Something I’ve noticed in my encounters with literature critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a common theme of agendas and purpose. While anti-Mormon authors fly the “learn-the-truth-about-the-Mormons” banner high atop their ministry headquarters, I have been unable to find those who truly seek just that…the truth. In my experience, the “search” of the critics is more for items that are consistent with their agenda: condemn and rip apart the LDS faith and the Book of Mormon. This is their search and most times, it is in spite of the truth.
Now, I must say that we all have our own agendas on different matters, but when our agenda hinders finding the truth there is a real problem. This problematic aspect of agendas is exactly what I see in the world of anti-Mormonism as they attempt to attack the Book of Mormon.
As one surveys the critical arguments aimed at the Book of Mormon, some of the most common are those having to do with all the changes that took place from the original manuscript. And while the large majority of the changes have to do with grammar and spelling and other insignificant changes, there are indeed a few that have more significance.
At the Third Annual Mormon Apologetics Conference, held by FAIR last year, one of the best examples of succinct and effective examination of changes in the Book of Mormon was the presentation prepared and delivered by Ara Norwood. Not that Brother Norwood dealt with this issue in it’s entirety, rather he took one of the most attacked changes in the Book of Mormon and demonstrated how one should go about examining it to find the truth about why it was changed. Then, and only then, as Brother Norwood shows us, are we properly able to make an evaluation of the underlying purpose and validity of the change itself.
The Problem Posed
As you might have guessed by reading the title of this article, Brother Norwood decided to address a textual change from the 1830 printing of the Book of Mormon where it uses the name “Benjamin,” referring to King Benjamin, to subsequent editions where the name was changed to “Mosiah.”
Here is the current rendering of the passage, as it has read since the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 21:28):
And now Limhi 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; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice.
As Brother Norwood points out, the change occurred in two different passages of the Book of Mormon,
At Mosiah 21:28 of the Book of Mormon, both the printer’s manuscript and the 1830 edition reads Benjamin, while all subsequent editions read Mosiah.1 Why was this change made, and was it warranted?
Similarly, at Ether 4:1 the printer’s manuscript and the 1830 edition, as well as many of the early editions, all read Benjamin, while the later editions, including the current edition, read Mosiah.2 Why was this change made, and is it related to the change in Mosiah 21:28?3
As you can imagine, the critics of The Church of Jesus Christ have not let this one alone. Before analyzing the change and the background respectively, Brother Norwood lists a few of the critical approaches to the LDS detractors, but first gives this advice: “As you listen to these attacks, judge for yourself how much depth of thought has gone into the arguments presented.”
As you follow Brother Norwood’s suggestion you will begin to identify just how willing these authors are in searching out the truth about such an issue. More importantly, you can start to identify a general pattern in the anti-Mormon approach to studying the LDS faith and how they are inclined to present their findings.
Anti-Mormon Assessments
Here are a few statements, included in Brother Norwood’s presentation, made by some of the most well-known and most prolific anti-Mormon authors.
Walter Martin, in his book The Kingdom of the Cults, makes the following statement as to this issue:
Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, the first edition has undergone extensive “correction” in order to present it in its present form. Some of these “corrections” should be noted.
1. In the book of Mosiah, chapter 21, verse 28, it is declared that “King Mosiah had a gift from God”; but in the original edition of the book, the name of the king was Benjamin – an oversight which thoughtful Mormon scribes corrected. This is, of course, no typographical error as there is little resemblance between the names Benjamin and Mosiah; so it appears that either God made a mistake when He inspired the record or Joseph made a mistake when he translated it. But the Mormons will admit to neither, so they are stuck, so to speak, with the contradiction.4
Brother Norwood correctly points out that Martin “allows for only two possibilities: either God goofed up, or Joseph Smith blew it when he translated the record (Martin’s preferred explanation).” For some reason, Martin decided not to consider other possibilities.
Other well-known authors, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, summarized in their book, Mormonism, Shadow or Reality,
It would appear from chronology found in the Book of Mormon (see Mosiah 6:3-7 and 7:1), king Benjamin should have been dead at this time, and therefore the Mormon Church leaders evidently felt that is was best to change the king’s name to Mosiah.5
As pointed out by Brother Norwood, at least the Tanners went one small step further than Martin did: They actually mention chronology in their assessment, although it is a very shallow one.
