LDS/Mormons: Of the 4000+ changes in the Book of Mormon, how many of them were grammatical?

Question

More importantly, how many of them were based on content? (I can give you at least two big ones, but I've never counted all of them)

Whenever someone asks about the 4000 changes in the BoM, people are quick to respond with "they were grammatical changes." I agree that most of them (probably at lest 3500 of them) were of this variety, but it seems that "grammar" is an oft-used scapegoat to deflect inquiry regarding more substantial changes.

Can anyone provide a number? Or maybe a list?

Disclaimer: This is a truth-seeking question. I actually DO want to know. Please refrain from posting the following:

"You are ignorant"
"Find something better to do"
"Go to lds.org: it has all the answers you're looking for"
"You should only listen to mormons because nobody else really knows"

All answers are appreciated, especially those with links or sources. Thank you, and kindest regards to all.

http://utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm

Chris,

Above is the link with some of the other changes, some of which I had forgotten about.

"Benjamin" was changed to "Mosiah" on several counts.

"White and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome," removing the racial overtones.

Several instances promoting Trinitarian doctrines were modified, adding the words "the Son of" in several places immediately preceding "God," "the Everlasting God," "the Eternal Father," etc. These changes, more than any other, completely destroy the Book of Mormon's credibility in upholding the untrinitarian definition of God.

Chris (not Chris B): I don't accept Jeff Lindsay as a source. He's not official. He's even worse than Wikipedia. Get over yourself with your fake sources.

Update: I've completely combed through the lds.org article, and it doesn't even address non-grammatical changes, such as the ones above. Chris, can you get me some OFFICIAL SITE references as to why the words "the Son of" were added into the new editions?

Answer 1

In the introduction to the book "3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon" several statements stand out.

One is that there have been at least that many changes in the book of Mormon from the time that it was first published in 1830.

In 1961, Mormon Historian Joseph Feiding Smith concluded, problems in the original text were cause by an unfriendly printer and that the errors were typographical, however, B.H. Roberts an earlier Mormon Historian insisted that the Book of Mormon was "singularly free from typographical errors"

See Defense of the Faith, by BH Roberts paned 280-281 Reprinted in "A New Witness for Christ in America" Francis W. Kirkham, Vol 1 pages 200-201

The entire prefaces of the original book have been deleted,
And as you read through the entire text and all the corrections it is clear that at the very least this is not "the most correct of any book on earth (History of the Church by Joseph Smith)

Or the quote from the same source, "we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated buy; the power of God, The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear," vol 1 pg54-55



I commend you for being serious about this concern, and appreciate your honesty.

Answer 2

I actually don't have time to read the article I'm posting (darn work) but I've scanned through it and it seems to address many of the changes. Sorry I can't help more.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

I know, I know. It's Jeff Lindsay, but it seems to give you what you're looking for.

Good Luck

EDIT: Hey Will, after a little more searching I found this article

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=761805481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

That mentions the white/pure and the Mosiah/Benjamin changes.

EDIT 2: I've also found out that Elder Holland wrote his master's thesis on changes in the Book of Mormon, but I can't seem to find a copy of it online (If only I lived closer to "Happy Valley")

Answer 3

It appears that once again, the true and faithful defer 'hard' questions to the 'experts', and some some reason, Jeff Lindsay, too. This is a the result of a culture that is encouraged NOT to think, but defer the research and questions to the attorneys and insurance salesmen at the top.

It's a "Mother, may I?" approach to discussing doctrine, and very few lay member seems to have the courage or knowledge to address this head on. This is a major reason that anyone trying to get information about the church out of a member gets told how 'nice' it is, but rarely engages in meaningful doctrinal essays.

