Ah, now that’s a good question! One worth asking! One worth pursuing! I already stated the standard apologist answer to this: “The apologists say it was to clarify which member of the Godhead/Trinity was being referred to. This strikes me as a better theory in that it at least fits all the current facts, though I wouldn’t say that’s the final word either.”

As you can see, I think this answer works pretty well (it might help to read the entire link I gave above because it does a better job of explaining this view than I do) but I’m not convinced it’s the right answer, at least not by itself. What do I think is the right answer? I’m still working on that. I do think *a* purpose for the changes was to clarify something. I have a pretty good theory on the changes to 1 Nephi 11, which is 3 of them. I can’t yet explain the 1 Nephi 13 change. I’ll have to get around to looking at that harder. Do you live in Utah? Maybe someday we can get together for lunch and I’ll share all my findings and you can roll your eyes at me (as most people do).

And since we’re asking “why?” let’s ask the other obvious questions. Was Joseph Smith correct to make these changes at all?

(A sub question: did he intend all of them? According to the Fair link, one of the changes wasn’t what Joseph actually wrote down. But it seems to be written wrong as it’s not meaningful as he wrote it, so the editors probably asking him later what he meant and it was probably printed as intended. But of course, I’m just guessing at that. So who knows?)

Not that I think the changes harms any doctrine in any way — as we just discussed it didn’t affect doctrine at all. But as I noted earlier, I’m not sure Joseph Smith always understood the Book of Mormon. Royal Skowsen makes the case that Joseph systematically removed hebrewisms from the Book of Mormon in his 1837 revision because he had no idea that they were authentic touches of a translation. He just thought they were bad grammar and got rid of them. I’ll have to find a copy of Royal’s work and also read the Evangelical counter evidence and post it sometime.

Doug, personal question for you: Do you still study the Book of Mormon as scripture? Do you still study the Bible? I, again I’m assuming, believe you do because you refer to it as inspired of God and you mention you are a practicing Mormon.

I ask because of my “experiment” above. I’m actually asking a lot of you if you tried to do it in one sitting. But it’s not that much if you just do it 15 minutes a day over the course of a month in scripture study.

I know this is going to sound weird, but I remember how exciting it was to do that above experiment for myself! I later asking two others to try it and they got excited too. One later came back and started telling me about his new found views about Mosiah 15:1-4.

If this just isn’t your cup of tea (herbal of course) I’ll understand. But if it is, I really recommend trying it. It a fancinating thing to do.

>>> I just refuse to turn my mind off in the process…

I hope you can appreciate the fact that I have never even once asked you to turn that brain of yours off, for even a moment. Try out the experiment I’m suggesting. It’s brain food.

Stephen,

I didn’t misunderstand your point… I guess I was just adding my unneeded and unwanted $0.02.

Wow, you really put a lot of work into that answer. I will concede your point on the feeble attempt to change the BoM into a more polytheistic view of the Godhead. Obviously, as you rightfully stated, the changes did nothing to clear up the confusion. I also still rely on prayer for helping me find truth as you surmised. I just refuse to turn my mind off in the process…

I realize this may be a silly question, but if as we agree, the changes in these verses don’t help with the book’s teachings about God, why did Joseph change them at all? I think it’s a fair question; there must have been a good reason as he would know that people would eventually question the changes.

Thoughts?

Stephen Marsh wrote,
“Bruce Nielson, I was just responding to Doug G. who was certain that word print studies were the definite answer”

I said nothing about “word print” studies in my post. If you go back and look, I think you’ll find that I said what I wrote was hearsay and was simply trying to make the point that no matter what evidence appears on the horizon, we always find ways to explain it away. Some of us are just tired of explaining…Thanks

Of course I know this… I wasn’t trying to be tricky here. I was responding to your specific examples. You used two examples of Joseph “retrofitting” Book of Mormon theology that were identical to the Title page that you now are claiming didn’t require a change because it already was Mormon theology. You can’t have it both ways.

You quoted –

1 Nephi 3, p. 25 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh
1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God.

1 Nephi 3, p. 26 And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world.
1 Nephi 11:32 And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God, was judged of the world.

You must have seen these changes as significant in some way back when you posted them in #94 or you wouldn’t have posted them to support your theory of a retrofit to the Book of Mormon doctrine of deity.

