most correct ever published by the Church.

------------------------

NOTES

1.  Several individuals have sought out with great care the variants that exist
among the printed editions of the Book of Mormon, and some have also made
comparison with the prepublication manuscripts.  These studies have shown that
the majority of the changes have been grammatical, punctuational, and
explanatory, but not substantive.

2.  Readers wishing to know more will find the following documents informative:
Jeffrey R. Holland, "An Analysis of Selected Changes in Major Editions of the
Book of Mormon--1830-1920," Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1966;
Stanley R. Larson, "A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon
Comparing the Original and Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837, and
the 1840 Editions," Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1974; Richard
P. Howard, 'Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development,
Independence Missouri: Herald Publishing House, 1969; Daniel H. Ludlow, 
"Selected Changes in the Book of Mormon Since the First Edition," Special
Collections, Brigham Young University Library, n.d.; Dean C. Jessee, "The
Original Book of Mormon Manuscript," BYU Studies, Spring, 1970, pp. 259-78.

3.  Jessee, Ibid

4. For an interesting discussion of the varieties of spelling that were common
and even acceptable in the period immediately preceding Joseph Smith's time,
see George A. Horton, Jr., "Changes in the Book of Mormon and How to Handle
Them," Report of the Sixth annual Church Educational System Religious Educators'
Symposium on the Book of Mormon, August 1982, p. 36-39.

5.  For an informative discussion on this matter, see Janet Jenson, "Variations
Between Copies of the First Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies, Winter
1973, pp. 214-22.

6.  P. Marion Simms, 'The Bible in America', New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1936,
p. 97.

[See note 125.2 for the address to obtain individual issues or subscriptions
of BYU Studies.]

================================================================================
Note 62.0               Translation of the Book of Mormon             14 replies
FAST::LEIGH                                          82 lines  18-FEB-1988 18:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....

Opportunities for Mistakes
--------------------------

Joseph dictated his translation to a scribe, and the scribe wrote the
manuscript.  In addition, the manuscript was copied to provide a second copy
to be used by the printer.  Thus, we see that there were plenty of
opportunities for mistakes to occur.


An Example Of A Change
----------------------

The first edition of the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.  On page 200 of
that edition, a discussion is being made about a Nephite King.  The name of
the king is given as Benjamin.  However in later editions, the name was
changed to Mosiah (Mosiah 21:28)

This is a good example of a minor mistake and a change made to clarify
meaning.  It is obvious from the chronology that the person is Mosiah not
Benjamin.

....

================================================================================
Note 62.1               Translation of the Book of Mormon                1 of 14
FAST::LEIGH                                          33 lines  18-FEB-1988 18:33
                              -< Another example >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi reads:

    "And the angel spake unto me, saying:  These last records...shall make
    known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the
    Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world; and that all men must come
    unto Him, or they cannot be saved"

In later editions (I'm not sure when the change occurred), the same passage
reads:

    "And the angel spake unto me, saying:  These last records...shall make
    known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is *the
    son of* the Eternal Father, and the Saviour of the world; that all men
    must come unto him, or they cannot be saved" (1 Nephi 13:40, emphasis
    mine)

In LDS doctrine, it is appropriate to refer to Jesus as "the Eternal Father"
because (a) he is the father (creator) of the earth, and (b) those who accept
him become his adopted sons and daughters.  This adoption is explained in
detail in note 4.49.

In the 1830 edition, when Christ was referred to as "the Eternal Father", the
phrase "Eternal Father" referred to Christ's role as "Father".  Joseph Smith
(I'm assuming the change was made under his direction) apparently felt a
clarification was necessary and changed the reference to "the Son of the
Eternal Father", the phrase "Eternal Father" now referring to God the Eternal
Father.

The phraseology in both editions is consistent with LDS beliefs, and in both
editions it is obvious that the personage being referred to is Jesus Christ.

The change is an example of one to clarify meaning while keeping the doctrine
consistent.

Hi Ed,

Re 51.113

>>	Everyone is aware that changes have been (and probably will be 
>>	made) to make the later editions conform more to the original 
>>	manuscript.  
>
>Since the original manuscript is in English, and was direct from the 
>prophet himself, why then does the LDS Church not simply publish the 
>manuscript as it is, without coming out with new "editions" every so 
>often?

