Labels

A Brief Review of the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon

 

Figure 1. [1]

Introduction

In responding to claims made by certain critics of the Church[2] who are the leaders of the "Heartland" movement, I found it necessary to also respond briefly to an annotated edition of the Book of Mormon they published. In my opinion, this book, as one Amazon review points out, is "a textbook example for how to desecrate a sacred religious text"[3]. Of course, that is not a claim that can be made lightly, and as such needs to be defended, a case that I will make as briefly as can be possible. However, for a more in-depth list of the fallacious claims, fraudulent artifacts, and shoddy scholarship-so-called that went behind the making of this annotated edition, I could not recommend more a review written by my friends from Book of Mormon Central and published independently on Stephen O. Smoot's blog. It is a hefty read, split into thirteen posts, and is extremely in-depth in citations, evidence, and logical scholarship.[4] Another brief review that I would recommend is from Book of Mormon Central, providing just a brief outline of fallacious and incorrect claims that the editors make.[5]

With that being said, I do not intend to reinvent the wheel. Many of the concerns previously raised have been ignored by the editors themselves (you can especially see this in the review posted by Stephen Smoot, in which they respond in the comments only to throw a smokescreen of "Well, how does anyone know what's really right?" which Stephen has also responded to in his postscript) and still stand as evidence of the poor scholarship, documentation, and intellectually dishonest falsehoods that the editors perpetuate. I will, however, post other issues that can rightly be raised while briefly touching on a few points that are mentioned in the more detailed reviews.

Summary of the Intents and Means of the Reviewer

For this review, I have tried to use both the first and second editions to the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon. I have compared a few of the pages (though not all) that house differences between the first and second editions. Because the second edition had many pages rewritten for clarity while the content remained unchanged, I did not feel it necessary to look into every single edit that has been made, especially since all of the points brought against the editors in reviews of the first edition remain and the editors have not responded to any reviewer about criticisms raised in any relevant manner or fixed any of the blatant errors that are found in their annotations. Any and all citations will come primarily from the first edition, though if you look it up in the second edition, it will generally be the same pagination (unless it is in the appendix, which received six new pages in the second edition) and the text will generally be the same.[6]

In this review, following suit of others, I will shorten the name of the title from The Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon to the AEBOM (though I personally call it the AEBOMination). While we have been advised to avoid contention from Christ Himself (see, for example, 3 Nephi 11:29), the editors have attacked those who do not agree with them, comparing them to communist China, George Orwell's "Thought Police" from his book 1984, and compared us to thoughtless and poorly researched anti-Latter-day Saint attacks such as the CES Letter, even leveling such criticisms at the Church itself.[7] As such, I will respond simply by pointing out their blatant hypocrisy and misuse of  prophetic quotes, scriptures, and fraudulent artifacts. I do not intend to seek for contention; rather, I seek to help Latter-day Saints be aware of the claims the editors make and how they do not live up to the prophets' counsel.

I also do not seek to be critical of the individuals who helped edit, annotate, and author the AEBOM nor do I seek to be critical of those who follow them; I am, however, critical of their work, ideas, and theories that they are trying to pass off as doctrine even though they have no theological or scholarly backing for such. If they would listen to the prophetic counsel from our current leaders, this review would not be necessary since I personally do not care where in the Americas you believe the Book of Mormon took place, but their blatant disregard for prophetic counsel and authority has merited action to help Latter-day Saints avoid their trap.

Lies of the Beholder: Remarks from the Editors

This is perhaps the most aggravating of all of the complaints that can be brought up against this book. The editors flat-out lie through their teeth in order (so far as can be told) to make a few quick bucks.

Colored Text in the Book of Mormon

The first example I will point out regards why they chose to use the 1920 text of the Book of Mormon (which is in the Public Domain) rather than the 1981 or even 2013 text, the 2013 text being used by the Church today and is available to use upon permission. One of the editors to this book, Rian Nelson, wrote his own review of his own work (which is really anything other than a review) in which he states the reason they used the 1920 text was because

David Hocking wanted to use a colored text to help readers discern who was speaking—red for Deity, blue for prophets and angels. Brother Hocking could not use the 1981 text because the Church will not allow colored text. But the 1920 text is in the Public Domain. He used the 1920 text on his mission to England in the 70’s, so the 1920 text is what he chose.[8]

On another occasion, this time in response to another Amazon review when asked that question, they stated that,

The answer is, that the publisher did ask and was denied use of the Church's Intellectual Reserve Office. They do not permit the red-lettering (i.e. font color changes) on the voice of deity for a variety of reasons.[9]

When asked by another Amazon customer why that "prohibition" of colored text was in place by the Church, however, they remained silent.

However, Book of Mormon Central has a license from the Church to use the text of the 2013 edition of the standard works for their amazing app ScripturePlus, and in that app Book of Mormon Central uses red text to denote when the Lord is speaking or when a version of His name appears. They have been very public about this feature, and if colored text had been an issue, it seems as though it has gone unnoticed by the brethren so far (which I personally find unlikely).

