|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Now I shall offer my reasons for believing that the errors are not typographical at all. That the present Book of Mormon is not like the first manuscript. That the errors in the first edition are traceable to the ignorance of some modern author, just as the orthographical errors of my letter are traceable to mine.
It this investigation we will be liberal. We will allow any clerical error which Oliver may have made in copying as typographical. We will allow them to bring the book to the first manuscript. But here we must insist upon a stand. No, you cannot add to, or take from that! No, not even if it does "make the thought more plain, the truth more clear." Who is to be the judge of when the thought is more plain, or the truth is more clear? Will Joseph F. set up time puny judgment of any man against that of Almighty God's? Remember, it is the duty of a translator to reproduce the thought of the language from which he is translating, in words of the language into which he is translating, which express the same thought. Then who would attempt to make a selection which he would be willing to pit against those chosen by God Himself. No sir! Most emphatically, no sir! You cannot change a single letter, even if you do think it "tends only to make the thought more plain, the truth more clear. The first manuscript or nothing for me!
In this investigation we will have to do without the first MS., because it is thought not to be in existence. David Whitmer had what he supposed was the first, but as it had the printer's marks on it, it is quite evident, in the minds of some, that it is the transcription. What is supposed to be the original copy, with other papers, was placed in a mortice in a large stone in the "Nauvoo House", and as the house was finished, the water percolated and dampened the papers so that they were not well preserved; and the house was torn down the papers were taken by people who did not value them highly. Joseph F. afterwards obtained about a quire of the MS. in Oliver's hand writing, which he kindly showed to me. This part, though only a fragment of the book, may be useful as a test of my work. If my deductions are wrong, that MS. can be compared with our present edition, and if it is like it, it will, do much toward settling my mind as to the truthfulness of Joseph Smith, for at present it looks like he has deceived us in the manner of translation and in accounting for the changes made in the second edition. I never investigated a matter which seemed to me more like a premeditated deception; and if I am mistaken will hardly trust my mind to investigate anything again. I will do like thousands of others, let someone else do my thinking for me
As evidence that the first edition was set according to copy, and that the present editions are wrong, we quote the following:
"In March, 1881, two gentlemen, named Kelly, residing in Michigan, for their own satisfaction, visited the neighborhood where Joseph spent his youth, and questioned the older residents who were acquainted with the Smith family as to their knowledge of the character of Joseph, his parents and his brothers and sisters. Their interviews with numerous parties who claim to have known Joseph were afterwards published. * * * * We here append a few extracts from these interviews. * * * * "
"What did you know about the Smiths, Mr. Gilbert?"
"I knew nothing myself; have seen Joseph Smith a few times, but not acquainted with him. Saw Hyrum quite often. I am the party that set the type from the original manuscript for the Book of Mormon. They translated it in a cave. I would know that manuscript to-day if I should see it. The most of it was in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting. Some in Joseph's wife's; a small part though. Hyrum Smith always brought the manuscript to the office; he would have it under his coat, and all buttoned up as carefully as though it was so much gold. He said at the time that it was translated from plates by the power of God, and they were very particular about it. We had a great deal of trouble with it. It was not punctuated at all. They did not know anything about punctuation, and we had to do that ourselves."
"Well; did you change any part of it when you were setting the type?"
"No, sir; we never changed it at all."
"Why did you not change it and correct it?"
"Because they would not allow us to; they were very particular about that. We never changed it in the least. Oh, well; there might have been one or two words that I changed the spelling of; I believe I did change the spelling of one, and perhaps two, but no more."
"Did you set all the type, or did some one help you?"
"I did the whole of it myself, and helped to read the proof, too; there was no one who worked at that but myself. Did you ever see one of the first copies? I have one here that was never bound. Mr. Grandin, the printer, gave it to me. If you ever saw a Book of Mormon you will see that they changed it afterwards."
"They did!. Well, let us see your copy; that is a good point. How is it changed now?"