It would be nice if the original manuscript could be published as is, but
very little of it exists.  A copy of it made by Oliver Cowdery (I think he
was the one) does exist, and that is the copy used in the publishing of the
1st edition; unfortunately, Oliver made errors in making the copy.  Reply .1
of this note discusses this in more detail.

Allen

My comments on Robert J. Matthews' comments:

> First, unintentional variations are impossible to avoid in a
> transcription of 464 pages.  Second, there is evidence of some deliberate
> editing, such as smoothing out phrases, substituting one word for
> another, correcting spelling errors, adding punctuation, and other
> intended improvements. 

I completely disagree with the first statement. It demonstrates an 
ignorance (willing or otherwise) of the remarkably precise method of 
transcription employed by the ancient Masoretic scribes whose sole 
objective was the accurate and correct copying of scriptural manuscripts. 

They had such stringent standards and precise methods that any copy that 
met their requirements was immediately granted status equal with that of 
any preceding manuscript. They did not introduce variations, edit, "smooth 
out phrases," substitute one word for another, "correct" spelling errors, 
add punctuation, and introduce any other "intended improvements" as Mr. 
Matthews indicates occurred in the early Book of Mormon.

For a more in depth treatment of the subject, see Evidence that Demands a 
Verdict, Josh McDowall, Intervarsity Press, Chicago.

================================================================================

> In 1840, the third edition was printed in Nauvoo, Illinois, by Ebenezer 
> Robinson and Don Carlos Smith.  Here the title page notes that this edition
> has been "Carefully Revised by the Translator," again letting the reader
> know that the Prophet Joseph Smith was directly involved with the editorial
> changes in both this edition and its 1830 and 1837 predecessors.

The fact that Joseph Smith made revisions 10 years later, does not, to 
me, say much for the "gift and power of God" that enabled him to perform 
the translation in the first place. If the "gift and power" was not 
sufficient for him to get it right the first time, then how can we be
sure that he got it right the second time? I will allow for the 
correction of typos and misspellings, but these should not have required 
the direct involvement of the original translator. Indeed it should not 
have, given the acknowledged poor grammar and limited schooling of Joseph 
Smith.

================================================================================

> The same kind of editorial effort that has been exerted to correct and
> refine the Book of Mormon over the past 156 years has been occurring for
> centuries with the Bible.  Students familiar with biblical research know
> that the reason there are several versions of the Bible in print today is
> that there are literally thousands of biblical manuscripts available,
> none of them originals, and all differ in various ways.  They are grouped
> in "families" because they appear to come from several major textual
> ancestors.  Hence, the Catholic Vulgate Bible represents a different
> textual lineage than the New English Bible.  The King James Version
> represents still another. 

This is inaccurate. While there are literally thousands of biblical 
manuscripts available, they do not "all differ in various ways." This 
implies that no two manuscripts agree, which is simply false. True, there 
are groupings in "families," but the differences between the "families" 
are seldom irreconcilable, as is often implied by LDS writers.

It is also misleading to suggest that the same kind of tinkering (editorial 
effort) occurred within biblical manuscripts that went on with the 
Book of Mormon. Biblical scholars do not take it upon themselves to alter 
any of the manuscript content, but rather seek to refine the accuracy of 
the final translations. I dare say that there are few, if any, biblical 
manuscripts, from whatever source,  that contain as many differences - 
spelling, grammar or otherwise - as the various editions of the Book of 
Mormon, which has been around a far shorter time than the Bible.

================================================================================

> Readers of today's King James Version may think that it is an exact
> duplicate of what was printed 375 years ago, but it is not.  The number
> of italicized words in Matthew alone increased from 43 in 1611 to 583 in
> 1870 because of revisions to the text. 

Since it is known that the italicized words in the KJV Bible are
translator's comments added for clarity, then this point is of no
consequence. What I find interesting is that he does not mention that the
passages that Joseph Smith entered verbatim from the KJV Bible also
contain the italicized words (the KJV translator's clarifications), which
are not part of the original manuscript. 