Just like the title page, these references only refer to Jesus as God, not “The Eternal Father.” Thus, according to your argument in 03, there was no reason for changing them at all. So these two changes do not fit your theory, as per your own statements in 03, that Joseph was trying to make these changes to retrofit the Book of Mormon doctrine of deity. They were actually, again by your own admission in 03, non-doctrinal changes from a Mormon point of view.

But back at 94, you were listing them as evidence that Joseph was trying to make changes to cover his trail and that Joseph must have originally been modalistic/Trinitarian and then later changed his mind. Given what you just said in 03, you must now eliminate those two verse — half of your evidence. These verse, as per your own argument in 03, actually don’t make the Book of Mormon any more or less “Mormon” at all. Am I misunderstanding your point? If I am, please feel free to clarify. I’m just trying to apply the evidence consistently.

But this is where I think your argument in 03 really becomes important, because the fact is that even in Mormonism Christ is thought of as our Eternal Father too. Thus your remaining two changes are no more doctrinally significant.

>>> I don’t think this argument holds much water, how many of the 16 misses you referenced are stated as God instead of Father?

The answer is only 6 of them. The rest are “Father” references.

Consider this list from the Book of Mormon. Could Joseph have missed ALL of these? Please read every single one of these and keep asking yourself that question.

Mosiah 7:27, Mosiah 16: 15, Alma 11: 38-39, Mosiah 3: 8, Mosiah 15:1-4 (this is the strongest reference that sounds Modalistic to many people’s ears. It’s very hard to miss because it’s so long, so I don’t believe Joseph was trying to retrofit the Book of Mormon based on this reference alone.), Hel. 14:12, Hel. 16: 18, Morm. 9: 12, Ether 3: 14, Ether 4: 7, Ether 4: 12, 2 Ne. 25: 12

With thanks to Fair for finding these for me so I didn’t have to:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes:_%22the_Son_of%22

So now what? Before I said you had 4 changes out of 20. Did Joseph miss 16? Given what you said in 03 about changes to Jesus being “God” not mattering, now you are even worse off. Now you have only 2 significant changes out of 14.

This is what I was getting at back at 95. The textual changes you are referring to do not material change the overall teachings of the Book of Mormon and it seems very unlikely to me that Joseph decided to change his view on God away from modalism and so he made 2 full changes and left 12. So I assert that the reason for the changes were apparently not to change the doctrine of the Book of Mormon. The apologists say it was to clarify which member of the Godhead/Trinity was being referred to. This strikes me as a better theory in that it at least fits all the current facts, though I wouldn’t say that’s the final word either.

The truth is that the Book of Mormon *does*, even today, come across to many people as modalistic or Trinitarian — particularly if they exclude or miss 2 Nephi 31:14-15, 1 Nephi 11:11, and Ether 3.

The changes you listed do not really make the Book of Mormon more or less Trinitarian/Modalistic. The Book of Mormon already avoids any strong denial of Trinitarian or Modalistic views of God. It very strongly asserts, in both the 1830 edition and the modern edition, that Jesus is OUR ETERNAL FATHER!

I would suggest that your preconceived notions (we all have them) that Joseph changed his understanding of the nature of God over time have caused you to impose a meaning on the four textual changes you mentioned that really aren’t supported by the facts. If Joseph wanted to make those changes for the sake of retrofitting Book of Mormon doctrine, then he screwed up royally by only getting 4 out of 20 or 2 out of 14 references, depending on whether or not you want to count only “Father” references or “Father” and “God” references.

By the way, I believe Joseph *did* changes his understanding of deity somewhat over time, exactly like you believe. I have no reason at all to believe Joseph had a fully correct understanding of the doctrine of deity from 1830 on.

But I do not believe the Book of Mormon changed its view. I believe the Book of Mormon took an intentional path of not strongly denying any view. If one views the Book of Mormon as a basic doctrinal text and sees D&D 130:22 as an advanced doctrine, then this might make good sense. And it might just be that Mormonisms doctrine of deity is far more “Trinitarian” than you are assuming. (In fact, it is very Trinitarian. The only part of the doctrine of Trinity that we reject is substance theology, which is not found in the Bible at all and actually isn’t even defined.)