In fact, as Book of Mormon Central itself describes the app,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints granted a license to Book of Mormon Central in 2016 to build this mobile app and provides ongoing encouragement of our efforts since the granting of the license.[10]

Unfortunately for the editors, their claim falls even further short of the truth when it is considered that The Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families published in 1999 both has a license to use the 1981 text and uses colored text. If colored text was an issue, somehow an edition of the Book of Mormon that uses blue and pink colored text has been in print for more than twenty years that has escaped the notice of the General Authorities.[11]

These examples, of course, beg the next question to be asked: If colored text has been publicly used with no request from the brethren to change the formatting of the text in either case, is colored text really an issue? If it is not a reason the Church would deny a license to use the text of the modern edition of the Book of Mormon, what really was the issue that the Intellectual Reserve Office of the Church saw with the project in question?

The Critical Text Project

Another laughable claim comes from the publisher's website:

By incorporating the excellent work performed by Royal Skousen’s Critical Text Project which has carefully examined the original manuscript (OM) which was found partially decayed in the Nauvoo House cornerstone some 40 years after it was placed there by Joseph Smith in 1841.  This edition uses the recovered OM words to reflect what Joseph and Oliver originally translated. Those revisions make this edition the closest to the original manuscript ever set to print.[12]

While I absolutely recommend Royal Skousen's intense work on the Book of Mormon manuscripts (he is, after all, the world's leading expert on textual changes in the Book of Mormon text) , the claim that the AEBOM is "the closest to the original text ever set to print" is absolutely false. After all, if we will use Skousen's emendations as the standard by which to judge how close a copy of the Book of Mormon is to the original manuscripts, why not rather say that Royal Skousen's own edition of the Book of Mormon is the closest to the original manuscripts?[13] Just by referencing his amazing work in their own publication does not make this the closest edition to what Joseph originally translated as they claim. Rather, I think that (by the standard set by the editors of the AEBOM) Skousen's work itself deserves that honor.

False Positives, False Firsts

That isn't the only false claim about being the "first" to do something with the Book of Mormon text, however. At the FIRM Foundation's website the editors provide a list of what they were the "first" to do with the Book of Mormon text, though closer inspection to their claims simply does not hold many of those statements to be true:

  • The words of the Lord in the Book of Mormon first appeared in red text, so far as I can tell, in the Zarahemla Research Foundation's edition of the Book of Mormon titled The Book of Mormon: Restored Covenant Edition first published in 1999, almost twenty years before the AEBOM was ever set to print. Other editions of the Book of Mormon, such as the edition printed by The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) in 2001 also uses red text to show when Jesus Christ is speaking, though whether or not earlier editions printed by that church use red text is unknown to me at this time.
  • The idea of paragraphs forming complete thoughts rather than the standard, double-column verses did not originate with the AEBOM. If you want to go all the way back, you could say that the 1830 through 1879 editions used paragraphs, though it is no secret that many paragraphs in the early editions ran for pages at a time. However, in 2003 Grant Hardy published The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition with the 1920 text reformatted into paragraphs more akin to what we would be used to and expanded on his work in the Maxwell Institute Study Edition of the Book of Mormon published in 2018. This was closely followed in 2004 with Michael Cleverly’s self-published Mormon’s Book: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Mormon that similarly organized the text into paragraph formatting. Another edition that incorporates paragraph structure is A New Approach to Studying the Book of Mormon published in 2016 and edited by Lynn A. Rosenvall and David L. Rosenvall, organizing the text according to events with a license to use the text from the Church. In addition to these, the Community of Christ publishes their own editions of the Book of Mormon (the 1908 Authorized Version and the 1966 Revised Authorized Version) in paragraph format with superscripted verse numbers and have been doing so for decades.
  • Multiple in-line subheadings within chapters are found in a number of editions of the Book of Mormon published well before the AEBOM, including Grant Hardy's Reader Edition mentioned in the previous point.
  • Likewise, The Book of Mormon was first reformatted to show Hebraic poems and parallelisms in Donald W. Parry's The Book of Mormon Text Reformatted according to Parallelistic Patterns published in 1992. A second edition is sold by the Maxwell Institute under the name Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted, and even editions such as the Restored Covenant Edition reformat the text to some degree according to Hebrew parallelisms.[14]

There were a few things that, so far, I am unaware of any other edition of the Book of Mormon having done before, such as blue lettering for the words of heavenly messengers, although the rest of the claims are inconsequential to the scope of this review. However, I will respond to the false claim that they use the "most up-to date historical, archaeological, linguistic, genetic, chronological and doctrinal insights" in more detail further into this review.

Church Support

They have also claimed support by various General Authorities on a variety of websites, yet never say who these General Authorities are. In contrast, organizations such as Book of Mormon Central, FairMormon, and the Interpreter Foundation have open support from General Authorities and the Church as an institution itself for answers to gospel questions.[15] General Authorities have also spoken at their conferences in the past and have good relations with the founders of each of the named organizations.

In contrast, the FIRM Foundation (the organization that endorses, publishes, and promotes the AEBOM and viciously attacks the three aforementioned organizations as a "citation cartel" among other ad-hominem attacks, even attacking BYU and all of the organizations linked with it) is not listed as a source to go to for reliable scholarship and no General Authority to date has spoken at any of their conferences, which can better be described as marketing campaigns for their various backers. If there really was any Church support for their unorthodox claims, the Church would be sure to let the members know about this resource. However, that just isn't the case.

To be clear, if a single General Authority enjoys this book, that is fine; it says nothing about their individual character or faith, nor does it say anything about the stance that every single member of the Church should take regarding this book, unlike what the editors claim. I believe there is much more credible scholarship available, however, and the editors to this book just do not cut it.