================================================================================

> It is no secret that many changes and omissions occurred during the
> development of modern Bible texts.  This creates a particularly serious
> situation since neither the originals nor even a complete second- or
> third-generation document is available for comparison.  In this respect,
> the text of the Book of Mormon is on a much stronger footing since the
> entire printer's manuscript is available, plus parts of the original
> dictated manuscript and the 1837 and 1840 editions, which were revised by
> the translator himself.  

The first statment is an over-generalization designed to enhance the 
impression that the Bible is fraught with errors. It is not. The second 
sentence entirely ignores the science of textual comparison which, 
in spite if the lack of "originals" assigns an incredibly high degree of 
accuracy and reliability to the existing biblical manuscripts. I would go 
so far as to say that the differences between the early editions of the 
Book of Mormon, occuring over such a short time period, create a much 
more serious difficulty for Mormon apologists trying to make a case for 
the reliability of even their original texts, most of which survive 
today.

Just a few quick thoughts,

Ed

    Interesting topic...  The BoM has seen at least 3,914 changes since the
    first edition in 1830 (according to information provided to me by Dick
    Baer, President of Ex-Mormons Christian Alliance.  He owns a
    photomechanical copy of the 1830 edition with all of the changes marked).  
    The revised 1981 edition changed II Nephi 30:6 from "white and delightsome" 
    to "pure and delightsome."  
    
    Interesting sidenote: a Baptist friend of mine (who also works for DEC
    in CXO3) has a late 1950's editon (1958 I think) of the BoM.  He's sort of 
    perplexed by the fact LDS missionaries always try to talk him out of it 
    when visiting his house.  Why would this happen?  
    
    Mike

November 28, 1841.  "History of the Church," vol. 4, page 461.

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on
earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by
abiding its precepts, than by any other book."

If the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, why have there been at
least 3,914 changes since the first edition in 1830 (according to information
provided to me by Dick Baer, President & Founder of Ex-Mormons Christian
Alliance.  He owns a photomechanical copy of the 1830 edition with all of the
changes marked).  The revised 1981 edition changed II Nephi 30:6 from "white
and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."  
    
Why can't you find anything in the Book of Mormon about some of the essential
doctrines of the Mormon church?  Such as the following:

1. God has a body of flesh and bones.
2. God is an exalted man.
3. God is a product of eternal progression.
4. The plurality of Gods.
5. God "organized" the world rather than "creating" it.
6. There is no eternal hell and punishment.
7. Men can become gods.
8. "Intelligences" are eternal.
9. Pre-existing spirits of men.
10. Marriage for eternity.
11. Polygamy is *not* an abomination in the sight of God.
12. Three degrees of glory.
13. A mother in heaven.
14. A Melchizedek priesthood consisting of the offices of Elder, Seventy, and
    High Priest.
15. An Aaronic priesthood consisting of the offices of Deacon, Teacher, and
    Priest.
16. The functions and offices of Evangelists, Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies,
    Assistants to the Twelve, a First Presidency and a President of the Church.

If the Book of Mormon contains "...the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to
the Gentiles and to the Jews also;" why aren't the above doctrines found in it?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>              <<< Note 143.7 by FRETZ::HEISER "no D in Phoenix" >>>
>                                 -< More info >-

	The Book of Mormon is a second testament of Jesus Christ, and has
	the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  To obtain the full
	doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, one
	should refer to the other scriptural references of the church, i.e.
	Doctrine & Convenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the words of the
	prophets.  Some of the doctrine can be found in the Bible, e.g. the
	three degrees of glory (also in D&C 76, 88, etc.).  There are also
	other topics in this conference which provide more information.
	Do a 'dir/title="(topic)" *.*'.

	Charles

>If the Book of Mormon contains "...the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to
>the Gentiles and to the Jews also;" why aren't the above doctrines found in it?
    
