Mormon Scholars Testify – Royal Skousen on how he knows the BoM is true.
“As I was reading this passage, the Spirit witnessed to me, “This really happened.” What is interesting about this passage is that I didn’t actually read “she clapped her hands” (the reading based on the printer’s manuscript), but instead I read “she clasped her hands” (the reading found in the 1830 edition as well as in all LDS editions). Now I do not take this personal witness as evidence that I should reject the earliest reading, clapped. It simply means that the Lord witnesses the truthfulness of this book irrespective of the minor errors that have crept in. I know of no error that changes any doctrine or the basic account of the text. There is no error, awkward expression, or ungrammaticality in any of the printed editions of the book that will prevent the honest reader from gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon.”
When I was LDS I was too intimidated to question or even attempt to analyze what LDS authorities said. I had built up and placed all of them on an insurmountable pedestal elevating them beyond accountability.
As a Mormon I would’ve placed Mr. Skousen in that category based on his credentials alone. He’s a BYU Professor of Linguistics and English as well as an editor of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project.
I did all this until I placed Jesus above everyone and He reminded me that He gave me a brain. So today we’re analyzing what Mr. Skousen said to ask ourselves if his defense is a reasonable one that we can also employ.
We’ve also listed this dilemma today because we want people to see and understand what active members of the Church base their reality upon and what the criteria is for doing so.
Now Mr. Skousen said the spirit witnessed to him when he misread the text. We’re not told if he was analyzing the text or what the circumstances were at the time.
All we know is that when he misread the text he was thinking of another version of the BoM and that’s how he knew it was true.
??? Does this sound reasonable or even scholarly to you?
As an FYI, here is the text in question:
Original BoM Text
Alma 19:30; “…And when she had said this she clapped her hands…”
1830 & Modern BoM Text
Alma 19:30; “And when she had said this, she clasped her hands…”
Now I’m not a Linguist, nor am I an English major, but I do know we should question something that’s been rewritten numerous times.
Which version should we believe and how do we know the latest version is correct?
If we were talking about the latest version of Gulliver’s Travels that’d be one thing, alas, our subject matter is of much greater import than a fantasy novel. Our subject matter deals with our soul’s residence in eternity.
Mr. Skousen said ‘I know of no error that changes any doctrine or the basic account of the text’ …well, straightaway, I for one can think of two things.
1.How about the fact that the Church has now said the BoM isn’t geographically true and should be used more as a spiritual guide than historical fact?
2.For almost 200 years they claimed that American Indians were the ‘principle ancestors’ of the Israelites from the BoM. In recent years they’ve backed off such strong statements and they now say that Indians are ‘among the principle ancestors’.
With all due respect Mr. Skousen, these two things alone changes everything!
Leave a Reply