|
Critics have long referred to the thousands of textual changes in the Book of Mormon since the original edition as evidence that it did not originate from a divine source. Defenders of the book often claim that these changes were made to improve punctuation and fix a few, minor grammatical problems. This is an understatement. The truth is that flawed frontier grammar is inextricably woven throughout the 1830 text. In many cases, the mistakes are quite egregious. Even Mormon’s disclaimer on the title page of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is, itself, grammatically incorrect: "... now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men” (modern editions read, “…now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men ...”). Some believe the grammatical problems are a result of the incompatibility between the spoken Hebrew and the written Reformed Egyptian, and will cite Mormon’s reasoning when he explains to the reader, “if we could have written in the Hebrew, behold, ye would have had none imperfection in our record.” (1830 edition, p. 538; Mormon 9:33 in modern editions) This begs the question: Even if there are imperfections in the record of the Nephites, why would these errors be preserved in the English given to Joseph by the gift and power of God? One of the great historians in church history, B.H. Roberts painfully admitted that the errors in the original edition were so numerous and such a part of the “web and woof of the style” of the text, that they could not be so easily explained away: "Are these flagrant errors in grammar chargeable to the Lord? To say so is to invite ridicule…the awkward, ungrammatical expression of the thoughts is, doubtless, the result of the translator's imperfect knowledge of the English language ... that old theory cannot be successfully maintained; that is, the Urim and Thummim did the translating, the Prophet, nothing beyond repeating what he saw reflected in that instrument; that God directly or indirectly is responsible for the verbal and grammatical errors of translation. To advance such a theory before intelligent and educated people is to unnecessarily invite ridicule, and make of those who advocate it candidates for contempt…”1 In consequence, Roberts strongly advocated for the continued editing of the Book of Mormon. His theory, namely that Joseph was inspired to discern the content of the plates and then converted these divine impressions into his own language, may have provided the most plausible explanation for the numerous grammatical errors. E. Cecil McGavin concurred with Robert’s conclusion about the old theory: “It is evident that the Prophet Joseph Smith did not see the English sentences appear upon the Urim and Thummim. Neither did he hear a voice dictating the meaning of the original characters. He simply was inspired as to the meaning of the Nephite writings, but was left to himself to express those ideas in his own words…”2 While providing some level of intellectual relief, the idea that the Book of Mormon text is merely a reflection of the language of Joseph Smith runs counter to the various accounts of the translation process given by key witnesses and other early authorities.
Click here to read statements by witnesses of the translation process
The Prophet Joseph, himself, recorded in the official history of the church: “…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 by 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.’”3 He also later... “...told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth…”4
They had heard him give a brief sketch of the fate of a warrior he identified as “Zelph,” a white Lamanite whose remains were discovered during the Zion’s Camp expedition; they had seen him point out a pile of rocks in Davies County, Missouri, and make the staggering disclosure that they were the very stones Adam had used to build his alter to the Lord; they had listened as he advanced fascinating theories on cosmology after interpreting Egyptian hieroglyphics and drawings. So many times before he had brought the imponderable divine so comfortably close to home, whether through sudden strokes of inspiration during a meeting, special revelations for specific individuals, or personal “patriarchal” blessings. But despite all that Joseph had said before that stretched the minds of his converts, even to the point of snapping at times, he was amazingly curt and unaccommodating on this subject. In reply to one such inquiry, Joseph was reported as saying: “...it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon… and that it was not expedient for him to relate these things.”5 Joseph’s conspicuous silence notwithstanding, church authorities from the earliest days of the church have maintained that the Book of Mormon is a literal translation from the gold plates. To say otherwise is to ignore all that has been said on the subject and to call into serious question the need for plates or interpreters in the first place. It his hard to imagine that the Lord would require the Nephite prophets to engrave their records on plates of ore (a painstaking task according to Jacob [Jacob 4:1]), carefully hand them down from generation to generation, and haul them for an untold number of miles to the Hill Cumorah in New York State, if the words they so tediously inscribed would only end up as a “revelation” in the mind of Joseph Smith. Furthermore, we have Moroni’s charge before us - the plates were of inestimable worth and were to be protected at all costs. If Joseph didn’t need them for translation, what was the point of unearthing, hefting, and hiding them in half a dozen places?
1 Defense
of the Faith, by B. H. Roberts,
Deseret News, 1907-1912, pages 278, 279, 295, 306, 307 and 308 quoted
in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s 3,913
Changes in the Book of Mormon, Utah
Lighthouse Ministry, 1996 |
Grammatical
Errors in the Book of Mormon
Sadly, this is about as far as the prophet
was willing to go to shed any light on the translation
process. As might be imagined, many converts in the early days of the church were eager to receive a first-hand account of the
wondrous events surrounding the coming forth of
the sacred record, and in particular, how Joseph was able to translate the Reformed Egyptian characters into English. They might
have expected a magnificent recital from a
prophet who was so quick to preach and expound on various mysteries.