    I'll check the other topics, but I find it strange that you give equal
    weight to those other books when only the BoM was born out of the
    plates.  I think if God divinely inspired the plates and the BoM, the
    list of 16 doctrines would've been included in the BoM.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

re:              <<< Note 143.9 by FRETZ::HEISER "no D in Phoenix" >>>

>    I'll check the other topics, but I find it strange that you give equal
>    weight to those other books when only the BoM was born out of the
>    plates.  I think if God divinely inspired the plates and the BoM, the
>    list of 16 doctrines would've been included in the BoM.
    
	Mike,
		Just as everything is not in the Bible, not everything is
	in the BoM.  In 2 Nephi 33:14, he talks about the words of the Jews
	(the Bible), his words (the BoM), and "the words which shall proceed
	forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God,..." (the D&C and the
	prophets).  As God told us in Amos, he will establish his word
	through his prophets, and that is why it is important to have the
	words of the prophets.  Whereas most of the doctines are only hinted
	at in the Bible and Bom, they are expanded through the D&C and prophets
	for our complete understanding.  I give all of the revealed scripture
	equal weight because I believe it to all be the word of God.  In any
	case, I can always go to the source for confirmation.

	Charles

>		Just as everything is not in the Bible, not everything is
>	in the BoM.  In 2 Nephi 33:14, he talks about the words of the Jews
    
    what is the Bible missing?

>"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book
>on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God
>by abiding its precepts, than by any other book."
>
>If the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, why have there been at
>least 3,914 changes since the first edition in 1830 (according to information
>provided to me by Dick Baer, President & Founder of Ex-Mormons Christian
>Alliance.  He owns a photomechanical copy of the 1830 edition with all of the
>changes marked).  The revised 1981 edition changed II Nephi 30:6 from "white
>and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."  

	As far as the 3,914 changes since the first edition in 1830 ...

	First, the information comes from a detractor, and I would, personally,
	discount it.  If all the 3,914 were laid out out, I doubt very much
	there would be any, if at all, changes to doctrine.  Oh, there have
	been changes with chapter and verse, headings, etc., but I toss those
	off to allowing the BoM to be easier read and studied.  It's too bad
	the Isaiah chapters were not laid out cronologically (sp?); then they
	might not be so hard to follow. If God says the book is his, then the
	3,914 changes are of no account.

>    
>Why can't you find anything in the Book of Mormon about some of the essential
>doctrines of the Mormon church?  Such as the following:

>1. God has a body of flesh and bones.
>2. God is an exalted man.
>3. God is a product of eternal progression.
>4. The plurality of Gods.
>5. God "organized" the world rather than "creating" it.
>6. There is no eternal hell and punishment.
>7. Men can become gods.
>8. "Intelligences" are eternal.
>9. Pre-existing spirits of men.
>10. Marriage for eternity.
>11. Polygamy is *not* an abomination in the sight of God.
>12. Three degrees of glory.
>13. A mother in heaven.
>14. A Melchizedek priesthood consisting of the offices of Elder, Seventy, and
>    High Priest.
>15. An Aaronic priesthood consisting of the offices of Deacon, Teacher, and
>    Priest.
>16. The functions and offices of Evangelists, Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies,
>    Assistants to the Twelve, a First Presidency and a President of the Church.
>
>If the Book of Mormon contains "...the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ
>to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;" why aren't the above doctrines found 
>in it?
    
	Mike,
		The 16 "doctrines" you have brought up are a mixture of, IMHO,
	gospel doctrine and church organizational structure.  The BoM talks 
	mostly about Christ and his gospel.  There is little of church 
	structure as compared to what the Bible has.  I think the "precepts" 
	of the religion are different from the organization whose purpose is
	to carry out those precepts.

	4 and 5 might be shown in the Bible if one did not have a problem with
	the 3-in-1 concept, and everyone could agree on translations.

	6 is in Revelations 20, and 7 is in Romans 8:16-17 (again, there is
	the matter of interpretation).

	9 is in Job, and 10 is hinted at by the "seven brothers."

	11 was clearly followed by Jacob, David, and Solomon.

	12 is in I Cor. 15.  Most of the church structure in 14, 15, and 16
	are in Acts and the letters from Paul.