Misquoting and Misusing the Words of the Prophets

Exclamation Marks for Prophetic Counsel

In the comments to Stephen's review, the editors to the AEBOM describe their work as such:

President Nelson has said that it has long been his practice to place a period or exclamation point rather than a question mark after the words of prophets. As editors of the Annotated Book of Mormon we have sought to follow his lead in that respect. Therefore, by placing an exclamation point rather than a question mark after... Apostolic statements... it is quite impossible (for us) to separate the actual Book of Mormon Cumorah from the New York Cumorah.[16]

It is an admirable goal to try and support what prophets have said, especially by using the advice President Nelson gave. However, I am a firm believer that context is key for anything and everything.

What the editors to the AEBOM use this quote to show is that the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon (such as in Mormon 6:6) is the same hill found in upstate New York despite the Church having no stance on Book of Mormon geography. But what did President Nelson have in mind when he made that statement?

The quote from President Nelson that the editors refer to comes from an Ensign article that more fully reads:

Obedience to a request from the president of the Church to pray for a people or to study a language is only one facet of Russell M. Nelson’s obedience to the maxim “Follow the prophet.” He is baffled when he hears people ask questions like, “Is it really the will of the Lord that we do everything that President Kimball says?”

“The Lord said, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,’” he reminds us. “My experience is that once you stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead, and do it, the blessings just pour.

“I never ask myself, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet and when does he not?’ My interest has been, ‘How can I be more like him?’”[17]

Notice the emphasis on doing, obeying, and becoming. President Nelson very clearly was referring not to Book of Mormon geography or any other non-salvific item of belief but rather listening to and acting upon the counsel given by a living prophet. Nowhere has the location of any Book of Mormon event been revealed except the location where Moroni buried the record that he was entrusted with. Whether or not that was in the same hill as Mormon's depository, however, has not been revealed. And never once has a latter-day prophet exhorted us to believe and preach in a Heartland setting for the Book of Mormon.

The Location of Cumorah

Throughout the AEBOM the editors try to prove their geographic model based on prophetic authority. However, it would do well for the editors to look at President Nelson's statement that they unabashedly quote and put it into the context it was given in, especially considering the following statement:

[T]he First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.[18]

Very clearly, they are not putting an exclamation mark behind this statement of action from a prophet but continue to advocate that they alone have a geographic model the Brethren support and have attacked others mercilessly for not agreeing with them. They almost seem to seek for contention, and such attacks on their part have led to this response among many other faithful apologists' own responses.

What if the brethren share their own personal opinions on where Book of Mormon events took place? Do those automatically merit an exclamation mark? Joseph Smith once wrote about a time when he “visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet;’ but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”[19]

This begs the question posed by the editors – does the location of the Hill Cumorah merit an exclamation point? I would recommend following President Nelson’s advice. Ask yourself, “Is the prophet asking or counseling me to do or act in any way that will bring me closer to the Savior? Is he teaching a principle to live by that can help me make and keep sacred covenants?” Those statements merit exclamation points – not musings on geography. Items such as Book of Mormon geography, simply, are inconsequential to faith. Joseph Smith himself made it clear that he can have his own opinions but could still speak with the authority of God when God had something to say about that matter.

In fact, latter-day prophets have addressed whether or not God even has something to say about where the Hill Cumorah is located. According to Harold B. Lee,

Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?[20]

Similarly, Elder John A. Widtsoe testified:

As far as can be learned, the Prophet Joseph Smith, translator of the book, did not say where, on the American continent, Book of Mormon activities occurred. Perhaps he did not know. However, certain facts and traditions of varying reliability are used as foundation guides by students of Book of Mormon geography.

First, it is known by revelation that Adam, the father of the human race, lived in or near the territory now known as the state of Missouri. This has no bearing on Book of Mormon geography, since it deals with a period long before the coming of Book of Mormon people to America. 

Second, on the journey into northwestern Missouri, led by the Prophet, the skeleton of a large man was uncovered near the Illinois River. Joseph Smith said it was the remains of a white Lamanite named Zelph, a leader among this people. This is not of much value in Book of Mormon geographical studies, since Zelph probably dated from a later time when Nephites and Lamanites had been somewhat dispersed and had wandered over the country. 

Third, the hill from which the Book of Mormon plates were obtained by Joseph Smith is definitely known. In the days of the Prophet this hill was known among the people as Cumorah. This is a fixed point in Book of Mormon later history. There is a controversy, however, about the Hill Cumorah—not about the location where the Book of Mormon plates were found, but whether it is the hill under that name near which Nephite events took place. A name, says one, may be applied to more than one hill; and plates containing the records of a people, sacred things, could be moved from place to place by divine help.

However, the hill known today as Cumorah in northern New York is a fixed, known point.[21]

Like our current prophet and apostles have put an "exclamation mark" (so to speak) behind Harold B. Lee and John A. Widtsoe's statements, I do as well. If a few apostles have shared on a few occasions their ideas, it is not binding for belief upon the Church and can be viewed as them sharing what they have come to believe, whether through an in-depth study of the text or just mirroring the culture and traditions of the Latter-day Saints.

As for the claim that the Hill Cumorah mentioned in Mormon 6:6 absolutely has to be the same hill that is found in New York, it is abundantly evident that it is not meant to be an article of faith for the Church as a whole. Yes, many statements have been made regarding the location of Cumorah by leaders of the Church and scholars who have devoted their lives to the text, both agreeing and disagreeing with the tradition of the New York location. However, not all leaders of the Church and scholars always agree on this subject.