I have to admit, Doug, that as a believer, the more important questions to me are what I can learn about God from these questions:
“What is the Book of Mormon really teaching about deity?”
“What can I learn from it’s insistence that Jesus is our Eternal Father?”
“What can I learn from it’s insistence that Jesus is both Father and Son?”
“Why is it so insistent that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are all one God? Why does this point matter so much that it comes up over and over in both the Book of Mormon and the Bible — more so in the Book of Mormon?”

I believe that the real message of the Book of Mormon about deity is unattainable by someone imposing meaning on it as I believe you are doing.

Do this as an experiment: try sitting down and reading everything the Book of Mormon teaches about the nature of Jesus and the nature of deity without imposing meaning and let the evidence take you where it does. Do this prayerfully and I think you might be shocked at what the Book of Mormon was actually saying.

For example, try not imposing any meaning on Mosiah 15:1-4 and instead ask the question “what was the point Abinidi was contextually making here?” Try doing this prayerfully. You will be really shocked to realize just how important of a point Abinidi (and thus the Book of Mormon) was actually making. Mosiah 15:1-4 is an incredibly important doctrine to Mormon theology. I don’t want to spoil this for you, so I won’t give it away. Besides, I don’t want to impose meaning here. You may very well come up with a slightly different view than I did if you try this.

Do this prayerfully or it won’t work. Since you already told me you do find the Book of Mormon inspired by God, if not historical, I’m reading into that that you have no objections about praying over the Book of Mormon and believe you can learn something about God from it. I’m just asking you to apply that idea to the Book of Mormon’s teachings about the nature of deity.

Update: Oh, if you do decide to do this experiment, Doug, please do it with the BoM only at first. But then after the fact, add in D&C 19 (note that Jesus here speaks as if he is the Father. Note the date of this revelation.), D&C 76 especially v. 20 and 71 (note the date on this revelation), D&C 93 (especially v. 4. Notice the date on this revelation. Also note the similarity of langue to Mosiah 15:1-4), read D&C 130 last of all, as this is the final point, not the first point chronologically. Given some thought to why D&C 130:22 even matters and how it ties into LDS Doctrine as a whole.

Take these passages at face value rather than imposing the view that they are a shift away from a doctrine to a new incompatible one. Are any of these verses, taken as a whole, incompatible?

Now try to put yourself into the shoes of an early Mormon that started out believing in the doctrine of Trinity, including substance theology, and then slowly had these revelations (starting with the Book of Mormon) revealed to them in the order they were received. How might you, over the years, these revelations slowly change your views?

Bruce, you and I know that even in Mormonism Christ is thought of as an eternal God. There is a big difference between Eternal God and Eternal Father. As James E. Talmage stated, “Eternal” is a name for God and not necessarily a period of time. I don’t think this argument holds much water, how many of the 16 misses you referenced are stated as God instead of Father?

Re: Stephen Marsh’s comments about this:

You are talking about Alvin Renchers “word print” study, and the follow on studies done after that. Alvin Rencher was the head of the stats department at BYU and happened to by my Book of Mormon teacher. I intentionally avoid talking too much about this as I feel things like this get overused. Rencher covered the topic fully in class on the final day of class and I was able to ask him hard questions, etc, because I’m so suspicious of things like this. I later read his study and also the BYU counter study suggesting possible problems (which were fixed in the follow up study, which I haven’t read.)

The biggest problem I see with word print tests is that, frankly, I can’t really wrap my mind around them enough to even get a feel as to whether or not they are worth mentioning. Probably thousands of these tests need to be performed before we really know for sure what we are measuring.

I should probably also note that Royal Skowsen didn’t think much of “word prints”, even though it comes down so strongly in favor of the Book of Mormon as being authentic and in support of Skowsen’s personal pet theories. (e.g. that the Book of Mormon isn’t a modern expansion on an ancient text, as Ostler believes, but is in fact an ancient text given by God word for word to Joseph Smith.)

Still, I wouldn’t rule out the possiblity that there is something to “word prints” but I am ready to reserve judgment for now one way or the other. I will probably die still reserving judgment.

>>> If he had had a computer, I personally think he would have changed them all.

I wasn’t going to bring this up, because frankly it doesn’t matter; you either, on faith, accept that Jesus is in fact God and the Book of Mormon was intentionally teaching this or you, on faith, accept that Joseph changed his mind and made an attempt to edit this out and missed some places.

But for those that are interested, one of the places that Joseph “missed,” if the above theory is correct, was, um, the title page: “And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD.”