Answer 4

Once you are done getting your answer, you may want to tackle some other oddities about the history of the church:

Like...Why they don't teach that according to Oliver Cowdery and Brigham Young, JS actually translated the book with a chocolate colored rock, for convenience sake the majority of the time, instead of the preserved instrument that came with the book.(LDS Collectors Library 2005)

or...Why it is taught that JS recieved through revelation (regarding the temple ceremonies) things that no man on earth has yet seen...yet, when compared to the masons ceremonies, which are alarmingly similar in nearly every element,...where is the supposedly never before seen parts? its all right there already in the masons ceremony.

or...why even after JS declared that the ceremonies can never be altered in even the smallest form, did the church in 1991...via new revelation contradict JS and change the ceremony...and why did they happen to remove the very same elements that the masons had removed in 1987...did the Lord reveal it to them first? (Tribune, July 18(?), 1987)

I would also encourage you gaurd against takin at face value any information published on the churches own appologetics site....do your own research on the answers they give.....unfortunately, you will find, as I did, that they are either lying to protect something, or just plain lack even the most rudementary research skills...because about 1/3 of their content is incorrect...and I'm talking about the simple stuff that you can go look up in any library. I'm convinced that they think you'll just take their word for it and be satisfied and not worry any more about whatever troubled you in the first place.


Like all of us, you must make your own journey for truth.

Answer 5

The important question is, WHY were there "changes" made?
In the first, 1830 version, it was "as is". Transcribed quickly, it contained no separation of books, chapters or verses. It was full of typos, mispellings, and missing or misplaced words.

Over the years, corrections have been made in spelling and grammer, typos, and chapter and verse have been put in. Also, sometimes wording was adjusted to clarify the meaning of a verse or verses.

But NEVER was anything changed that changed doctrine.

Answer 6

properly, you form of replaced the situation on the top there. yet DNA information does not refute the e book of Mormon. in fact, it does not incredibly say something related to the e book of Mormon one way or the different. cutting-part LDS pupils examine the e book of Mormon as telling the tale of a small team of Israelites (who weren't Jewish - yet extremely from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh - that have been lost and we don't comprehend what their DNA gave the effect of) who arrived someplace interior the Americas (maximum in all probability needed united states of america) and have been very almost as we communicate absorbed into the better indigenous inhabitants (whose DNA is frequently Asiatic in beginning). hence any genetic signature Lehi's occasion had to furnish could have been as we communicate lost besides. So regardless of if the e book of Mormon is punctiliously genuine in its tale - it could be impossible to locate any DNA hint of it. Any center eastern genetic signature could have been wiped out by skill of mingling with the better dominant inhabitants. And it is not even bearing in suggestions that 80% of the indigenous inhabitants of North and South united states of america grew to become into wiped out by skill of smallpox and different ecu illnesses. So we've lost an destructive lot of the gene pool. in short, DNA has no longer something to declare related to the e book of Mormon, and confident in no way could have something to declare approximately it.

Answer 7

How many more times will this topic be asked and answered? Get over yourself already with your "sources". But any way...

Since you don't seem to know how to reference those changes with the OFFICIAL website I will. Also, Jeff Lindsay answers this better than I could ever dream of.

Answer 8

I looked a while ago at what was on the web. There are only a minority of the changes available there.
If you want an exhaustive list of the changes, have a look at the work of the Tanners. Gerald and Sandra have some books like "The changing world of Mormonism" and "Mormonism - Shadow or Reality" that will give you the list of them and the classification of whether it is a grammatical change or a substantive change.

Answer 9

I completely agree with Chris. I couldn't find any other official sources other than the ones she sited. I definitely wouldn't recommend reading anything else, it's rarely accurate or unbiased.

Answer 10

My goodness, you are just all jumbled up today! Actually, of all 3,612 changes made to the Book of Mormon text:

707 were the change of the word "which" to "who.
137 changes of "was" to "were"
229 "saith" to "said"

The rest, save just a couple, were punctuation changes and spelling fixes.

There is a reason for this. There was no punctuation in The Book of Mormon and the printer guy decided to put them in himself. Joseph and other leaders corrected his mistakes over the next two or three editions. Most have been found by now. Some of the other errors occured because Joseph dictated the BoM to his scribes and the mistakes made were by the scribes. (We know this because the original manuscript contains hearing mistakes, not writing mistakes.)

When you take this all into account, it is surprizing there weren't more errors than there were.

There are only two corrections which do not relate to punctuation, spelling, grammer, et cetera...I only know of one but I've heard so ofter that there is anoter from Church leaders that it must exist...you said you have two - what are they? Please e-mail me!!! I also have further info on the changes if you want to know more about the whys and hows behind them.

2Nephi 30:6, for example, was changed by a Brittish printer because of a request by one of the General Authorities serving over there at the time who was hoping to clear up the meaning. Joseph chastized him for it but it wasn't completely re-fixed until 1983, I think.