In contrast to the editors’ views, statements come from leaders of the Church (such as those by Elder Widtsoe and President Lee or the Book of Mormon Geography essay) that show that a belief regarding the location of the Hill Cumorah is not relevant to our standing in the Church. There is plenty of internal evidence in the Book of Mormon to show that the hill mentioned in Mormon 6:6 is not the same hill as the hill in New York. After all, Moroni had a little over thirty-six years to travel from wherever the Nephites made their last stand to upstate New York. No matter where that hill was in the Americas, Moroni had plenty of time to travel to New York.

The American Land of Promise

The editors do not stop their misquotes and cherry-picked statements there, however. They claim that prophets have taught consistently that only the land currently owned and operated by the political power known as the United States of America is the promised land when in reality the prophets have taught that all of North and South America are a choice land (see parts 3A and 3B of Stephen's review). They also selectively cite Orson Pratt's 1879 footnotes to the Book of Mormon that dealt with geography to make it appear that Orson Pratt believed in a Heartland model; however they fail to point out that Orson Pratt's footnotes truly describe a hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon, that is, Book of Mormon events took place over both North and South America (see part 3D of Stephen's review).

Elder Holland’s Remarks at the Chiasmus Conference

One other instance of misquoting an apostle's words stands out, that is worth mentioning.

On page 559 of the AEBOM, the editors reference Elder Jeffrey R. Holland's speech at the Chiasmus conference to celebrate John W. Welch's monumental discovery of the Hebraism within the Book of Mormon text. Specifically, they heavily imply that Elder Holland was referring to them when he said that

Some of the agencies, departments, institutes, and scholars doing such work are an institutional part of and integral to Brigham Young University. Other groups and like-minded colleagues are not part of the university per se but are spread out around the Church. Our heartfelt thanks go to all of you wherever you are and to President Kevin Worthen and the BYU administration who facilitate the inside and coordinate at least some of the outside scholarly activity to which I am referring.[22]

The editors have taken this speech even further online, with Jonathan Neville calling it a "powerful talk to a room full of unbelievers" simply because the vast majority of the audience would more than likely disagree with his own historical claims relating to the Book of Mormon translation and geography. Rod Meldrum has likewise attacked the conference as being a "self-aggrandizing chiasmus party," claiming that John W. Welch hosted the conference in his honor, when in reality he had nothing to do with planning, organizing, or hosting the conference. This has been pointed out to him multiple times that his straw man of the event is nothing more than that — a straw man — and yet he continues to make those claims.[23]

However, while attacking the conference, both Neville and Meldrum came away with one conclusion: Elder Holland was secretly condemning organizations such as Book of Mormon Central (the organization which helped host the conference itself) and heaping praises onto the FIRM Foundation for their work, even though no General Authority has ever done so publicly.

I find it extremely unlikely that Elder Holland was referring to the FIRM Foundation while telling Book of Mormon Central to secretly repent. After all, he praised many organizations within BYU, which Neville and Meldrum disagree with on multiple fronts, while he was speaking at a conference hosted by Book of Mormon Central, which has received a lot of criticism from the FIRM Foundation and editors to the AEBOM for putting forward decent scholarship. Could it not be possible then, that the "other groups and like-minded colleagues" mentioned by Elder Holland could be Book of Mormon Central itself, in addition to similar organizations that have Church support such as the Interpreter Foundation and FairMormon among the plethora of individual voices that post on blogs, magazines, and other sources who defend the Church and its message to the world? Granted, he does not specifically say he is not referring to one group over another, but I find the claim put forward by the Heartlanders to be extremely fallacious, especially considering the context of the evening and the other claims they have made since it was published.

Such misquotes of the prophets (and total ignorance of other statements made by prophets that go against their claims) can only make one question the sincerity of their desire to put an exclamation mark behind what prophets have taught concerning Book of Mormon geography.

Fraudulent Claims, Artifacts, History, and Miscellaneous Errors

Of all the claims the editors make, the most absolutely mind-numbing is the use of fraudulent artifacts to prove the Book of Mormon Geography model they support. Many of these have been proven to be fraudulent time and time again, yet still Heartlanders claim them as a grand proof for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Other "artifacts" they use have no relevance to the Book of Mormon in the slightest. For example:

  • A picture of a skeleton is shown on p. 459 to show the Jaredites were abnormally large, much larger than we can grow today. However, the picture is really of an 18th century Irishman named Charles Byrne who suffered from gigantism and has absolutely nothing to do with the Book of Mormon narrative. Even if they had just sought for a visual example (as they have added the caption in the 2nd Edition explaining the inclusion of Byrne's remains as such), it is misleading being placed next to a newspaper heading about supposed giant skeletons found in the Midwest, when in reality, no such skeletons have been found. (The whole issue is even based on a misread scripture that the editors believe claim the Jaredites were all giants).
  • The editors rely on artifacts such as the Newark Holy Stones, Michigan Relics, and other stones that allegedly have Hebrew writing or symbols on them. However, as Book of Mormon Central published in a KnoWhy, all of those alleged artifacts have been proven fraudulent, one of which (the Michigan relics) by James E. Talmage himself. (Why no exclamation points behind Elder Talmage’s findings, Rod?)
  • False claims about Nehem, a site in the Arabian Peninsula that is likely the Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon, are made on p. 30-31, showing a deep misunderstanding of historical sources.
  • The AEBOM draws comparisons between the fortifications described in Alma and the mounds built by the Hopewell. However, practically all of the mounds built by the Hopewell (and every mound specifically used as evidence in the AEBOM) were ceremonial in nature, not defensive. Many of them even date well after the Book of Mormon time period. See, for example, p. 287, 303, 307, and 311.
  • Likewise, on p. 289, they offer potential evidence of Hopewell breastplates and helmets to match the war context described in Alma. However, what they don't tell you is that all of the armor they provide is ceremonial in nature and would have provided little help in a war setting found in the Nephite history.
  • They also give a great deal of artifacts such as axes, arrowheads, etc. that have no documentation to be able to prove their authenticity throughout the book.[24]
  • On p. 152, a page titled "Book of Mormon Promised Land Parallels" provided by L. Hannah and James Stoddard would point out that the Book of Mormon narrative from 1 Nephi through Mosiah directly relates to and is perfectly mirrored by the history of the United States of America, yet on closer inspection the timeline of Book of Mormon events is thrown out of order to try and juxtapose it into a parallel with the history of the United States. No such timeline can easily be lined up as they claim. (This timeline is continued on p. 534 with similar issues throughout the whole.)
  • On p. 196 the editors claim that the Constitution of the United States of America restores the biblical rule of the Judges that Mosiah likewise initiated. However, as Book of Mormon Central points out, there were vast differences between the Nephite government of Judges and the modern government experienced in the United States and other countries.[25] While it is true that Latter-day Saints believe that the Lord "established the Constitution on this land [the United States of America]," it in no way should be taken as the only set of government that is permissible to the Lord (D&C 101:80). Any government that allows freedom of religion to worship the Lord and does not oppress His children, whether it be a monarchy under a king like Mosiah or judgeship under a repentant Alma or a modern-day republic, has equal scriptural support of receiving bounteous blessings from the Lord if they serve Him.
  • On p. 516, a reference to one of Brigham Young's sermons recorded in the Journal of Discourses is included. What is frightening, however, is that instead of providing a citation to the Journal of Discourses or a web address to BYU's Scripture Citation Index or FairMormon's own online edition, they instead link to an anti-Latter-day Saint website's online edition where viewers can find their faith attacked by the host of the website. This isn't the only time that Heartlanders have done so, unfortunately. The "Museum of the Book of Mormon" run independently by some Heartlanders near Palmyra, NY, contains the exact same hyperlink to the exact same sermon, and even after it had been brought to their attention, those running the store have declined to change their plaques and brochures. The only reason that I can think of why they would continue to do so is because they have already shown their distaste for BYU and FairMormon, and so rather than link to these credible, Church-supported resources, they found another site where they can link to and just hope nobody snoops around to find their faith questioned.[26]
  • On p. 385, the editors mistakenly refer to the Gadianton robbers in 3 Nephi 4 as Lamanites, despite the fact that the Lamanites and Nephites had united to defend themselves against the Gadianton robbers in 3 Nephi 2:11-12.
  • On p. 91, the editors claim that the Mi'kmaq alphabet used by a native tribe in Canada has direct ties to the "Caractors" Document (a copy of a copy of a copy of characters presumably taken from the gold plates) along with presumed Egyptian meanings of them. However, as the Egyptologist Stephen O. Smoot points out in part four of his review, the Egyptian hieroglyphics do not match up in translation with the Mi'kmaq culture at all, and even the Mi'kmaq alphabet is a modern invention by 17th Century Catholic missionaries.

I would like to believe that the editors were unaware of many of these issues. However, they have been told repeatedly of the poor scholarship that they promote and have refused to acknowledge their error. As such, any hope for ignorance on their part goes down the drain. At this point, I would just like to know why they decided to label a 18th-century Irishman's skeleton as evidence for the Book of Mormon and will be relatively content if they can provide a logical and sensible response, but they have yet to respond to such a concern (perhaps because there is no potential logical or sensible response to justify their claim).

Finding the Lehites Through the Abuse of DNA Research

Rod Meldrum, one of the principal editors for the AEBOM, has pronounced himself a geneticist of sorts since the mid-2000s. He believes that the haplogroup X2a found in the Americas is irrefutable proof that the Hopewell Mound Builders were Nephites. His reasoning is that the haplogroup X2 is found in Semitic cultures; however, he ignores the geneticists who tell him the two are unrelated and, as Stephen points out in Part 6 of his review, Meldrum has learned of the errors in his research from both critical written reviews by both non-Latter-day Saint and Latter-day Saint geneticists and from face-to-face interactions as well. Haplogroup X2a simply does not have any connection with haplogroup X2 like Meldrum claims and it has been shown that the X2a haplogroup originated with the Kennewick Man found in Washington State, not the Hebrews.[27] In fact, it is quite telling that the Church went rather to Ugo Perego, a trained geneticist and faithful Latter-day Saint, to write their Gospel Topics Essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon.