"I will show you (bringing out his copy). Here on the title page it says (reading), 'Joseph Smith, Jr., author and proprietor.' Afterwards, in getting out other editions they left that out, and only claimed that Joseph Smith translated it."
"Well, did they claim anything else than that he was the translator when they brought the manuscript to you?"
"Oh, no; they claimed that he was translating by means of some instruments he got at the same time he did the plates, and that the Lord helped him."
Myth of the M. F. page 58-9.
For the benefit of those who do not know, we explain that one Solomon Spaulding wrote a romance in the early part of this century, which he called, "The Manuscript Found," and many people believe it became the nucleus of the "Book of Mormon." "The Myth of the Manuscript Found" was written by Elder Reynolds for the purpose of proving that there was no connection between them. This quotation is made to prove that the Smith family was an honorable one. Our object in quoting it is to show that the printer followed copy as nearly as possible; making only such errors as passed unnoticed. That the publishers were very particular about it and would not allow it changed in the least. That Mr. Gilbert was struck with the fact that they would not allow him to correct the grammatical errors, and yet they afterwards corrected them themselves.
Elder Reynolds does not tell us where he gets the extract from, or I should endeavor to get the publication, for I believe there is more of it that would be of value here. It is hardly probable that two gentlemen who would say: "They did! Well, let us see your copy; that is a good point. How is it changed?", would be satisfied by being informed that the title page, that part of which was not translated from the plates at all was changed from "Joseph Smith, Jr., author and proprietor," to "translated by Joseph Smith, Jun." I believe they followed with some such question as this: "What other changes have been made? Did they change the parts which they claimed had been translated by the Lord?" And of course the man who would say, "If you ever saw a 'Book of Mormon' you will see that they changed it afterwards." would be prepared to inform them by illustrating from all parts of the book.
A point of history connected with this quotation is that Mr. Gilbert says, the MS. was part in Oliver Cowdery's hand writing, and part in Joseph's wife's. If this is true, they must have taken the first copy to the printer and kept the second themselves. Joseph's mother, in her history, says Joseph went to Pennsylvania to see his wife, while Oliver copied the MS. "Whitney's History of Utah" says the same. We wish now to call the reader's attention to the main reason for believing the errors in the first edition are not typographical. This one point alone we consider sufficient to convince any one able to read and think.
The corrections are just such as would be sure to have been made if the book had been written by a person who knew nothing of grammar, and afterwards learned a few of the simplest rules and then revise. For illustration look carefully through the changes on pages 42 to 47. Now turn to the illustrative extracts on pages 47 to 52. In these you can see the errors in the sentences. In the first we have "they which", changed to "those who", six times in one short verse, and "which", to "who", once besides. Again, we have "which", to "who", six times and "which", to "whom", twice in another short verse. In the next we have "which", to "who", six times, and in the next verse three times. "Which" is changed to who over seven hundred times in the book, and it is scattered all through, as will be seen by comparing the pages of changes. I think we are justified in saying that the clerk did not change his own manuscript so much from beginning to end; nor would the typo have set "which", in all these places if the copy had been written "who". And if he had done such a thing-but what is the use of speculating? No printer would make the same blunder so many times, from first to last of a large job like the Book of Mormon-but then if he had done such a thing, ever so poor a proof-reader would have discovered it before they had held copy on many forms. But if we will turn to the Bible we will see that the same mistake is there made; that is, the pronoun "which", is used in the Bible to refer to persons, which was good English when the Bible was translated, but it is not good English now, nor was it good in 1829.
It may be argued that since a change has taken place during the two hundred years, that Joseph' may not have kept pace with the times, and a change of that kind could have been made hundred years and the common people in the wilds of a new country, with the Bible continually before them would not have found it out. But we wish to keep it constantly before you, that Joseph had nothing to do with it, according to his own claims, and there is no excuse for God. He was not a back woodsman. If that change was ever so new, God should have known it, and should have selected the proper pronoun. I have a New England geography printed in 1822, in which the pronoun "which" is used just as it is today. So until more light is thrown on the subject I shall believe that Joseph did not have any divine assistance in the translation of those wrong "whiches".