John Weldon and John Ankerberg, in their book Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Mormonism, wrote the following conclusion on the matter:
For example, the 1830 edition of Mosiah 21:28 refers to King Benjamin while modern editions read “King Mosiah.” According to Mormon chronology, Benjamin was dead and so no longer king at this point (Mosiah 6:3-7; 7:1), so the divinely inspired name was changed to King Mosiah to cover the error.6
Once again, the authors point to their particular assessment of the chronology of The Book of Mormon, but make no effort to provide some depth to the treatment of this issue. They simply make the same point as the Tanners.
Lastly, Brother Norwood includes one more statement on this topic, from well-known anti-Mormon author James White, of Alpha & Omega Ministries. In his book Letters To A Mormon Elder, White writes:
This passage is to be found in the modern edition in Mosiah chapter 21. The problem is fairly obvious, for Mosiah 6:5 reads, “And king Benjamin lived three years and he died.” Fifteen chapters later, however, he is alive and well in the 1830 Book of Mormon.
Not one of these authors has taken the issue further than the surface. They create options, for us to choose from, as to the reason for the change. But, they are far too willing to keep these options limited, demonstrating the lack of understanding or a lack of willingness to understand the truth about the subject.
Previous LDS Suppositions
Before Brother Norwood directly deals with the issue, he respectfully addresses previous LDS apologetic answers to the Mosiah 21:28 issue. The four published attempts Norwood include (and these are the only four he knows of):
- Dr. Sidney Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions (Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, 1967). Sperry agrees with the above critics, that Benjamin would have been dead at the time and leaves the possibility open that Joseph Smith correctly translated an error made by the abridger, Mormon. Brother Norwood observes, “Short of that, there does not seem to be much in the way of analysis.”
- Dr. Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967). Dr. Nibley, only referring to the Ether 4:1 reference, concludes that the correction would have been “better left unmade.” While Brother Norwood agrees with much of Nibley’s treatment of the subject, there is some disagreement with elements of Nibley’s conclusions and some “tidying up” that could be done, according to Brother Norwood.
- George A. Horton, The Book of Mormon, Transmission from Translater to Printed Text (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1988). Horton also believes, as does Sperry, that this was an error, due to the likelihood of Benjamin’s death prior to Mosiah 21:28, although he doesn’t conclude who made the error.
- Ara L. Norwood, “Ignoratio Elenchi: The Dialogue That Never Was,” FARMS Review of Books, Volume 5, 1993. Of course this is Brother Norwood himself and at that time he deduced that Ammon thought Benjamin was still alive when he spoke to Limhi in Mosiah 21:28 and thus Mormon and Joseph Smith both correctly rendered the name Benjamin. Brother Norwood concludes in this writing, “that the change from Benjamin to Mosiah was neither crucial nor necessary.”
So, until the FAIR Conference last August, this was the extent of the scholarship on the issue of this particular change in the Book of Mormon. Brother Norwood decided to “delve a little deeper into the issue.”
Looking A Bit Deeper
Brother Norwood begins with the following critical foundation:
The first thing that needs to be pointed out is the fact that Mosiah 21:28 is one of two passages that chronicles the same historical data. The parallel passage is found in Mosiah 8:13-14. The presence of parallel passages of the same event is consistently lost on our critics. Yet it is crucial in making sense of the scope of the problem.
Brother Norwood addresses the obvious questions as to the source and nature of these two different passages, or records. Why are there two different renditions of the same story, in the same book, that of Mosiah, for example? The answer is quite simple.
The book of Mosiah does not follow a seamless and sequential chronology. It is a “composite record,” containing records within the record, full of “flashback” accounts and records. Norwood identifies three separate chronicles within the book of Mosiah.
Now, let’s take a look at Mosiah 8:13-14.
And Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.
Brother Norwood correctly identifies two items that are important to note. First, no name is given to identify the King of Zarahemla. We aren’t told here whether Ammon was talking about Mosiah or Benjamin. The second item to note is that this passage is a first-hand account, the words out of the mouth of Ammon.
