5 Things the Book of Mormon No Longer Teaches

Here are five significant changes made to the Book of Mormon after it was published. First, white and delightsome. This is probably the most infamous of all of the changes. In 1830, the original Book of Mormon text said, "They shall be a white and a delightsome people." Now, this actually got changed during Joseph's lifetime. In 1840, he changed the text to say, "They shall be a pure and a delightsome people." So, already that's a change. But what makes this particularly notable is that just a year later in 1841, they published another Book of Mormon that went back to the reading that said white and delightsome.

It stayed that way all the way from 1841 until 1981 when it was changed back to pure and delightsome. Now note that's just a couple years after the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. There are other texts in the Book of Mormon that use similar language about light and dark skin, which leaves me partially confused as to why this was even changed in the first place. Here's my big struggle with this. Joseph claimed to use the power of God to translate the gold plates. He's not just learning the language and giving a human translation. This is revelatory. This is supernatural. The specific language in the Book of Mormon was given to him by means of the power of God.

In this book titled an address to all believers in Christ, David Whitmer actually says that Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowry, that's his scribe writing down most of the Book of Mormon. And when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear. So Joseph is using special implements, these instruments, Yurum or the Searstone in order to see the translated text of the Book of Mormon. He would read it and a scribe would write it down. But it says specifically in this account that the words wouldn't disappear until he got it correct.

In other words, Joseph checked his work. He made sure that what was being written down was actually what was intended to be there. So my question is, if the translation was miraculous and supernatural, why the change in 1840? Why the change back in 1841? That just begs the question, what should that actually read? And why the change? Did President Spencer Kimell pull the the Sears stone out of the archives and use it to receive revelation about how the Book of Mormon should be updated? I've never heard anyone claim that. I've not even really heard anyone say that the update was revelatory in some sense.

I'll just be honest, this change doesn't seem motivated by revelation. It seems motivated by the lifting of the priesthood ban just a few years earlier. What compounds this problem is that multiple LDS leaders cite the text as saying white and delightsome between 1841 and 1981. As late as general conference in the 1960s, Spencer Kimell referred to this text to argue that Native Americans who were Latter-day Saints had skin that was actually becoming lighter. He said, "These young members of the church are changing to whiteness and to delighteness." If prophets are speaking in conference using that version of the text, well then how should we react to it being changed?

Nephi 12 · 2 Nephi 10 · Nephi 20

Number two, Christ's name shows up too early. Jesus's name first shows up in the Book of Mormon in Second Nephi, hundreds of years before he was born. That text reads, "Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ, for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name, should come among the Jews." His first name though doesn't appear until chapter 25. According to the words of the prophets and also the word of the angel of God. His name shall be Jesus Christ the son of God. You'll note in both instances it is by revelation that the name of Jesus is revealed either by an angel or by the prophets.

Now here's the change. The first edition 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon actually reveals Jesus's name decades earlier in First Nephi 12. That text used to read this. and a great and terrible gulf divideth them. Yay, even the word of the justice of the eternal God and Jesus Christ, which is the lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record." That text was changed by Joseph Smith in 1837 to now read even the word of the justice of the eternal God and the Messiah who is the lamb of God. Now, I can't think of any other reason that this might be updated except to preserve the timeline and maintain that Jesus's name was not first revealed until 2 Nephi 10.

Number three, unto the waters of baptism. Did Joseph alter the text of First Nephi 20 because of a suggestion from a friend? 1 Nephi 20:1 in the original print manuscript and in the 1830 edition reads this. Oh house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord. Now, this is a word for word quote from Isaiah 48:1 from the 1769 version of the King James Bible. But in 1840, Smith changed this text to read this. Oh house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel and are come forth out of the waters of Judah or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord.

So Joseph diverges a little bit from the King James to add a clarification that what is meant here is actually about baptism. Eldia scholar Hugh Nibli comments on this change saying it is said that Parley Prep suggested the phrase and certainly Joseph Smith approved it for it stands in all the early editions after the first. Now if one of Joseph Smith's friends can suggest an addition to the text, what does that say about its supernatural translation and origin? If Joseph brought forth each word by the power of God, ensuring accuracy, how is he allowed to change it like this? I just think that this kind of addition raises some serious questions.

Number four, King Benjamin to King Mosiah. Who was it who had the ability to translate the Geredite record, the 24 gold plates? The printers manuscript and the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon reads this. And now Lihi was again filled with joy on learning from the mouth of Ammon that King Benjamin had a gift from God whereby he could interpret such engravings. Here's the problem. King Benjamin actually died well before this back presumably in Mosiah chapter 6. So because of this, Joseph changed the text in 1837 to instead of saying King Benjamin, saying now King Mosiah. Linhai was again filled with joy on learning from the mouth of Ammon that King Mosiah had a gift from God whereby he could interpret such engravings.

Ether 41 · 1 Nephi 11 · Mosiah 16

Now this would seem to fix the apparent timeline problem. In fact, this same change was made after Smith's death in 1849 in Ether 41. In that text, it also changed from saying King Benjamin to now reading King Mosiah. One LDS scholar named Royal Scousin actually believes that perhaps King Benjamin lived a lot longer than we think. He thinks that seemingly King Benjamin was the correct reading. But that introduces a whole another set of problems. If that's true, then Joseph Smith introduced an error into the text in 1837. And then that error was doubled down on in 1849. Last on our list, the son of God.