Simply said, The Book of Mormon's claims are independent of genetics. If a small group of people migrate to a new location that is already inhabited, it is only a matter of time before the small group's general DNA becomes indistinguishable from the larger group's. DNA has absolutely no relevance to Book of Mormon historicity and it is doubtful that, even if we knew what Lehi's DNA looked like and as such what we needed to look for (let alone where), we would probably never find an exact match after about 1,500 years since the final battles recorded by Mormon and Moroni and constant internal wars since that time, not even taking into account the near-extermination level catastrophes that were brought upon (either deliberately or accidentally) by the European settlers throughout the Americas.[28]

Conclusion

As someone who owns multiple study editions, commentaries, and editions of the Book of Mormon (including four from other denominations tracing their origin to Joseph Smith), you could say I have an obsession with the Book of Mormon. Of all the editions I have either owned or read, this is by far the worst of them all, and I do not say that lightly. The editors clearly gave no regard to the prophetic counsel given by living prophets when compared to a handful of quotes (often taken out of context and often disregarding other quotes from the same early leaders of the Church that go against their theories) from a few early apostles. While the effort to provide Latter-day Saints with an edition of the Book of Mormon that is able to faithfully defend that sacred book of scripture is admirable, the editors have stooped to too-low levels of shoddy scholarship to try and prove their unorthodox theories while demanding prophetic support should be given to them, even when none exists.

Alternatives to Study

In light of the errors and poor and shoddy scholarship provided in the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon, I cannot recommend it to any Latter-day Saint for personal or scholarly study except as a case of what not to do when making a scholarly edition to the Book of Mormon. However, I do agree that there is a need for a widespread annotated edition for study for Latter-day Saint scholars and families alike. As such, I would offer the following recommendations for study:

  1. ScripturePlus — Book of Mormon Central has a (relatively) new app called ScripturePlus that contains all of the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and has a license from the Church to use the current text to the standard works. While it is known that I am a volunteer for Book of Mormon Central and I do not wish to be self-serving, I could not recommend this application more. The team at Book of Mormon Central links their KnoWhy articles, videos, photos, and other commentary straight to the text itself so as you read, you have all of the links to further your study right at your fingertips. They also reformat the text of the Book of Mormon and have multiple editions, such as the 1830 Book of Mormon or Skousen's Earliest Text available to study as well. Other study aids include the ability to use red bold text to show a name of the Lord and red text to show when the Lord is speaking. While it is an online edition compared to a printed edition, you can find many of these same KnoWhy articles available in print in their Knowing Why books printed through Covenant. Overall, however, I would say that ScripturePlus is the closest thing to an "annotated edition" akin to the annotated bibles we can see through various publishers that actually treats the sources it is given with the proper scholarly approach that the AEBOM lacks, and I turn to this edition perhaps the most often (excepting, perhaps, the Maxwell Institute Study Edition).
  2. Maxwell Institute Study Edition — The Neal A. Maxwell Institute printed a study edition that reformats the text of the Book of Mormon to paragraph structure and some parallelisms found in the Hebraic nature of the text. It also uses the current text of The Book of Mormon and limits annotations to a minimum, rather focusing on the reformatted structure to allow Mormon's own commentary to shine through, though a number of helpful appendices are found in the back of the book. The editor, Grant Hardy, also uses Skousen's emendations to the text in the footnotes to enhance your study. This is the print edition that I most often turn to in my own studies.
  3. A New Approach to Studying the Book of Mormon — Edited by the Rosenvalls, this edition divides the text of the Book of Mormon to be organized by events. Other information, such as speakers, locations, and estimated times are provided in the margins. Overall, I think this edition has some strong merits, and they likewise were able to get a license to use the 2013 text of the Book of Mormon.
  4. Second Witness Commentary (6 Vols.) — While not an "annotated" edition per se, this commentary uses the text of the Book of Mormon followed by commentary, papers, and other information that is extremely helpful in a more scholarly approach to the Book of Mormon. Brandt Gardner, the author of the commentary, has done a fantastic job in documenting some of the best available evidence for the Book of Mormon found in the ancient Americas and, as I have written before, I believe a set of this commentary should be in every Latter-day Saint family's home.
  5. Other editions mentioned earlier, such as The Earliest Text or Poetic Parallelisms are also worth studying.
  6. I would also recommend the Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon by Robert L. Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie.
  7. A few other editions that I have been able to look through and could recommend right now include The Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families and The Book of Mormon Study Guide (Revised Edition): Start to Finish, both edited by David R. Valletta. The Latter-day Saint Families edition is also a kind of annotated edition similar to ScripturePlus.[29]

There is an abundant amount of alternatives available for Latter-day Saint families and scholars to turn to instead of the AEBOM, many of which fulfill the need for an "annotated" edition better (ironically) than the Annotated Edition itself. As the Book of Mormon Central staff succinctly stated regarding the AEBOM:

When it comes to scholarly claims made in the AEBOM, an overwhelming number of them are untrue, out of date, or odd and quirky. It is not just a matter of the AEBOM having a different perspective on Book of Mormon geography. Rather, the AEBOM makes several demonstrably erroneous claims and many other questionable or dubious ones. Until its many problems are corrected, readers should be highly cautious of the claims made in the AEBOM.[30]

Final Thoughts and Testimony

The Book of Mormon is true. I want everyone to know that there is no book that I love more than the Book of Mormon. It is a book that is worth defending. That includes attacks from critics from within and without the Church.