Now notice the double negatives on page 50. These sentences as they were in the first edition meant just the reverse of what they do in the present editions. The question is, did God operate the instrument so it produced the language of the first or last.
When I noticed in I Nephi 8:18, that Mary was said to be the mother of God Himself, I thought it must be a clerical error, but when I saw the same statement in the twenty-first verse, and again in the thirty-second, I saw no reason for laying such a blunder at the door of the poor printer. (Turn to page 51 and see how it has been amended by the additions of three words, "the son of.") Then when I read the following, I felt sure the printer had followed copy:
"1. And now Abinadi said unto them, I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people;
2. And because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God: and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son;
3. The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son;
4. And they are one God, yea, the very eternal Father of heaven and of earth;"
The above evidence is sufficient to convince me that the printer followed copy fairly well. There are a few real typographical errors in the first edition, but not many; I should judge that there are no more than we find in our well printed newspapers today. Yet Joseph F. told me personally that Grandin was a poor printer, and inferred that he was responsible for the bulk of the errors in the first edition.
There is another point of evidence that the errors are not typographical. This is a stronger point-if, indeed, it well could be-than the preceding.
As the story goes, one, Lehi, with his family and some others, came from Jerusalem to America, 600 B. C. They brought with them a lot of brass plates containing the Old Testament scriptures up to that time. From these plates we have a few quotations, translated by the gift and power of God. So this part is not only better than the corresponding parts of the Bible, but it is absolutely perfect, if the eighth article of faith is anything to by. So if we wish to see how nearly correct the Bible has been translated, a comparison of these parts would inform us. There are thirty-eight pages in the Book of Mormon which is also in the Bible. Six and one-half of these is the sermon on the mount, which Christ delivered in America almost exactly as he did in Jerusalem. The third and forth chapters of Malachi He quoted to them; making eight and one-half pages from the Son of God direct. The other twenty-nine and one half was taken from the brass plates by the various writers.
We wish now to call attention to the changes in these thirty-eight pages. Remember, Joseph translated them just as he did all the other parts of the book. Oliver copied it just as he did the balance of the book. The printer set it from the same hand writing. So it is plain that any errors which may have been made would not be any more likely to have any relation to the Bible than any other part of the book.
We find seventy-one changes in the thirty-eight pages, which is a failing off of over one third of the average of the book. Why should there be less typographical errors made in the work simply because the Bible contains the same matter. It looks still worse when we learn that the same errors that are common in the Bible are about the same which reduces the changes, other that "which" to "who" , to less than one-half the number found in the balance of the book. But the worst is still to come; eight are changes of spelling of proper names, so the number is cut down until there is not a grammatical blunder in all the changes of the thirty-eight pages, except as pointed out below.
The book of Mormon claims that many "plain and precious" parts have been taken out of the Bible. So of course we would expect to find some "plain and precious" parts added. Eight of the changes were made in the added parts, which leaves only sixty-three changes in the scripture proper. Sixty-three typographical errors! Sixty-three deviations from copy in the first edition. Would you now be surprised to learn that in forty-six of them the deviator selected the very word we have in King James' translation of the Bible? Yet this is a fact. Why should the printer, in deviating from copy, settle on the language of the Bible so much? Ah! No printer would do it. Joseph must have mistook a Bible for the plates on those several occasions. This is the only reasonable solution. But then he had to make some changes to account for the necessity of the translation. As might be expected, an illiterate person would be as likely to change one part as another; just as likely to take correct grammar and make it wrong as any other way. So we find thirteen of these changes from Bible language had to be brought back to avoid blunders. Eight out of the thirteen were grammatical errors, and two gave wrong meanings, while two were simply the change of the ancient to the modern style. But the other tells a big story to a printer. It is the change of "horner" to "homer". If the truth could be learned, I would bet all time old jack knives I had when I was boy, that I can now find, against anything you have a mind to put up, that the Bible Joseph had behind curtain had a nicked "m", so it looked something like "rn". The word may have looked not very unlike "horner".
