The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads: "And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice." The problem, of course, is that king Benjamin was dead by this time (Mosiah 6:5). This reference was changed to 'Mosiah' in the 1837 and subsequent editions. However, it appears that this was not the only place where such a change was made. The original text of Ether 4:1 reads: "...and for this cause did king Benjamin keep them, that they should not come unto the world until after Christ shew himself unto his people." Again, Benjamin was changed to "Mosiah" in subsequent editions. The fact that there are two such changes leads one to speculate that Joseph Smith may possibly have had a slightly different course in mind for the life of King Benjamin and had perhaps killed off Benjamin prematurely while rewriting the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. The original text of I Nephi 12:18 reads: "...yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and Jesus Christ, which is the Lamb of God..." The problem here is that the name 'Jesus Christ' was not revealed to the Nephites until II Nephi 10:3. "Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name--should come among the Jews..." In order to correct this contradiction, the text of I Nephi 12:18 was changed to read 'Messiah' instead of 'Jesus Christ'. How does the church explain that?

Thank you for asking the question -- I've wondered the same thing. A former mormon friend of mine made the comment when I asked him that to recognize the truth would mean realizing their entire religion is a lie -- and who wants to admit to that?

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15 KJ) "6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:6-9 KJ)

This is just for you Otter. You have a lot of authority in your comments. "I know you hate Christians with a passion" Mormons are not Christians! I do not hate anyone. But I also do not like a false god driven religion who puts themselves at the same level as MY GOD and puts MY GOD at the same level as a man. You are totally aware of the fact that I do not view Mormons as Christian, you continually try to twist my words and thewords of the bible to accomidate your needs. I do not hate you, I do not have that authority, but I do feel sorry for you, that you are lost and confused. And as far as plagairism, you should be very familiar with that subject. Have you read your View of the Mormons, I mean Book of the Hebrews, BOM lately.

Does Mormonism Attack Other Religions? Mormons do not like it when their Church is labeled a cult by Christians. This bothers them and they want desperately to be accepted as Christian by the Christian community. The Mormon church spends a great deal of time and money on public relations with the aim of portraying a loving, family oriented, non-condemning Christian denomination. But Christians react to this and cite the great differences in doctrine between Mormons and Christians and continue to pronounce the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-Christian cult. The battle continues and Mormons try to claim that they do not go around condemning other religions like "anti-Mormons" do. They say they are forgiving, tolerant, good Christian people who don't have anything against anyone. They claim they are being more Christ-like. Their desire for a good image is understandable. But the question remains. Does the Mormon church condemn other religious systems? The answer is definitely, "Yes." Let's look at Mormon writers and see what they have said. Joseph Smith said . . . (Regarding Joseph Smith's alleged first vision where celestial personages appeared to him.) . . .) "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.) "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world." ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270.) (In questions directed to Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. . .) First -- "Do you believe the Bible?" If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do." Third — "Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?" Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings, page 119.) Brigham Young said. . . "But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong." (Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses," Vol. 2, page 171. - 1855) John Taylor said . . . "We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense....Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."( Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167 - 1858) "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (J.D.", Vol. 10, page 127. - 1863) James Talmage said . . . "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". ("The Articles of Faith," Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah. P. 182.) Bruce McConkie said . . . "With the loss of the gospel, the nations of the earth went into a moral eclipse called the Dark Ages." ("Mormon Doctrine," Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Utah, page. 44.) Joseph Fielding Smith said . . . "Again, following the death of his apostles, apostasy once more set in, and again the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel were changed to suit the conveniences and notions of the people. Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." ("Doctrines of Salvation," page 266.) The Book of Mormon says. . . "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10). "And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose foundation is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence. . ." (1 Nephi. 14:17). The Doctrine and Covenants says . . . "Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face" (Doctrine and Covenants, 112:23). When the Mormon missionaries come to the door and do their "gospel" presentation, they mention an apostasy and the need for a prophet, their prophet, to restore the true Teachings of Jesus. Of course, these ‘restored' teachings are completely false. Nevertheless, the Mormon church clearly condemns other religious systems. Those Mormons who complain about poor treatment should familiarize themselves with their teachers' words.