	I think 1, 2, 3, 8, and 13 were not given straight to the Jews because
	of their "hardness", just as why Christ talked to them in parables 
	instead of directly.  The BoM was made to bring people to Christ, not
	dwelve into higher concepts.  Beside, only a small portion of the BoM
	was really translated, and those concepts may be in the parts that are
	left ;-).

	A lot of what I pointed out as in the Bible are there once the concept
	is better known, e.g. 6, 7, 9, 10.  But the greater detail of concepts
	presented in the Bible are available only now after the Lord has once
	again established his church on the earth with prophets at the head to
	eliminate the contention.

	Charles

    >	A lot of what I pointed out as in the Bible are there once the concept
>	is better known, e.g. 6, 7, 9, 10.  But the greater detail of concepts
>	presented in the Bible are available only now after the Lord has once
>	again established his church on the earth with prophets at the head to
>	eliminate the contention.

    I still disagree that these issues are in the Bible and they obviously
    aren't in the BoM.  If all of these details have been made available
    since the 1800's to eliminate contention, there's still something
    drastically wrong.

>	First, the information comes from a detractor, and I would, personally,
>	discount it.  If all the 3,914 were laid out out, I doubt very much

    Dick Baer is a former temple Mormon.  I think that would lend more
    weight to what he says.

>	might not be so hard to follow. If God says the book is his, then the
>	3,914 changes are of no account.

    If it's God's book, what gives man the right to change it?  This falls
    back to adding and subtracting to God's Word, which is forbidden.

>4. The plurality of Gods.
>5. God "organized" the world rather than "creating" it.
>	4 and 5 might be shown in the Bible if one did not have a problem with
>	the 3-in-1 concept, and everyone could agree on translations.

    I don't believe there's any gray areas with God.  Either it's in the
    Bible or it isn't, there's no might be.  We are told in both the BoM
    and the Bible that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are *ONE*. 
    How you reconcile that is your choice, but God's Word says nothing
    about purpose.  In addition, Genesis 1:1 says God "created" the world,
    not "organized."

    >6. There is no eternal hell and punishment.
    >7. Men can become gods.
>	6 is in Revelations 20, and 7 is in Romans 8:16-17 (again, there is
>	the matter of interpretation).

    The Jehovah's Witnesses also believe in 6 and didn't realize until this
    weekend that LDS shares this belief.  Revelation 20:11-15, Matthew
    13:41-42,49-50, Luke 16:19-31, and Mark 9:47-48 disprove this.

    As for 7, I don't believe Romans 8:16-17 is talking about becoming
    gods.  It's talking about us being freed from bondage upon salvation
    and that we inherit the gift of eternal life, as well as accessibility
    to God, because of Christ's atonement.  Man has continually been punished 
    for thinking he could become god (Genesis 3:4, Ezekiel 28:1-10) and the 
    Bible is clear on saying that God stands alone and there will never be 
    another.  

>9. Pre-existing spirits of men.
>10. Marriage for eternity.
    >	9 is in Job, and 10 is hinted at by the "seven brothers."

    Job 38:7 is talking about angels.  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with 
    Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek Dictionaries provides some interesting insight 
    into the phrase "sons of God."  The Hebrew word for God is Elohim in this 
    verse.  Elohim is defined as:

- the plural of Eloah.  It's translated "gods" in the ordinary sense; but
  specifically used in the plural to refer to the supreme God.
- occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates (John 10:34-35 as
  well as in Exodus).
- sometimes used as a superlative for angels.
- there are no other alternatives (i.e., pre-existent spirits).

It's pretty obvious that's what Job 38:7 is referring to - angels.  The angels
of heaven were rejoicing in God's creation.

    As for 10, I'm sorry, but it would take more than a hint to convince me.
                                                        
    >11. Polygamy is *not* an abomination in the sight of God.
>	11 was clearly followed by Jacob, David, and Solomon.

    And it was a stumbling block for all of them.  It ruined Solomon.  If
    God approved of it, He wouldn't allow it to ruin them.