In contrast, while Mosiah 8 is a direct quote, the Mosiah 21 account is a narrative history and as Norwood points out, is part of a Zeniffite record, which is included in our book of Mosiah. So the two accounts are from two separate records, one a direct quote and one a narrative, written by a Zeniffite scribe or interpolated by Mormon.
Brother Norwood again repeats his view, stated in his FARMS Review of Books article, of the possibility that “Ammon departed on his expedition prior to the death of King Benjamin. And, if this is the case, it is very possible that Ammon would have mentioned King Benjamin by name.” And if this is the case, then it is quite possible, and even likely, according to Brother Norwood, that Ammon would have used the name Benjamin, instead of Mosiah. Mosiah 8:3 supports this hypothesis:
And he also rehearsed unto them the last words which king Benjamin had taught them, and explained them to the people of king Limhi, so that they might understand all the words which he spake.
So, ten verses later when Ammon tells Limhi of Zarahemla’s king who has the gift to translate, yet doesn’t mention a name, it isn’t any surprise that the Zeniffite scribe or Mormon “inserted the name Benjamin.” It is Benjamin who Ammon was referring to a few verses earlier in Mosiah 8:3, and it would also be reasonable to understand Moroni’s like-interpolation of the Ether 4:1 passage.
Conclusion
While we are unable to be sure as to the reason for the change in Mosiah 21:28, we can be sure that several hypotheses exist, not recognized by the anti-Mormon authors. It is very possible, indeed very likely, that Joseph Smith translated this correctly and should not have been changed. It is also very possible that Joseph translated this correctly, yet needed to be changed to correct a scribal error.
And remember, as Brother Norwood reminds us in a footnote,
It is important to remember that Book of Mormon authors, including Moroni himself, cautioned us to not expect an inerrant or infallible book: “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” (Title Page.) See also Mormon 9:33, 1 Nephi 19:6.
Lastly, while this particular issue could be considered a nit (for it matters little, whether the name Benjamin or Mosiah appears in the book), one must not overlook the larger significance, that Brother Norwood has so effectively communicated.
This is the message: They, the anti-Mormon authors have no reason to identify any other possible conclusions, once they have found one that fits nicely into their agenda. In general, and revealed in the four examples of anti-Mormon authors provided by Brother Norwood, there is no real search for truth, but only an agenda to criticize, condemn and rebuff alternative hypotheses.
Ara Norwood has done an outstanding job in demonstrating this in his FAIR Conference presentation. Be sure to acquire a copy of the entire presentation to obtain a better perspective of the depth of his analysis.
The Full Presentation
Brother Norwood’s presentation at the 2001 FAIR Conference was very interesting. If you are interested in owning a copy of the full presentation on audio CD, you can purchase it in the FAIR Store.
About Ara Norwood
L. Ara Norwood is a Managing Partner with Leadership Development Systems and an active member of the National Speakers Association. He lectures widely on topics as diverse as systems thinking, scenario planning, and global leadership. He has published a number of reviews in the FARMS Review of Books on various anti-Mormon publications. Brother Norwood was baptized a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at age 18, after being raised an active Roman Catholic and, later, an active evangelical Christian. He holds degrees in music and executive management from BYU and Claremont Graduate University, respectively. He lives with his wife, Melissa, and their four children, in the Santa Clarita Valley near Los Angeles.
Endnotes
1. This includes all editions from the 1837 to the present, including RLDS versions. (No original manuscript reading exists of this passage.) See Book of Mormon Critical Text: A Tool for Scholarly Reference, Volume 2 (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1987), 469.
2. The printer’s manuscript and the 1830 through the 1841 and 1858 editions, and even the RLDS 1874 edition, all read Benjamin, while the 1849, 1852, 1879 through current editions, including the RLDS 1966 edition, read Mosiah (the RLDS 1908 edition reads indecisively Benjamin {Mosiah?}). Book of Mormon Critical Text: A Tool for Scholarly Reference, Volume 3 (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1987), 1198.
3. Since the change is first made in the 1849 Liverpool edition (the 2nd European edition), it most likely reflects the work of Orson Pratt, since he published that edition. The change did not enter American usage until around 1871 as an American subedition of the 6th European edition (published in 1866).
4. Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 1985), 186.
5. Jerald & Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm, 1972), 90.
6. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Mormonism (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1992), 310, italics in original.