Personally I’d find the “missed” theory a bit more believeable if in fact Joseph had changed most of the references but forgot a few. But it’s actually the other way around. He changed 4 and “missed” the vast majority, like 16 or so.

Err, much of that early work was done using the Book of Mormon, which has a bundle of different styles, as one might expected of a text that has multiple authors edited into a final volume.

That is one of things that Arthur Henry King liked about the book, that texture and style, combined with the poetry in it.

>>> Just one other correction, I have never claimed counter evidence as inspired

I wasn’t sure if you understood what I meant here, probably you do. Just to be sure, I wasn’t making a general statement about your approach, I was refering to a specific tactic you just used in your previous post: i.e. “I certainly can see the point you’re making about all the places in the BoM that weren’t changed regarding the Godhead and why you find it significant that despite this confusion, there are a couple of scriptures which do hint at our current understanding. My explanation for this is actually very simple and as been stated before. Joseph was inspired at times…”

Don’t get me wrong, this is very much a possible explanation of the facts. There are undoubtedly an infinite number of possible explanations of the facts. But if any time a fact (such as Ether 3, 2 Nephi 11, 1 Nephi, etc.) runs against a theory (such as Joseph was originally pushing for a modified Trinitarian view) we declare it “inspired” as an explanation to let the theory hold… well, I can hardly argue your point because you basically have a foolproof way or explaining the counter evidence. It’s certainly a logically sound point of view, I admit.

Because I don’t think foolproof explanations are necessarily bad, I am certainly not suggesting I have a concern over you doing this. My only point was that you and the TBMs both have foolproof systems, so this isn’t a reason to “look down upon” (not saying you were, but certainly some do) TBMs. A secondary point that I didn’t make, but will now, is that the TBMs view of the Book of Mormon isn’t necessarily more naive (or less naive) than your view of the Book of Mormon… or anyone’s view for that matter. Since your view requires explaining away counter evidence just like their view requires explaining away counter evidence… Well anyhow, I don’t expect you to agree with that last statement. If I’m sure that you agree with the general point but still feel your theory fits the facts better, just as I feel the same way about my theory.

You state that you do in fact use your own foolproof systems. I’ve admited I do. (Well, that was implied.) You are very open minded that way. (As a side note, most people see “open minded” as a compliment and “closed minded” as an insult. I see neither as neither. I’m just stating a fact. You are willing to see things from another point of view even if you disagree with them. Thus you are opened minded, at least on this point.) I think this is the first time in my life I’ve talked to someone that admits they use “foolproof” systems to shore up their beliefs other than myself. Obviously everyone does this, not just us. But it’s weird to meet someone that recognizes this quality in themselves.

Thanks for the conversation. It was quite enlightening, as always.

“I can’t say I have a problem with this tactic. Apparently, neither do you. Isn’t that what you just did? If the evidence doesn’t fit the paradigm, you can always declare it inspired, right? Sounds foolproof to me. I would daresay people of all belief systems, including yours, rely on foolproof systems like this. Should this be held against the “believing” Mormons then? I’m not sure I see the idea of bearing testimony and putting the evidence on the shelf as inferior to declaring counter evidence as inspired.”

I’m actually fairly shocked by this admission from you. First, you are absolutely correct in stating that we all do this including me. If you check back through the many posts I’ve put here on Mormon Matters, I think you’ll see that I’ve always taken the middle road with respect to the BoM. In other words, I didn’t just say it was inspired 19th century fiction for this thread. That has always been my stance.

What I find truly interesting is the apparent black and white view held by many in the church in regard to our scripture. It’s either all 100% true and historical, or the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. Of course, it is neither and thereby a wonderful shade of gray. I’m trying hard not to deal in absolutes as I was counseled in the early part of this thread…

Just one other correction, I have never claimed counter evidence as inspired. History is just what it is and can’t be changed, but is certainly open to be interpreted by all of us based in our particular world view. I don’t, and never have faulted TBMs for taking the fairly naïve view of believing correlated history taught in church. I realize that like them, I use my “foolproof” system to make sense out of all the information out there as well. I’m just a notch or two down the spectrum in the gray area so to speak. The alternative is to become an atheist, not something I’m willing to accept at this point in my journey.