This leaves four out of sixty-three which was not like the Bible, first or last. Oh, how it resembles the work of a plagiarist! One of these is timely, it is the addition of the word "not", in Isaiah 2:9, first line between "boweth" and "down"; the urim and thummin having added another "not" between "himself" and "therefore". The verse agrees with my judgment better with the two additions; but remember God's translation only supplied one of them, the other being the work of the committee on revision.
I take it for granted that no one who has followed me will now say the blunders of the first edition are chargeable to the printer but I fancy I hear the reader , "What of all these changes? They are trifling." I grant you they are small, but if Joseph had sat behind that curtain and seen that language come through the urim and thummin, he never would have changed it. Never! Here I fancy you may wonder whether Joseph made the bulk of the changes, or whether they were made by some subsequent revisor. To which we reply that a comparison of the first with the second edition shows ninety-five of the first hundred changed. So the first committee made about ninety-five per cent of the changes.
Now note the only deductions which can be made. Joseph, Oliver, Parley, John, and every other person who knowingly acquiesced in the revision, are all parties to a fraud. They are revising a book. which has gone out with such claims of perfection that the only show is to say the copy was right as it came from the urim and thummim, but the printer blundered. And since, as we have abundantly proven, the printer did not make them, they "told the thing that was not", as Swift puts it. It is a plain case of wilful deception, to say the least. "What, you do not mean to say Joseph would lie about a thing of that kind do you?" Since he must have known the contents of the preface, I answer, yes. If he had cut Parley P. Pratt and John Goodson off the church for lying, as soon as the second edition was out we might have excused him. But had he done such a thing he would have been obliged to have given another reason for making near two thousand changes; and what reason could he have given?
It might be asked if the first edition is not like the old language, with all its imperfections; and were not the changes allowable on that account? The only answer is no, because if this had been the case the revisors should have told us so in the preface, instead of telling us something else; unless, indeed, it can be shown beyond doubt that it has always been the policy of the church to "tell the thing that is not" and allow its subjects and the people in general to guess at the real truth.
There is one other reason why there are mistakes in the first edition, but it is rather against removing them for subsequent editions. It is as follows: "Condemn me not because of imperfections: neither my father because his imperfections; neither them that have written before him, but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may. learn to be more wise than we have been." Mormon, 9:31.
Now we have it in its purity, after all this labor we finally learn that the errors were put there intentionally for a pedagogical effect. But what occasion have we to thank God, now that the errors are removed? For seven short years they had cause to be thankful, but how now? Oh, we have better schools. But since that time the church has passed through a period of almost no schools, and still they were deprived of that great amount of stimuli-the imperfections of the ancient mythical prophets of America. But such pedagogy does not agree with that of our modern teachers. They now say the teacher should never repeat an error in the hearing of the pupil, but on the contrary, the teacher should correct the pupil and get him to repeat his work corrected. But why should we set the judgment of the worldly wise up against God's prophets?
Now patient reader, if you have observed carefully the claims of the manner of translation, and noted the changes, and the reasons given for making them, I should like to ask, can you show me where I am wrong in concluding that the revising committee and all others who sanction such work are parties to a plain, premeditated prevarication?
We do not claim that this proves the Book of Mormon untrue, but we do think it goes a long way toward it. By showing that some the of claims are false, there is no dependence to be put in others. But we will hope to investigate further. If we find unimpeachable evidence in favor of the book we will be glad to believe it. But as I see it now, sufficient evidence could not be had to prove that Joseph and others did not practice deception wilfully.
Main Table of
Contents