I don't think this question was meant to "pick on the beliefs" of another religion. This question said "history" not "faith". While the majority of Mormons today are peaceful, loving and helpful people who are just trying to live right, the early church leaders were heavy handed in the beginning to keep their followers in line and to protect their existence in the wild west. My family comes from those early pioneers, one of them a personal friend of Joseph Smith from the beginning when he lived back East.(another lived with B.Y. for years) Later, the sons of those men became leaders in the "inner circle". The stories that have been handed down through the generations (murder,kidnapping,adultery,looting) are kept quiet because Mormons TODAY wouldn't believe it. How could they? That would go against everything they believe in and stand for, and against the written history. (although many Mormon historians know the dates of the early church have been fudged as well as some events) So therefore, those in my family (who actually LIVED it from the BEGINNING) must have been lunatics if they were involved in such terrible things. Funny, the lunatics (my family) were the ones in power during and after B.Y. years and just following the guideline set up by J.S & B.Y. Trying to tell a Mormon how corrupt those early leaders were, is attacking everything they hold dear. It will not be believed and will be denied to their last breath. For my family, these stories are "family stories" NOT "church history". We do not share these stories with other Mormons because they will not be believed and in some cases, our lives have been threatened when we offer proof. We are no longer Mormons because of this knowledge of the early church and attacks on our past generations (they must have been insane!) who were highly regarded THEN will TODAY never be acknowleged as "doing what they were instructed at the HIGHEST LEVELS to do".

Who is your Heavenly Father and how exactly does he relate to Jesus Christ? How, exactly did the virgin Mary give birth to Christ? How exactly was she a virgin? Who exactly was Adam? Was he the arc angle? How many gods are in the godhead exactly? If you can show me your answere and how they align with BOM and actual Biblical Scripture. I will join your church and become a baptised Mormon. This is a safe deal for me, 'cause I know you can not align even one of these items, let alone all of them. I thought you did not believe in hell, only 3 levels of heaven. And there are no second chances, you either believe in Christ and accept him or you perish at death, doomed to spend eternity in the firey pit. As a foot note, me receiving blessings from you is parrellel to receiving then from SJ. Smith him self. So I would appreciate that you do not put your false blessings upon me.