Thanks Bruce, always a pleasure…

I can’t say I have a problem with this tactic. Apparently, neither do you. Isn’t that what you just did? If the evidence doesn’t fit the paradigm, you can always declare it inspired, right? Sounds foolproof to me.

I would daresay people of all belief systems, including yours, rely on foolproof systems like this. Should this be held against the “believing” Mormons then? I’m not sure I see the idea of bearing testimony and putting the evidence on the shelf as inferior to declaring counter evidence as inspired.

I’m not trying to attack your view here. I’m just pointing out the commonalities I see.

Thanks for the post and your insight. I certainly can see the point you’re making about all the places in the BoM that weren’t changed regarding the Godhead and why you find it significant that despite this confusion, there are a couple of scriptures which do hint at our current understanding. My explanation for this is actually very simple and as been stated before. Joseph was inspired at times…

I think you also must admit that without the use of a computer it would be difficult to find all the passages talking about Jesus being the Eternal Father in the book for Joseph. If he had had a computer, I personally think he would have changed them all. In my line of work I write lots of reports. For me, it seems that no-matter how many times I proofread something, I still miss important things. I don’t believe Joseph was any different.

It’s funny how one’s world view effects what they see. I find my explanation perfectly logical and a better fit to explain why Joseph would bother to change those verses and why he missed others. I also believe he was inspired at times while writing the book or someone was inspired anyway.

The old Sidney Rigdon thing seems to be gaining some ground again with new evidence pointing at him as the author. I don’t know much about the evidence except to say that with modern computers it is now possible to feed them known writings from authors and then feed it an unknown text and have it accurately identify the writer based on a whole list of style things. Kind of like a finger print…

I’m not asking for discussion on this new piece of evidence as what I have is just hearsay at the moment, but it could have some devastating consequences for the church if it proves true. Oh, who am I kidding, as Mormons we have a full proof way of disregarding any evidence that doesn’t fit our paradigm. We just bear our testimony and put the evidence on the shelf…

Kent,

I haven’t read Blake’s stuff yet, but it’s on my to-do list…Thanks for the link.

I am well aware that the Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus is the Eternal Father, as it did in the Mosiah 15 quote I mentioned previously. In fact that Mosiah 15 quote is far stronger than the changes you mentioned.

I was also aware of the changes you mentioned. Believe it or not, I don’t see your point of view as being an “invalid” way to read the Book of Mormon. One could certainly read in a modalistic/semi-Trinitarian view in the Book of Mormon, as you are doing and I don’t blame anyone that does. (And in fact I believe this was quite intentional, but I don’t have time to explain that at the moment. Short version: I don’t believe the Book of Mormon so much supports a modalist/Trinitarian view as it doesn’t deny *any* view of God’s metaphysical nature: including the D&C 130 view.)

I should probably add that I don’t feel that the changes you mentioned are in any way significant precisely because there were plenty of references to Jesus being the Son of God in the 1830 BoM and there are still, in the current verison, plenty of references to him being “the Eternal Father.”

To use a simplified example: If I take 50 references to Jesus as Son of God and 50 references to him being “God himself” and I change it to be 55 references to Jesus as Son of God and 45 as “God himself” I don’t really feel that changes the message at all. I still have to accept that both positions are in some sense true. (Which I do.)

And I’d think you’d be hard pressed to come up with an explanation as to how it does make a difference other than a sneaking suspicion that maybe Joseph decide to partially cover his trail. Why not just change all the references if that was the case?

>>> In the 1830 edition it seemed to make them all the same Great Spirit

But this is where my original point in my original post gets me excited. I’m not expecting you to agree with me on this, by the way. I’m just trying to see if you can see it from my point of view. To me, at least, it makes little sense for a man, Joseph Smith, to start out teaching a modified Trinitarian view or modalist view but to still include 2 Nephi 31:14-15, 1 Nephi 11:11, and Ether 3. In fact, thats just really really wierd that he’d do such a thing. Why? It makes no sense at all. Why emphasize the bodily nature of Christ prior to his birth if you think he’s just a form of God? Why emphasize the bodily nature of the Holy Spirit if he’s really just Jesus or another manifestation of the same God? Why have two beings talk from heaven in two different voices?

So I see those as hints of what was to come in a way that your explanation (which I do see as a valid possible explanation) doesn’t really fit with. Thus I see my explanation as fitting the facts better.

