LDS Author

I once read a comment, from a young man if I recall, about the possibility that the Book of Mormon had been changed, over the past two centuries, presumably to cover up a non-Divine origin of the original 1830 version. It appeared to me that this commentator had not actually read the Book of Mormon but was speculating based on his imagination (and perhaps on what other critics had speculated) for he gave no detail, no example, no reference. He had imagined wrongful changes but had not actually found anything. How much better to read before commenting!

On my laptop, I have the text of the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon, and I sometimes compare it with the modern version. It’s usually hard to find any difference unless one gets the editor’s eye to notice punctuation changes. How obvious that there was no textual evolution from 1830 to the present! Those relatively few changes not involving spelling, grammar, or punctuation, can be explained without any reference to any coverup or any hiding of a non-Divine origin. The 1830 version, in spite of numerous instances of human weaknesses (in both ancient and modern mortals), is a compilation of scriptures originally written by ancient inhabitants of this continent, and it came to us through the power of God. How much we can learn by reading the Book of Mormon!

Book of Mormon Examined

Comparing 1830 text with 1981 version of Alma 4:6*

The above text* was chosen at random. What is the difference? In the modern version, the word “judges” is not capitalized, and the words “fine-twined” are connected by a hyphen. In addition, there is no comma after “gold.”

So after 151 years, all the changes in the English Book of Mormon, for this verse, amount to one capitalization change, one addition of a hyphen, and one subtraction of a comma.

Grandin Print Shop, Palmyra, N.Y.

The Book of Mormon and the Birth of Christ

So why does that verse in Alma mention “Jerusalem” as the place where Jesus would be born? The Nephites probably had almost no knowledge of the smaller towns around Jerusalem, for they had been separated from that city for centuries and for thousands of miles. They knew the name “Jerusalem,” which is relatively close to Bethlehem, so that is the location-name used.

Modern Changes

This is not to say that nothing other than punctuation or spelling has been changed since the 1830 edition. But nothing seems to have been changed by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in any reasonable way resembling a coverup of any truth about the origin of that 1830 printing of the Book of Mormon.

Let’s take a hypothetical example, not what has happened but what might theoretically happen if a modern editor makes a careless alteration of text. What if I were to attempt translating part of the book of Alma into some obscure language of Papua New Guinea, with no help from LDS leaders? Let’s take Alma 7:10, including “he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” With my many years of experience with the Bible, I recognize that Bethlehem, not Jerusalem, was the birthplace of Jesus Christ. Why not correct that obvious error while translating from English into the Kovai language (spoken by natives in Gomlongon Village on Umboi Island)?

Sometimes trying to fix an error can be worse than leaving it alone. In Papua New Guinea, or most anywhere else, Christians unfamiliar with any text in the Book of Mormon can be suspicious of what seems to be competition with the Bible. How would they react on learning that the Kovai version of the Book of Mormon says “Bethlehem” and the English version says “Jerusalem?”

How could the natives of Gomlongon Village ever know about the English version? I speak from the experience of a 2004 expedition in Papua New Guinea. To get to Gomlongon Village from Los Angeles, it took me about one week, after four plane flights, a trip on a small ship, an adventure on a banana boat, and a strenuous hike up a jungle trail. I can testify of how remote Gomlongon Village is from Los Angeles. But the nation of Papua New Guinea has three national languages, and one of those is English, and three minutes walking west from Gomlongon will take you to the Baptist Church, where one of the youth leaders speaks and reads English.

Changing “Jerusalem” to “Bethlehem” is technically a valid correction; Mormon himself may be the last one who would object to that change. But it would open up too many opportunities for Christians to be deceived into thinking that there had been a coverup. With all that, however, that change (unwise as it would be) would not actually invalidate the Divine origin of the Book of Mormon; it would simply make it easier for some potential readers to be distracted and dissuaded from reading it.

How important that we each receive a personal testimony of the Divine origin of the Book of Mormon! Without that spiritual witness, we might be deceived by shallow criticisms. The following is taken from one of my pages of “Book of Mormon Examined.”

