In the History of the Church, the following entry is recorded as having been made by Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841.
Sunday, 28.–I spent the day in the council with the Twelve Apostles at the house of President Young, conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Brother Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent four years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.
Since Old Joe came up with that statement, the Mormon apologists have spent countless hours trying to explain the MANY different ways the “most correct of any book on earth” had to be changed, edited, altered and fixed.
Either a prophet IS a prophet, and speaking for God, or he is NOT a prophet, and not speaking for God. You don’t get to say, “Well, on this day Old Joe had a little bit of the whiskey speaking for him, and so on THIS particular day, in this PARTICULAR event, he was NOT speaking as a prophet, but as a man.”
Or if they aren’t busy explaining how prophets can sometimes be prophets and sometimes just be normal old Joes (heh, pun intended), then they are trying to explain what “most correct book on earth” really means.
I don’t think that terminology needs a lot of explaining myself. But on FAIR, they like playing mind bending, puzzling, truth-altering games, because if you CAN’T bend the truth to suit your needs, what CAN you do?
Critics of the Book of Mormon have mistakenly interpreted “correct” to be synonymous with “perfect,” and therefore expect the Book of Mormon to be without any errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity of phrasing, and other such ways.
But when Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the “most correct of any book,” he was referring to more than just wording, a fact made clear by the remainder of his statement: He said “a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” When read in context, the Prophet’s statement refers to the correctness of the principles it teaches.
Uh huh. Sure. Whatever. If Joseph Smith MEANT it was the PRINCIPLES that were correct, and not the book itself, I’m guessing he would have SAID that. JS was a mighty boastful man. He even compared himself to–or actually set himself above–Jesus Christ.
I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I (History of the Church, Vol.6, pp. 408-09).
It’s fun to see the apologists scurry around THAT cute little quote, particularly since it’s from the History of the Church. Hard to say that it comes from the church’s “critics.”
The LDS Church is anything BUT critical about their core beliefs.
The reason I bring this up, is that today’s SL Trib has an article on MORE changes the Church has made to the BoM, this time the online version. And the changes are actually in reference headings, and not the text.
The LDS Church has made subtle — but significant — changes to chapter headings in its online version of the faith’s signature scripture, The Book of Mormon, toning down some earlier racial allusions.
The words “skin of blackness” were removed from the introductory italicized summary in 2 Nephi, Chapter 5, in describing the “curse” God put on disbelieving Lamanites.
Deeper into the volume, in Mormon, Chapter 5, the heading changes from calling Lamanites “a dark, filthy, and loathsome people” to “because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them.”
In both cases, the text itself remains unchanged.
As always, I find it amusing that the most correct book has to be corrected so damn much. It’s too bad for the Mormons that Joseph Smith didn’t say, “The book that is pretty correct, but will undoubtedly be altered thousands of times because times change, people change, and hey, even Jesus wasn’t perfect.”
Yup, that would have made things easier. But then the apologists would have so LITTLE to do, what fun is that?
My personal favorite change has always been the “white and delightsome” change to “pure and delightsome.” Who the hell uses delightsome? Is this EVEN a word? If it is, should it be allowed to remain in the dictionary? Heh.
Carry on, apologists, carry on. We are all in need of the entertainment. As seen below, they start early keeping the Mormon children dizzy. it just makes sense to not make sense. Right?