But of course, I’m biased (I will admit this) so there is always the possiblity that I’m retroactively fitting things. But then you are also biased (I hope you’ll admit this because it’s true) so you may be retroactively fitting your theory to it.

Is there a way to know who is right for sure? Nope.

In any case, I can’t forsee you suddenly agreeing with my explanation. But can you see why I might find such hints as exciting and worth sharing? Certainly they represent, at a minimum, incredible luck.

To my way of thinking, the BoM references all three of the Godhead in one part or another. In the 1830 edition it seemed to make them all the same Great Spirit. To me, combining this with what Joseph was teaching in the “Lectures on Faith” (Lecture #5) seems to support the notion that Joseph was thinking along trinity type lines with his own twist. So in a sense, you are correct, Joseph Smith was not a true Trinitarian but then again he certainly wasn’t teaching that God and Jesus were resurrected beings of flesh and bones either. That understanding seemed to come much later…

For reference, please see some of the changes below that I’m referring to from the 1830 and currect BoM:

1 Nephi 3, p. 25 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh
1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God.

1 Nephi 3, p. 25 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father!
1 Nephi 11:21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father!

1 Nephi 3, p. 26 And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world.
1 Nephi 11:32 And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God, was judged of the world.

1 Nephi 3, p. 32 These last records … shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world.
1 Nephi 13:40 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 Savior of the world

Good posts. And thank you for explaining your position on the Book of Mormon.

>>> The original 1830 edition plainly was pushing the trinity concept of God.

I’m actually shocked that you said this. Are you sure you understand the trinity concept of God? Since you have a Mormon background I think you must realize that most Mormons (and a good deal of non-Mormons) don’t even know what the Trinity concept of God is, but think they do.

Now if you had said that the 1830 edition was pushing modalism, I would have at least understood where you were coming from, even though I disagree. But Trinitarianism? Goodness, the BoM doesn’t even come close to pushing it in any edition.

Incidently, are you aware of any changes to the BOM on the references I made above showing how the BoM neatly folded into the current Mormon concept of God?

I do agree with you (or with what I think you are getting at anyhow) that The Book of Mormon is certainly vague about God’s metaphysical substance. I take this at face value to mean that this isn’t as important as Christians (and even Mormons sometimes) think it is.

And the BoM clearly emphasizes the oneness of God, to the point of at times seeming almost modalistic (Mosiah 15) at times. But this doesn’t shock me either because the oneness of God is a HUGELY important point in Mormon doctrine. The entire concept of the plurality of gods falls apart without this.

The truth is, that I take the Book of Mormon at face value on these points.

I should probably note that the Book of Mormon, as a whole, denies modalism based on the references I mention above. But Mosiah 15 alone sounds very modalistic, to be sure.

But Mosiah 15 is nothing like actual Trinitarianism. I think the better non-believing argument would be that Joseph, assumed author of the BoM, didn’t understand Trinitarianism and thought it was modalism (a common mistake as I just mentioned).

Sorry Bruce, I completely missed this question in your post and it deserves an answer. First, the BoM is not very poetic so I certainly wasn’t meaning inspiring in that way. Second, I have always believed the book contains a certain amount of inspiration from God. This has never been an issue for me, although I know for many others he was a complete fraud. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Having grown up in upstate NY and having spent a considerable amount of time studying his life, I honestly believe he was sincere in his attempts to contact a higher being and get inspiration. Unfortunately, as that methodology is not an exact science, people can get things very wrong as well and justify horrible things in the name of God.

On this same line, I can believe sincere people of other faiths can get inspiration from God and do great things as well. One of my biggest problems with Mormonism is our very narrow view of God’s love for everyone and therefore His ability to inspire many people toward him. The church tries to push the concept that somehow we’re the only ones who actually get His priesthood and therefore the only authorized representatives. Our brand of religion has just as many trouble spots as most of the others and therefore we shouldn’t be throwing these kinds of stones…

Well now I’ve really went off the subject…Thanks for listening

I don’t believe you’re giving Joseph Smith near enough credit. He was raised in a very religious home with parents who didn’t just read from the bible but studied it in depth. Add to that his father (a teacher by trade) home schooling his children and you have a far savvier individual who was free to make his own conclusions about many of the doctrines you’re inferring he either got very lucky on or was inspired by God.