Christ in the Book of Mormon (and where he was born)

Why does it refer to the birth of Christ at Jerusalem?

“And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.” (Alma 7:10)

. . . Those were the words of the prophet Alma, as he taught the Nephites, in about 83 B.C., on the American continent. Those people had been separated from their homeland in Israel for five centuries, surely ignorant of geographic details like the names of smaller towns around Jerusalem. They were thousands of miles away.

We could compare their situation to ours, should we travel across the world and visit people who knew nothing about small towns in our homeland. Why would we use the name of a small town to tell them about where we came from, if there is a large city near that town and the foreigners we were talking with knew of that large city?

So why does that verse in Alma mention “Jerusalem” as the place where Jesus would be born? The Nephites probably had almost no knowledge of the smaller towns around Jerusalem, for they had been separated from that city for centuries and for thousands of miles. They knew the name “Jerusalem,” which is relatively close to Bethlehem, so that is the location-name used. How simple!

While creating web pages of images of a 1970 family history booklet (compiled by my father’s aunt) titled The Spaulding Heritage, I came across the following, which requires my response:

Solomon [Spaulding], an attorney and clergyman, and graduate of dartmouth, wrote a fiction account, ”Manuscript Found.” This was generally regarded as the basis for the Mormon Bible.

I myself was baptized, in 1971, from the spiritual experience of sincerely reading and pondering the Book of Mormon. I know that this book is of divine origin, with the characters named being real persons who lived anciently; I know it by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by human reasoning.

I have become closer to my Savior Jesus Christ by applying the principles taught in the Book of Mormon. As my wife and I raised our three daughters, our family relationships were better when we were more diligent in reading this book together as a family. We had more peace in our family when we read that book together.

I quote from a special chapter of Third Nephi, chapter eleven:

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:

10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.

11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.

Now to human reasoning about another explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon:

Manuscript Found

What is the most reasonable explanation for “Manuscript Found?” It most likely never existed. It was probably confused with Solomon Spalding’s Manuscript Story, which was rediscovered in 1884, and is a fictional story about some Romans who, while sailing to England early in the fourth century A.D., were blown off course, landing on the eastern coast of North America. Manuscript Story bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon in any sense that would suggest that the former inspired the latter.

“Manuscript Found,” on the other hand, has never been found, throwing severe doubt on the idea that it ever existed, for those who supported it as an explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon would have been vindicated by publishing it.

Old accounts of “Manuscript Found,” suggesting its contents resembled the contents of the Book of Mormon, now seem to have come from faulty memories. Declarations about contents including the Lost Tribes coming to America, for example, were at one time thought by some to be evidence of a connection between “Manuscript Found” and the Book of Mormon. But the Book of Mormon says nothing about the whereabouts of the Lost Tribes. That subject was just one of the items of talk among early 19th-century Americans who had heard about the Book of Mormon but who had not read it. Some persons assumed that the “Golden Bible” of Joseph Smith was about the Ten Lost Tribes traveling to the American continent; it is not.

In addition, some persons in early 19th-century America heard about the idea that the early Book of Mormon people had originally arrived at the “Isthmus of Darien.” This idea was mentioned by the Mormon missionary Orson Pratt, while he preached, defending the Book of Mormon, in areas that included, between 1832 and 1833, various parts of northwestern Pennsylvania. Some people began to believe that Pratt’s mentioning Darien came from some specific reference in the book; but that word is not found in the Book of Mormon.

On that subject, a John Miller, in an 1833 statement meant to support Spalding’s writings as being the original ideas behind the Book of Mormon, used the word “Darien” as if it supported the idea that Spalding had written another novel besides Manuscript Story. But the origin of that “Darien” idea surely came from Pratt’s widespread teachings, not from a Spalding novel that was purported to be on the same subject as Manuscript Story but which has never been found to have ever existed (“Manuscript Found”).

I am sorry for the complexity of this subject. Read the Book of Mormon itself and see for yourself the truthfulness of its teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. “Manuscript Found” has never been found, probably because that manuscript never existed.