>12. Three degrees of glory.
>14. A Melchizedek priesthood consisting of the offices of Elder, Seventy, and
>    High Priest.
>15. An Aaronic priesthood consisting of the offices of Deacon, Teacher, and
>    Priest.
>16. The functions and offices of Evangelists, Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies,
>    Assistants to the Twelve, a First Presidency and a President of the Church.
    >
>	12 is in I Cor. 15.  Most of the church structure in 14, 15, and 16
>	are in Acts and the letters from Paul.

    I think you're taking I Corinthians 15:40-43 out of context.  There are
    passages that refer to different levels of heaven, based on reward (I
    Corinthians 3:10-15), but I don't agree that's one of them.   As for
    14, 15, and 16, the only epistles of Paul that address any of those
    offices would be those in 15, Elders, and Evangelists.  The rest are
    foreign to God's Word (the Bible) and I take it they aren't in the BoM
    either.

>1. God has a body of flesh and bones.
>2. God is an exalted man.
>3. God is a product of eternal progression.
    >8. "Intelligences" are eternal.
    >13. A mother in heaven.
>	I think 1, 2, 3, 8, and 13 were not given straight to the Jews because
>	of their "hardness", just as why Christ talked to them in parables 
>	instead of directly.  The BoM was made to bring people to Christ, not
>	dwelve into higher concepts.  Beside, only a small portion of the BoM
>	was really translated, and those concepts may be in the parts that are
>	left ;-).

    That's just speculation.  It doesn't appear in the Bible or the BoM and
    I have a real problem with that.  When praying about such matters, I
    feel God is telling me through His Word and Holy Spirit, that these
    topics would've been addressed if they were true.

    Mike

>    Dick Baer is a former temple Mormon.  I think that would lend more
>    weight to what he says.

	The word FORMER does not.  It discounts him as an excommunicated 
	member, and one who, it appears, is now fighting against God.

>    If it's God's book, what gives man the right to change it?  This falls
>    back to adding and subtracting to God's Word, which is forbidden.

	Oh, I see nothing of that admonition in the BoM.  Besides, I see 
	nothing in the Bible that says God can not ADD to HIS words.  He 
	will not change what he has given, but he can add.  And don't confuse
	the "Book of Revelation" with the book of the Bible.

>    I don't believe there's any gray areas with God.  Either it's in the
>    Bible or it isn't, there's no might be.  

	And if it isn't in the Bible, then it doesn't exist?  NOT!  Why limit
	yourself to such a small amount of knowledge?

>    As for 7, I don't believe Romans 8:16-17 is talking about becoming
>    gods.  

	That is your belief and interpretation, not mine.

>    Job 38:7 is talking about angels.  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with 
>    Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek Dictionaries provides some interesting insight 
>    into the phrase "sons of God."  The Hebrew word for God is Elohim in this 
>    verse.  Elohim is defined as:

>- the plural of Eloah.  It's translated "gods" in the ordinary sense; but
>  specifically used in the plural to refer to the supreme God.

	This seems to me to be a contridiction -- the way it is translated and
	the secular change to fit.

>It's pretty obvious that's what Job 38:7 is referring to - angels.  The angels
>of heaven were rejoicing in God's creation.

	Not to me it is not obvious.  It doesn't *say* angels, does it?  But
	then it also doesn't fit in the current secular dogma.  Oh well.

>    And it was a stumbling block for all of them.  It ruined Solomon.  If
>    God approved of it, He wouldn't allow it to ruin them.

	This is the wrong conclusion.  God doesn't approve of a lot of things,
	but you can see them running ramptant in the world today.  God gave
	man his agency to choose, and choose we must.  How we choose determines
	which room in the house we get.

>    I think you're taking I Corinthians 15:40-43 out of context.  

	Not as far as I am concerned.  I think you are discounting what is
	right before you.  The stars, moon, and sun are not metaphores, but
	indicators of the differences in glory the resurrected beings will
	obtain.

>    That's just speculation.  

	This whole concept of religion could be just speculation.  I have
	seen no hard, fast, "proof" that any of it is correct.  But to discount
	things just because we haven't seen them is wrong.  I have not seen
	or been to Africa, but believe it is there because other people told
	me so.  Believe the apostiles or not, but don't put a block up just
	because one small book doesn't have everything in it.  If I limited
	God to just what was in the Bible ...