There are several texts that Smith changed after the 1830 edition that initially just said God, but now says the son of God. A number of these changes are found in 1 Nephi 11 after the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon. All subsequent editions read this. Behold, the virgin whom thou seeest is the mother of the son of God. Originally, the text simply said, "Behold, the virgin whom thou seeest, is the mother of God." A similar change was made just a few verses later. Behold the lamb of God, yay, even the eternal father to behold the lamb of God, ya, even the son of the eternal father. The same change was made in verse 32.

from the everlasting God to the son of the everlasting God. Chapter 13 goes from the lamb of God is the eternal father and the savior of the world to the lamb of God is the son of the eternal father and the savior of the world. Now historically, Joseph's critics have seen these changes as representing a shift in Joseph's theology. Joseph's earlier teachings and writings seem to sound closer to a form of trinitarianism. It's not until well after this that he begins teaching things like we are all co-eternal with God or even that there's a plurality of gods. Even early works like the lectures on faith seemed to indicate to a more primitive form of Joseph's theology presumably teaching that there are two personages in the godhead.

The father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power possessing all perfection and fullness. The son a personage of tabernacle like a man made or fashioned like unto a man. He goes on to say that the son was formed after the father's likeness and image. The holy spirit then is the mind that the father and the son share and these three constitute the godhead and are one. He doubles down on these statements in the questions at the end of that lecture. Now faithful Latter-day Saints are quick to point out that Joseph didn't even come close to changing all of the texts that reference the son as being an eternal father.

One example of that would be Mosiah 16 which says redemption cometh through Christ the Lord which is the very eternal father. They'll point out that Joseph probably would have changed all of these relevant texts if he was really trying to shift his theology. Instead, they see this more as clarification, not really a development of theology. Whichever perspective you take on this, I still just struggle with how this squares with the story of how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. Though all of these changes and changes like these are generally speaking relatively minor, I think they raise some pretty critical questions.

If we assume that all of these changes were given to Smith and his successors by way of revelation, then what was the purpose of the gold plates? Why did Joseph need them in the first place? I mean, even apart from the changes, if Smith is just using a sear stone that he found in his money digging days and the plates are covered and he's not really using them, why even bother with the plates at all? What what purpose do they serve? And then if these changes are given without the use of a sear stone, why the sear stone? If the Book of Mormon really was brought forth by the power of God, then why weren't these things initially caught during the translation, especially if the stone waited for Joseph to check his work?

If I just grant that the plates really were ancient records, what did they actually say? And how much of Joseph leaked into the translation process? Smith himself said that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on the earth. So then, why the changes? In general conference, 10th president Joseph Fielding Smith once addressed a lot of these changes. He said, "It is true that when the Book of Mormon was printed, the printer was a man who was unfriendly. The publication of the book was done under adverse circumstances, and there were a few errors, mostly typographical conditions that arise in most any book that is being published.

But there was not one thing in the Book of Mormon or in the second edition or in any other edition since that in any way contradicts the first edition. And such changes as were made were made by the prophet Joseph Smith because under those adverse conditions the Book of Mormon was published. But there was no change of doctrine. Yet this claim is just false. We have part of the original manuscript. We have the printer's manuscript. The original 1830 Book of Mormon was not filled with typographical errors. It accurately represented what was put down in the printer's manuscript. Plus, not every change that was made to the text was actually done by Joseph.

Now, as an evangelical, you may be thinking that I'm pretty hypocritical for this. I mean, how can I point fingers at the Book of Mormon when there are some admittedly significant textual problems with parts of the Bible? Getting into the textual reliability of the Bible is just a little bit beyond the scope of this video. I do hope to make a video on it soon, by the way, so subscribe to make sure you catch that. But I do just want to note this one thing. Modern changes to the Bible are done because of textual evidence. What we're trying to do is get back to what the original documents said. Whereas the Book of Mormon changes are moving away from what the original said.

Additionally, we aren't claiming that the translation and transmission process was overtly supernatural. God used human means to preserve and translate the text governed ultimately by his providence. We have receipts. I mean, we can show you the history of the biblical text, the manuscripts, the changes, the areas of difficulty where they exist. the claim that it was the power of God that brought forth the Book of Mormon. That's the difference here. And that's why these questions of the changes in the Book of Mormon really matter. Scripture is more than just factually true. It is God's word. It is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

It is active. It's powerful. It's not just the words of an old guy who died a long time ago. I mean, sometimes the New Testament authors when talking about the Old Testament actually said that the author of the text was the Holy Spirit. It is able to make us wise unto salvation and to make the man of God complete and equipped for every good work. It enlightens the eyes. It makes wise the simple. It is the means by which God gives us sight to see the gospel. It's the message of life that you and I, sinners though we are, can be rescued and forgiven of our sins, can be declared righteous, and can be given entrance into God's eternal kingdom.

All through faith. Scripture is the way we encounter Jesus. It's how we know him. It's how we know what he's done for us. If you want to know and meet Christ, you can find him in his word. You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life. And it is they that bear witness about me. Yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.