The editors to the AEBOM  have misused quotes from the prophets, scriptures, and scientific sources to try and prove their unorthodox views of Book of Mormon historicity. While it does not matter where the Book of Mormon took place, it does begin to matter when one contradicts the counsel of a living prophet, cherry-pick quotes from the past and present prophets to attempt to validate their claims (even to the point of pushing their beliefs onto deceased prophets), and suggest that those who do not believe in your opinions are in a state of apostasy. The editors to the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon have done all of that, and as such, their claims demand a response.

For that reason, I could not recommend this edition of The Book of Mormon any less.

The Book of Mormon is a sacred work that has withstood the test of time for close to two centuries. Critics have cried foul, apostates have attempted to tear down, slanderers have thrown their worst, most degrading attacks on this book, and yet multitudes flock still to the standard that is raised in the Book of Mormon's message. It has withstood the false claims that hundreds have made concerning its origin, message, and historicity, and it will do the same to criticisms leveled against it today.

The Book of Mormon is true, and while I believe that the editors to the AEBOM believe this as well, they have not done the Book of Mormon justice by the disrespect they have shown, whether inadvertently or purposefully, to the prophets and apostles who have sacrificed everything to testify of its message in order to promote their own fundamentalist ideas. This book is a textbook example of what poor scholarship and an overzealous attitude can do and can best be described as trying to put the cart before the horse. I do not believe Book of Mormon locations are ever going to be revealed in this lifetime; however, I do believe that the Lord is not going to stand by as critics raise complaints and allow them to make uncontested slam dunks (as Elder Neal A. Maxwell once called them). Archaeological discoveries have come forth that do support the Book of Mormon, and qualified researchers have made groundbreaking results in Book of Mormon research, but those are not in the locations hypothesized by the editors to the AEBOM.

While the ultimate source of truth is always God, I hope that Latter-day Saints will be able to come together and help promote good, scholarly works defending their beliefs and recognize qualified research when it is presented. God provides a testimony to those who seek Him, and every now and again He will provide just another little piece of real-world evidence here or there that can help those testimonies grow. He has done this for me, and I know that He will do it for you.

In closing, I would leave the reader with the following:

Faith, first being the assurance of the Holy Ghost, leads one to believe in God and that He is, to believe that He loves His children and does indeed strive to help them throughout their lives by providing them with His words and counsel; then, the evidence appears before the believer as a sure witness that God does indeed hear His children and bless those who love Him, and through faith we learn "that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (see Hebrews 1:1, 6). May we all have that faith, that beautiful assurance from God, and look forward with an eye of faith, until that day when He shall appear and we will become great and exalted even as He is exalted, having first put our trust and faith in Him alone, and not what anyone else (not even me) has said (see Moroni 7:48).

That is my hope, and I earnestly endeavor to seek His Spirit each day of my life and help flood the earth with the Book of Mormon as I have been invited by Him and His prophets to do.


I would like to thank Neal Rappleye for providing feedback for this review. All thoughts presented, however, are my own.

[1] Image taken from https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/executive-summary-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon along with an image of the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon  from https://bookofmormonevidence.org/bookstore/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/000-ABOM-3D-w-gold-body-from-Rod.png.

[2] In addition to this piece, I have made two such responses: First, Spencer Kraus, “Translations and Seer Stones: A Response to Critics of the Church, July 15, 2020, https://latterdaylightandtruth.blogspot.com/2020/07/translations-and-seer-stones-response.html. Second, Spencer Kraus, “Another Response to Jonathan Neville, Critic of the Church,” December 9, 2020, https://latterdaylightandtruth.blogspot.com/2020/12/another-response-to-jonathan-neville.html.

[4] Stephen O. Smoot et al, "A Review of the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon," accessed July 22, 2020, https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1.html.

[5] Book of Mormon Central, "Executive Summary of the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon," accessed July 22, 2020, https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/executive-summary-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon.

[6] David R. Hocking and Rodney L. Meldrum, eds., Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Digital Legend Publishing, 2018).

[7] See, for example, posts under the tag "You're scaring me Brother Neville" on the blog Neville-Neville Land, accessed July 24, 2020, https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/search/label/You%27re%20scaring%20me%20Brother%20Neville.

[8] Rian Nelson, "AEBOM Review," accessed July 22, 2020, https://www.bofm.blog/aeobm-review/.

[9] Accessed July 22, 2020, https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1OGZO9OIDMBHA/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=194420038X. Spelling in context. Amazon has since removed the reply feature to reviews and the original is no longer available.

[10] "About ScripturePlus," accessed July 24, 2020, https://scriptureplus.org/about.

[11] It should be noted that The Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families has a much more limited scope for using colored text than does ScripturePlus or the AEBOM. Rather than identify the voice of deity, according to the editors the use of colored text is either to help identify hard to define words and offer synonyms (blue) or identify words that will appear in the glossary (pink). Chapter headings and verse numbers can appear in red text as well. Even though the colored text plays a different role between this edition and others, however, if the AEBOM 's editors were right, they would have to also explain how this slipped by Church headquarters for more than twenty years. See Thomas R. Valletta, ed., The Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families, (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Co.).

[12] "2020 Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon," accessed July 22, 2020, https://annotatededitionofthebookofmormon.wordpress.com/2019/05/01/annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon/.

[13] See Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009). It can be read online for free courtesy of Yale and Book of Mormon Central at https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content/book-mormon-earliest-text.

