CES Reply: The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible

This is an excerpt from “A Reply from a Former CES Employee.” The entire document can be downloaded for free.

This is a line-by-line response to Jeremy Runnells’ “Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony.” Jeremy’s words are in green, the color of life, while mine are in black, the color of darkness.

1.What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?

It’s amazing to me that this objection is the first on your list, as typically people lead with their strongest argument. I would expect you to come out of the gate with something like polygamy or LDS racism or other things that I, too, find genuinely troubling in many respects. Instead, we begin with consideration of “errors” in a 1769 King James Bible.

But even that requires us to define terms and question assumptions. When you say “errors,” for instance, what kind of errors are we talking about? Is this a version of the Bible that claims that the first people on earth really were Adam and Steve? Or that Monty Python’s Brian of Nazareth is the true messiah? Or that cannibalism doesn’t deserve the bad rap that it gets?

Your link to the supposed errors in question isn’t much help in answering that question. Apparently, the errors that have you up in arms are “translation errors.” It takes us to a section in a Wikipedia article that states the following:

The King James Bible (1769) contains unique translation errors which also occur in the Book of Mormon, implying that the Book of Mormon used the KJV as a source. A few examples are 2 Nephi 19:1, 2 Nephi 21:3, and 2 Nephi 16:2. The Book of Mormon also references “dragons” and “satyrs” in 2 Nephi 23:21-22, matching the KJV, whereas more modern bible translations do not include these mythological beasts.

Clicking on each of the links, which take us to the Book of Mormon scriptural text also posted at Wikipedia, doesn’t tell me which parts of the verses are in error. This required me to dig around and do some actual research, which really frosts my biscuits, if you know what I mean.

So let’s start with the first one – 2 Nephi 19:1, which, just as reads as follows:

Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.

See the error? Me neither. So let’s keep digging.

In the original 1611 version of the KJV, there are no commas after “Nevertheless” or “Zebulun.”  It uses the word “afterward” instead of “afterwards.” It has the word “her” after the phrase “grievously afflict,” and it says “sea” instead of “Red Sea.” Also there are commas in the final sentence that are not in the Book of Mormon version.

Again, where are the errors? Is it an error to say “afterwards” and not “afterward?”  Certainly both are acceptable. Are we talking about commas? Because inserting commas and using a slight variation of a word doesn’t change the meaning of the text at all. Perhaps could be considered more grammatically correct than the other, but I’m not sure which is which. And given that the Book of Mormon text was submitted to the printer with no punctuation whatsoever, one ought to expect a number of variations in comma use based on the printer’s choices, and I’m pretty sure E.B. Grandin was not infallible.

At issue, then, seems to be the change from “sea” to “Red Sea,” and perhaps this is, indeed, an error of minor significance. But the problem is that this is an error unique to the Book of Mormon.

Here you can read Isaiah 9:1 as it appeared in the 1769 edition “that Joseph Smith owned.” (As a sidenote, your mention of Joseph Smith’s ownership of the 1769 version, a fact you do not document but I’ll take your word for it, implies that it was some kind of aberrant or unusual thing to own that particular version, when, in fact, I assume it was the standard edition of the time. I could be wrong on that, but the fact that Joseph Smith owned it adds little to your argument, especially since I’ve demonstrated that the text of his Isaiah quotes doesn’t match up with that edition as advertised.) The 1769 version says “sea” and not “Red Sea.” In fact, the 1769 says “afterward” and not “afterwards;” it has the “her” after “grievously afflict,” and is far more like the 1611 KJV than the Book of Mormon.

So your first objection leaves me deeply puzzled as to why any of this is a serious problem for you. None of the errors that trouble you are doctrinal or even substantive – for the most part, they’re grammatical. And as much as a grammar Nazi as I readily confess to being – ending a sentence with a preposition is an error up with which I will not put – I think grammatical errors are the lowest form of human error possible, just as puns are the lowest form of humor. And jokes about German sausage are the wurst.

From the outset, we cut to the heart of most of your problems with this grammar indictment. Because the vast majority of your objections rely on the premise that error is always a sign that God is absent, because he would never allow his true Church to make even trivial mistakes.

I bumped into this in a backstage conversation with a non-LDS actor in a production of “A Few Good Men” at Pioneer Theatre in Salt Lake City. He asked me how I could support a church where the policy is that “when the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.”

I responded by saying that wasn’t the policy, and that I didn’t believe that.

“No, no, I’ve heard that over and over again through the years,” he said. “If that’s not the policy now, then they’ve changed it – which means it wasn’t inspired in the first place.”

So I took to Google, and I found the source for the quote in question. It comes from a 1945 church magazine, wherein the uncredited author states the following in a Ward Teaching message:

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

Yikes.