I actually believe it was his unorthodox beliefs that inspired him to reinvent Christianity in the first place and allowed the evolution of those basic principles as he went. I also think you’re assuming that the BoM today is just like what was first published in 1830. I won’t get into the over 4,000 changes that have occurred over the years has we both know a good majority were simple punctuation and grammar corrections. However there were also some significant doctrinal corrections as well. For example, even with today’s version of the BoM, it’s hard to figure out the nature of the Godhead. The original 1830 edition plainly was pushing the trinity concept of God. If you want references, I would be happy to provide them to you. With that version, there is no ambiguity as to a monotheistic God. Obviously, has Joseph’s understanding of the Godhead evolved he felt free to make correction to the next printing of the BoM. Other points of doctrine have evolved from one printing to the next as well, good subject for another post if you’re really interested…

Sorry for the short answer here. Your post contains many good points that deserve more time than I have to give this evening. My point is this, there are two sides to this story and the evidence is not nearly as clear cut as your comments would seem to purport. Having said that, I’m not saying that your insights don’t have merit and that Joseph may very well have been inspired on some important truths which seem to have gone missing from Christianity. As I’ve stated all along, there can be inspiration without actual revelation… In other words, the BoM really can be inspired fiction…

Some day, if I work up the courage, I might even attempt to tackle what is modernly called “polyandry.” It’s such a hot button, it’s hard to imagine an honest exchange on the subject considering how very little is actually know about it and how high feelings run over it.

To be honest, this is probably my biggest concern in Mormon history… maybe my only concern. But once I studied it out, I felt very differently about it then the way it was portrayed in books like Todd Comptons or Fawn Brodies. Still, there are a lot of bad feelings over this so it’s hard to figure out how to address it at all at the moment except in a one-on-one type setting. So I may never actually tackle this question except if someone contacts me directly and asks me.

As I said elsewhere, it takes a lot of courage to advance one’s own beliefs and then take critism. I think this is why I have so little patiences for people that avoid discussing their own beliefs but feel free to take pot shots at others.

>>> but it’s more likely that Joseph’s understanding of the doctrines you’ve listed above evolved over time

Of course, logically, this is a possiblity. I could hardly logically deny this might be the case. (I’m saying logically to avoid refering to any sort of spiritual witness, which I personally take as evidence but I understand if you or others don’t.)

However, I want you to think carefully about the list above and really pretend like you are me and try to see it the way I am seeing it. Which theory fits the evidence better from someone with my worldview?

For example, does it make more sense that Joseph Smith was smart enough to think through the future of polygamy well enough to write Jacob 2 with it’s absolute denial of polygamy, followed by a sudden exception that allowed for a practical temporary reversal? That’s a lot of fore thought going on there. And how likely is it that Joseph was smart enough to notice that Abraham and the patriarchs weren’t examples of unauthorized polygamy but David and Solomon were and to uses only David and Solomon in Jacob 2 and then a decade and a half later be able to explain the difference in D&C 132? You have to admit, it’s pretty smart stuff we’re talking about here. Very very savvy. (And for the moment I’ll not address the issue that Joseph’s own explanations for polygamy to people pale in comparison to the revelations on the subject. I just don’t personally believe Joseph ever really understood the full significance of how Jacob 2 and D&C 132 combine together so nicely.)

And it’s pretty dang smart to specify the “Spirit of the Lord” (1 Nephi 11) as a person and then apparently fail to see the Holy Ghost as a personage for years (as scholars of Joseph now claim at least), until the 1840s where suddenly it’s announced that the Holy Ghost is in fact a person.

And you have to admit it was pretty dang smart to portray the pre-mortal Jesus as having a bodily form while a spirit in Ether 3, including having the prophet in the story be shocked by this fact so that attention is drawn to it, and then end up creating a whole theology later around God having a human form because “gods” are exalted people. Yet in between the Book of Mormon and the King Follet discourse, never really addressing this doctrine again. This is dang good forethought we’re talking about here. If it’s not revelation, it’s pure genius.

And what incredible luck or foresight allowed Joseph to write the very unorthodoxly worded 3 Nephi 28:10 (some might even same blasphemously worded) but then end up teaching that we can in fact become “gods” by the end of his life.