[14] The editions of The Book of Mormon mentioned in the list are Zarahemla Research Foundation, The Book of Mormon: Restored Covenant Edition (Independence, MO: Zarahemla Research Foundation, 1999), The Church of Jesus Christ, The Book of Mormon (Monongahela, PA: The Church of Jesus Christ, 2001), Grant Hardy, ed., The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2003), Grant Hardy, ed., The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ: Maxwell Institute Study Edition (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2018), Michael Cleverly, ed., Mormon’s Book: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Mormon (Cleverly Group, 2004), Lynn A. and David L. Rosenvall, eds., A New Approach to Studying the Book of Mormon (The Olive Leaf Foundation, 2016), Community of Christ, The Book of Mormon: Authorized Version and The Book of Mormon: Revised Authorized Version (Independence, MO: Herald House, 1908 and 1966), Donald W. Parry, ed., The Book of Mormon Text Reformatted according to Parallelistic Patterns (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992) and Parry, ed., Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: Maxwell Institute , 2007) To see the list of points made by the editors that I have responded to here, see "Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon," accessed July 26, 2020, https://bookofmormonevidence.org/bookstore/product/annotated-book-of-mormon/.

[15] "Links to Gospel Study Resources," accessed July 22, 2020, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/si/questions/gospel-study-resources?lang=eng.

[16] The comment comes from "EditorsDLP," a pseudonym used by the five editors to the text of the AEBOM in the comment section of Stephen's blog. See Smoot, Part 1. The comment can be found at this link: https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/06/a-review-of-the-annotated-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-part-1.html#comment-5864.

[17] Lane Johnson, "Russell M. Nelson: A Study in Obedience," Ensign, August 1982.

[19] History of the Church 5:265.

[20] Harold B. Lee, “Loyalty,” address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 172-173. The author cited the quote from "Twentieth Century statements about Book of Mormon geography: 1900-1999," accessed July 23, 2020, https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Twentieth_century#cite_note-26.

[21] Elder John A. Widtsoe, "Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?" Improvement Era, July 1950, 547.

[23] For Neville's comments, see Jonathan Neville, "Interlude – Elder Holland’s powerful talk to a room full of unbelievers," published August 18, 2017, accessed August 10, 2020, http://www.moronisamerica.com/interlude-elder-hollands-powerful-talk-to-a-room-full-of-unbelievers/. For one of Meldrum's comments, see one of his comments that he left on Stephen Smoot, "Seven Reasons Why Letter VII Is Not a Heartlander Silver Bullet," published July 26, 2018, accessed August 10, 2020, https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2018/07/seven-reasons-why-letter-vii-is-not-a-heartlander-silver-bullet.html. The comment in question is specifically found at https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2018/07/seven-reasons-why-letter-vii-is-not-a-heartlander-silver-bullet.html#comment-5632, although there are too many incorrect or misguided claims he makes that go beyond the scope of this review to even begin to consider here. I would recommend reading other comments before and after this (specifically responses to this comment) to gain the context needed to understand what was said.

[24] For a further treatise on these points, see Part 2 of Stephen Smoot's review. The KnoWhy article from Book of Mormon Central mentioned is "Why Should Latter-day Saints Beware Fraudulent Artifacts?" accessed July 23, 2020, https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-should-latter-day-saints-beware-fraudulent-artifacts.

[25] "How Were Judges Elected in the Book of Mormon?" accessed September 28, 2020, https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-were-judges-elected-in-the-book-of-mormon.

[26] See "Heartland site in Palmyra refers people to anti-Mormon website," accessed September 28, 2020, https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019/10/heartland-site-palmyra-refers-people-anti-mormon-website.html and "Heartlanders don't care that they're referring people to an anti-Mormon website," accessed September 28, 2020, https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019/10/heartlanders-dont-care-theyre-referring-people-anti-mormon-website.html. It is not hard to find your way to the main webpage of this anti-website in question.

[27] Raff and Bolnick, “Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas?” 298–299. Cited in Smoot, Part 6. The fact that Meldrum is well aware of the criticisms laid out against his scholarship is pointed out in Gregory L. Smith, "An Open Letter to Rodney Meldrum #1" and "An Open Letter to Rodney Meldrum #2," the links to which were found by the author in note 6 of Part 6 of Stephen's review. Other relevant articles on this topic include Gregory L. Smith, "Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA," FARMS Review 22, no. 1 (2010): 17-161. and Peter Pan, “Elder Gerrit W. Gong: ‘Father Lehi’s Faithful Descendants’ Live ‘in Latin America’,” accessed April 22, 2021, https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2021/04/elder-gerrit-w-gong-father-lehis-descendants-latin-america.html.

[28] For further study, see "Book of Mormon and DNA Studies," accessed July 26, 2020, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng and Neal Rappleye, "Updates on DNA and the Book of Mormon," accessed July 26, 2020, http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2020/04/updates-on-dna-and-book-of-mormon.html.

[29] The editions and commentaries referred to in these points (that have not yet been cited) are Book of Mormon Central, Knowing Why: 137 Evidences that the Book of Mormon is True (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2017) and Book of Mormon Central, Knowing Why: 127 MORE Evidences that the Book of Mormon is True (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2019), Brandt Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), and Thomas R. Valletta, The Book of Mormon Study Edition (Revised Edition): Start to Finish (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2015, rev. 2019).

[30] Book of Mormon Central, "Executive Summary," p. 17.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thoughtful comments are welcome. All comments are moderated.