>	The word FORMER does not.  It discounts him as an excommunicated 
>	member, and one who, it appears, is now fighting against God.
    
    God is truth.  He can't be fighting against Him if he's in pursuit of
    the truth.

>	will not change what he has given, but he can add.  And don't confuse
>	the "Book of Revelation" with the book of the Bible.
    
    I was referring more to Proverbs 30:5-6.

>	And if it isn't in the Bible, then it doesn't exist?  NOT!  Why limit
>	yourself to such a small amount of knowledge?
    
    I don't think I purposely limit myself.  I uphold the Bible as God's
    truth.  If doctrines aren't in it or addressed in it, then I don't view
    them as true.

>	Not to me it is not obvious.  It doesn't *say* angels, does it?  But
>	then it also doesn't fit in the current secular dogma.  Oh well.
    
    No it doesn't, but it fits the definition of the phrase "sons of God"
    as I showed you.  I credit KJV and NAS for their literal translations. 
    As a sidenote, the NIV does translate it as "angels of God," but I'm
    not a big fan of the NIV.

>	This is the wrong conclusion.  God doesn't approve of a lot of things,
>	but you can see them running ramptant in the world today.  God gave
>	man his agency to choose, and choose we must.  How we choose determines
>	which room in the house we get.
    
    ...but whatever we choose, we reap the consequences of what we sow. 
    Righteous things reap goodness, unrighteousness reaps harm.  The laws
    of sowing and reaping are universal.

>	This whole concept of religion could be just speculation.  I have
    
    I view Christianity as a 2-way relationship with God, not a religion.  
    
>	me so.  Believe the apostiles or not, but don't put a block up just
>	because one small book doesn't have everything in it.  If I limited
>	God to just what was in the Bible ...

    That's where we differ though.  I don't think it limits Him and it
    doesn't contradict Him and His ways.
    
    later,
    Mike

>>	The word FORMER does not.  It discounts him as an excommunicated 
>>	member, and one who, it appears, is now fighting against God.
>    
>    God is truth.  He can't be fighting against Him if he's in pursuit of
>    the truth.

	The Sanhedrin was in search of the truth, but as shown in Acts 5:33-40,
	not all truth seekers remain.  Paul, or Saul, was searching for truth 
	as he saw it, and was, indeed, fighting against God.

>    I don't think I purposely limit myself.  I uphold the Bible as God's
>    truth.  If doctrines aren't in it or addressed in it, then I don't view
>    them as true.

	But is not this limiting yourself to God's word?  The Bible is for the
	Jew, but Christ had more sheep than that fold (John 10:16).


	Later,
	Charles

>	The Sanhedrin was in search of the truth, but as shown in Acts 5:33-40,
>	not all truth seekers remain.  Paul, or Saul, was searching for truth 
>	as he saw it, and was, indeed, fighting against God.
    
    I don't agree with your interpretation here.  I viewed the Sanhedrin of
    that day as trying to save face because Jesus was moving in on their
    territory, as well as publicly humiliating them every time they tried
    to trap Jesus.  Paul was persecuting followers of Christ because he
    followed every letter of the law and was also an official.  In both
    cases, they were focusing on salvation by works instead of the gospel
    of Christ.

>	But is not this limiting yourself to God's word?  The Bible is for the
>	Jew, but Christ had more sheep than that fold (John 10:16).
    
    The Bible is God's Word and is for the Gentile as well as the Jew.  The
    majority of the NT was written to the Gentiles and that is what the
    context of John 10:16 is talking about - Christ laying down his life
    for the Gentile (as well as the Jew).  The Messiah is for everyone.
    
    Mike

	This is the way it is with everything and everyone, and, it seems, on
	every subject.  We are all entitled to our own opinions and personal
	interpretations.  I think the major purpose of this conference is to
	present these differences, and not to convince or change without cause.
	I appreciate your input and views on these subjects, but I feel that I
	can not, personally, go any further with these discussions at this time.

	Regards,
	Charles

    >             -< Everything a matter of personal interpretation... >-
    
    Actually it's thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teachings, but I'll
    respect your position.
    
    Thanks for the dialog,
    Mike