Could it be developing thought of Joseph? I suppose it could. Could it be just lucky? Like maybe he just happened to write the Book of Mormon in such a way that it can be read retroactively like this? Certain, it could be. I couldn’t rule out the possiblity. But is that the best or easiest explanation? I don’t think it’s very likely, personally.

I have to admit, though, that how one “follows the evidence” depends a lot on their world view. With a less believing world view, I suppose I can see how someone might feel very justified in dimissing all of this “evidence” as a lucky coincidence or foresight by Joseph Smith.

You suggested that the Book or Mormon might be inspired “on some level” but still see it as a 19th century work. May I ask you if by “inspired” you mean “inspired by God” or do you mean it more in the sense of “inspired poetry” i.e. Joseph was a genius but it was his work, not God’s.

>>> but it’s more likely that Joseph’s understanding of the doctrines you’ve listed above evolved over time

Actually, I believe I’m saying that the Book of Mormon foresaw the doctrines to come better than Joseph did. So in that sense, I believe Joseph’s understanding did very much evolve over time. For example, I don’t think Joseph understood the Holy Ghost to be a person at first even though the Book of Mormon taught (or at least strongly hinted) that this was the case. I don’t believe Joseph Smith believed in polygamy before his “bible translation” even though the Book of Mormon taught that God could command it. I also don’t believe Joseph believed in salvation for the dead (in any form) at first even though the Book of Mormon strongly suggested it, or at least stated that unbelievers don’t get judged by the law (and don’t go to hell presumably) as in 2 Nephi 9. For that matter, I don’t believe Joseph believed that we become “gods” even though 3 Nephi 28:10 was worded in such a strange way as to suggest the possibility that maybe such an idea wasn’t blasphemous after all.

And while I didn’t mention this in my post above, I don’t believe Joseph Smith, at first, had any concept at all that God subjected Himself to Eternal laws even though Alma 42:22 requires this understanding to make sense of it. And then by the end of Joseph’s Life we find him teaching a plurality of Gods that suddenly makes Alma 42:22 take on a whole new meaning.

First let me add to Terry’s comment about my appreciation for your posts and comments. Even though we don’t agree and probably won’t on many issues on this board, I enjoy the interchange and the respect you show.

“Doug G: let me take this as a jumping off point back to the original point of the post. I believe that the “doctrine” of the Church on polygamy is exactly what is laid out in Jacob 2. I believe it’s wrong except in the very rare case were God commands it. It was originally taught as an exception, was practiced as an exception, and is now again not commanded.”

I’ll concede your point that President Hinckley understood the principle as you’ve written. At least as it applies to polygamy, however I believe this same understanding doesn’t apply to polyandry at all. As the two are linked, it should make one question its authenticity.

To get back on subject, the whole problem here is that your examples may serve to show that the BoM was the school master to bring us the Doctrine and Covenants, but it’s more likely that Joseph’s understanding of the doctrines you’ve listed above evolved over time. I believe this can be well documented and goes to show that where the BoM may have been inspired on some level, it most likely is a 19th century work.

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/01/14/polygamy-what-it-really-implies-part-one/

and

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/01/23/polygamy-what-it-really-implies-part-two/

“…excerpts are taken from an address to the Harvard Divinity School in March 2001 by Robert L. Millet. It is an interesting read.

Thank you for commenting. It’s easy to forget that many people just read. Actually… I had pretty well forgotten about it until I just read your post. So again, thank you for giving me a reminder.

I have never read that quote from Millet before, but I must say I rather like it. I too wish for a world where we can discuss openly our differences without people (including myself) feeling threatened.

Bruce,
I have been reading your comments on this website for a few weeks now, and have been impressed with how well you articulate your ideas. I really appreciate your posts, too and look forward to reading more of them. This is the first time I’ve commented because I want you to know that there are readers out here that agree with your “orthodox” views, but just don’t comment. I’m not fast enough on the draw to get my ideas in print, and someone always posts it before I get a chance to gather my thoughts.:)

“Maybe to generate a false sense of support for your position, I don’t know. Its pretty silly.”
No, to create the impression that the guy was a new guy, to start over again. Its pretty silly that you’re making such a fuss over it. Why did you think I felt like leaving. I take offense at the Sybil comment, and I take offense at you, treating me as if I have multiple personality disorder, and you not being able to get over a common thing people do online. I aint in high school. I’m 35 frikin years old, and this didn’t become an issue till you made it one.