What to make of this? For if this is true, then our leaders who get to think for us must be infallible.  But infallibility is at odds with the central doctrine of agency, which ensures that even the prophet has the freedom to make mistakes. To presume, then, that everything our leaders say flows directly from the mind of the Almighty is to suggest that at some point, either agency is extracted from the souls of the church hierarchy, or they achieve perfection in mortality.

Since neither of those is a workable possibility, that statement must be wrong.

Lest you think me faithless in coming to that conclusion, I share the concurring opinion of President George Albert Smith, who was the president of the church at the time this statement appeared in a church publication. In a letter written to a Unitarian minister criticizing the idea of mindless Mormons, President Smith had this to say:

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church… [which] gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.

I shared that with my debating partner, who scoffed at the idea. “Do you get to pick and choose, then? Who gets to decide what’s true and what isn’t?”

 We do.

Not only do we get to decide, we have the responsibility to decide. And God will hold us, not our leaders, accountable for the choices we make.

My debating partner saw this as a cop out. I see it, however, as the central principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let’s cite a practical example. Our leaders have taught us that it is essential that we keep the Sabbath day holy. It’s one of the Ten Commandments; Christ Himself reiterated its importance during His mortal ministry, and modern revelation commands us to do it, too. So how do we go about it?

Well, back in the time of Moses, most of the thinking on the subject was done for you. Specific rules were prescribed that outlined exactly what you could and couldn’t do.  By the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the rules had been codified to the point of absurdity – you can take X number of steps on the Sabbath, for instance, and only eat eggs laid on the Sabbath by a “laying hen.” Jesus rejected all that – he “fulfilled” the law, meaning that the principle of the law was still in effect, but you were responsible for how you obeyed it. You keep the Sabbath Day holy, and you justify to God why your choices make that happen.

No leader stands between you and Christ. You, personally, are accountable for every choice you make.

Of course, that’s not just true of you and me. That’s true of Thomas S. Monson, too – and every other prophet who has ever lived. If it were not so, then agency would have no meaning, and the purpose of this life would be thwarted.

All right, that’s a bit of a diversion from your grammar beef, but since so much of what you write is predicated on assumed infallibility, I wanted to clarify here at the outset that recognizing fallibility is essential to properly understanding the Gospel, as well as to adequately respond to your objections to times when infallibility is clearly not operative.

So back to grammar. Why, indeed, would such errors be there?

The Wikipedia article you cite as your source also has a section about a “use of English homophones.” Quoting therefrom:

A few passages in the Book of Mormon appear to use phrases from the King James Bible, but with certain words changed to English homophones. For example, 3 Nephi 25:2 reads, “But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall.” This is identical to Malachi 4:2, except that the word Son is used in place of Sun. The two words are homophones in English but not similar at all in Hebrew or Egyptian.

While this demonstrates that the Book of Mormon does indeed contain errors, it also undermines the premise of your initial question. When you ask why errors from the 1769 KJV made their way into the Book of Mormon, the Occam’s Razor answer is that Joseph or Oliver simply cracked open the copy on the bookshelf and copied the text directly. But these homophones are evidence that the Book of Mormon was produced by the very process that Joseph described, with Joseph reading text aloud and Oliver transcribing what he heard. In this instance, Joseph probably said “Sun” and Oliver wrote “Son,” and that was that. (Your favorite “unofficial apologists” at FAIR describe why this is probably the same reason why the Red Sea makes its erroneous appearance in 2 Nephi 19:1.)

This would constitute a pretty clunky method of plagiarism – why read the text aloud when you can do the 19^th Century equivalent of cut and paste? In addition, it’s important to note that with your first question, you have demonstrated your own fallibility, as well as that of the good folks who waste time editing Wikipedia articles. Contrary to the source you cite, 1769 KJV errors didn’t actually make their way into the Book of Mormon, at least in the case of 2 Nephi 19:1. So already, we’re off to a pretty shaky start.

Your question, though, seems to contain two different concerns. One is why errors specific to Joseph Smith’s personal Bible might be reproduced in the B of M, but the other, larger question is why there are any errors in the Book of Mormon at all, grammatical or otherwise.

The Book of Mormon itself provides the definitive answer to the second question on its very first page. “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” Again, that’s on the first page. The first frickin’ page. It’s been on the first page since 1830 when the book was originally published. How can anyone claim that the Book of Mormon ought to be inerrant when the Book of Mormon itself has always announced its errancy on its very first page?

We’ve beaten this dead horse into the ground, but I want to make this additional point. Your Question #1 consists of 30 words total. Prior to this paragraph, my response is 2,265 words long. This presents a possible explanation for why you may not feel that responses to your letter have been inadequate. After all, it takes seconds to make inflammatory accusations – Joseph and Oliver just copied the Book of Mormon out of the family Bible! – and it takes paragraphs, pages, or even books to provide the context that disproves them.

Tomorrow:  Question #2!