SHORT ANSWER: Because the LDS Church Leadership is afraid that if Mormon History isn't written in a way that's "faith promoting" then members will leave the LDS Church and Missionary efforts will be hampered. In fact, many faithful, practicing and believing Mormon Historians have been excommunicated from the LDS Church for publishing "true" - rather than "faithful" - Mormon History. (see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six for details on the infamous "September Six" excommunications) LONG ANSWER: This is nothing new and has been occurring since the earliest days of the LDS Church. As this audio presentation from Mormon Historian D. Michael Quinn outlines, Joseph Smith did this and all his successors and have followed suit: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/audio/SL92161.mp3 Experts agree that there are really two different types of Mormon History: 1) "Faithful History" which is the "faith promoting" official version of LDS Church History. It is generally speaking, incomplete, imbalanced, and often deceitful. In other words: Propaganda. (This is the version of Mormon History that you will find stalwart Latter Day Saints citing as "true" Mormon History here on AB) 2) "True History" which is the honest, objective and verifiable unofficial version of LDS Church History that you get from non-Mormon Scholars and Mormon Scholars who refuse to compromise their integrity. In other words, Empirical History. (This is what you will hear non-Mormon and Ex-Mormons cite as "true" Mormon History here on AB) Because the two conflict you will often see the adherents from the two camps also in conflict. THE RAGING DEBATE These excerpts from the book "Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History" explain the raging debate well: ** PLEASE NOTE WHAT FOLLOWS IS ALL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, FROM MORMON FRIENDLY SOURCES - NO ANTI-MORMON SOURCES WERE USED ** "Over the past decade, Mormon history has undergone a transformation as LDS scholars have debated how their church's story should be written. So-called New Mormon Historians distinguish between what they believe is verifiable and what they suspect may be folklore, and they approach history from a variety of different academic and social perspectives. Mormonism has become of interest to non-LDS historians as well, which raises the important question of whether outsiders can truly understand Mormons, or, conversely, whether insiders can achieve enough detachment to see themselves objectively--or whether this is desirable. Stated another way, does history have an inherent meaning beyond the scholar's particular viewpoint, and should a writer strive to understand the other person's perspective, or is the writer's subjective vantage what is important and all that is ultimately possible? The new traditionalists contend that objectivity is, in fact, impossible and that history should therefore be written with certain pre-understandings, including that God exists and that Joseph Smith was his prophet. New Mormon historians believe that it is the limits of objectivity itself which precludes such dogmatic faith assertions, that the historian's role is to report examples of faith, not to impose it. In this compilation, the editor has assembled sixteen essays which represent all sides of this ongoing discussion. Contributors include Leonard J. Arrington, Edward H. Ashment, David Earle Bohn, Richard L. Bushman, Paul M. Edwards, Robert B. Flanders, Lawrence Foster, Edwin S. Gaustad, Neal W. Kramer, Martin E. Marty, C. Robert Mesle, Louis Midgley, D. Michael Quinn, Kent E. Robson, Richard Sherlock, Melvin T. Smith, and Malcolm R. Thorp. "History, myth, and legend are not always distinguishable," Smith cautions, "but there are some things we can know. The authors of these essays attempt to define the boundaries between objectivity and the biases of belief and unbelief which may color what is written about the past." George D. Smith, B.A., Stanford, M.B.A., New York University, is the president and publisher of Signature Books and president of Smith Research Associates. He sits on the national advisory boards of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and Sunstone magazine. He is the editor of Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History; An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton; and Religion, Feminism, and Freedom of Conscience: A Mormon/Humanist Dialogue. He is a contributing author to The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture. His writing has appeared in Free Inquiry, The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, Journal of Mormon History, and elsewhere. He lives with his wife and family in San Francisco. ========================================== from Roger D. Launius: A debate has been raging for more than a decade in Mormon intellectual (and in some not so intellectual) circles about the study of Mormon history. Beginning with Richard L. Bushman's 1969 article, from which the main title of this book is taken, to Edward Ashment's previously unpublished paper, "Historiography of the Canon," this anthology of 17 essays presents some of the major issues of the subject. It encapsulates well the stresses of Mormon historiography which essentially revolve around the long-standing merging of history and theology and the inevitable problem of historical interpretation not always matching previous faith perceptions. When historians have found that Mormon historical evolution has not been nearly so cut and dried as the faith story suggested, it had the potential of creating a theological crisis of conscience in thinking Mormons. This led many Mormon leaders to question the value of studying history with "functional objectivity," a goal of most professionally trained Mormon historians working in the post-World War II era. These strains have prompted political actions by Mormon authorities to restrict access to church records, to censure historians who explore controversial themes or advance alternative interpretations from those of the accepted story, and to support defensive rather than analytical studies of church history. These essays debate this problem, and the most significant of them, D. Michael Quinn's "On Being a Mormon Historian (and its Aftermath)," suggests the lengths to which this debate is being played out inside the Mormon historical commnunity. The extreme perspective of Mormon officials was expressed by apostle Boyd K. Packer: "I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting it destroys. . . . Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting" (p. 103). It is an unfinished debate, but at stake is the freedom to differ. This collection provides ammunition for both sides. ========================================== from Brian Waterman: Since the late 1960s, when LDS archive materials first received large amounts of attention from trained historians, Mormon academics have been engaged in a fight-to-the-finish over how to write Mormon history. Decades later, the clash continues. "A struggle is being waged for control of the Mormon past," maintains Louis Midgley, BYU political scientist and defender of traditional Mormon history. "Like the high priests of old," counters Malcolm Thorpe, BYU history professor and new history advocate, "the traditionalists would exclude from the temple all who do not understand Mormonism in quite the same way as they do." The debate is treated in a new book, Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History (Signature, 1992), edited by George D. Smith, a graduate of Stanford and New York University. The book contains essays from scholars on both sides, who describe the conflict as a "crisis in Mormon historiography." Traditionalists view Mormon history as "faith" promoting, with contrary information being excluded. New Mormon Historians insist that it is unethical to omit unfavorable data; readers draw their own faith conclusions. Midgley accuses "revisionist historians" of bringing up contrary evidence to support secular agendas. Some Mormon historians, according to Midgley, "simply do not believe." According to Midgley, "Evidence is trivial without assumptions and theories to make sense of it." There is no academic way of knowing how things "really happened," and historians ultimately find what they are looking for. Midgley's colleague David Bohn agrees. New Mormon Historians, contends Bohn, commit "acts of intellectual violence against the believing community" by attempting to "de-literalize or mythologize the historical reality" of founding events. Bohn wants historians to admit their anti-religious biases and not hide behind a smokescreen of supposed objectivity. Thorpe counters that traditionalists are simply "authoritarian" and "anti-historical." Their histories are "repetitive, predictable, monolithic, and inaccurate." In response to the charge that New Mormon Historians use God, he asks what "other-worldly language" historians might otherwise use. Traditionalists also "place themselves above rational evaluation," complains Edward Ashment, former coordinator of LDS church translation services. "They deny the possibility of finding truth for the historiographer but assume it for themselves." Former BYU historian Michael Quinn enters the fray, represented by a revision of his well-known essay, "On Being a Mormon Historian." Quinn points to the multi-volume History of the Church, ascribed to Joseph Smith, but compiled years after his death. The book's editors, writes Quinn, "deleted evidence, introduced anachronisms, and reversed meanings in manuscript minutes and other documents which were detailed and explicit in their original form." According to Quinn, when "the omission of relevant information is intentional, it is fraud." Quinn argues that not all information is necessary for all people, but that "a diet of milk alone stunts the growth of any child." The tug-of-war of methodology is all the more significant because in the late 1980s non-traditionalists were expelled from the Church archives. Only the most trusted authors are now allowed entrance, and those granted access may not quote archival documents directly without prior approval of context and interpretation. Faithful History's strength lies in its uniqueness in representing both sides of the argument in a single volume. BYU faculty from both sides are represented, giving objective readers the opportunity to answer these questions for themselves. By acknowledging a true dialogue, Smith has taken a step toward healing wounds and reconciling differences in what remains a hostile struggle." http://www.lds-mormon.com/fh.shtml Ken Clark, Grant Palmer who both worked for the LDS Church have both publicly shared stories about how the Church Education System deliberately rewrote unpleasant or discomforting Mormon History so that it was "faithful" rather than "truthful" while they were with CES. So while "Chapel Mormons" may find what I have written above unsettling or shocking it can easily be verified by using the resources that I have provided with this answer. LINKS TO HELPFUL RESOURCES: http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=76225&catid=527 http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=75644&catid=527 http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=73175&catid=527 http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=showcat&catid=527 http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=showcat&catid=530 http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=showcat&catid=522

We do not deny anything that is proven true. History is a matter of perspective. Very few Historians will agree 100% even when given access to the same materials from which to draw. It is a proven fact that all histories written, are from the perspective of the author. Most have an agenda of one kind or another. Just look at the histories written about the Civil War. Southern writers record a different version of the war than do the writers from the North. It is not unusual to find a number of different Histories available for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not all authors have the best interest of the Church in their labors. It is a fact that those Historians which are bitter against the Church, will record a much different record than those who are favorable toward the Church. So how is one to know which is the true history of the Church? You ask, why do Mormons deny the truth of their own History? I repeat, we do not deny anything that is proven true! But how do you prove which History is the actual truth? We know the Church of Jesus Christ is absolutely true. And we know we are being led by Living Prophets in our true Church. Therefore, since our true Church is being led by the Lord through our true Prophets, we know the Church and it's leaders are not guilty of the things for which the Church is accused. Call it what you like, but we know the Lord would not allow our Prophets to conduct themselves in the way some Histories portray them. whew4

I would answer this, but it seems like all pro-LdS responses are marked down regardless of content, while anything which abases the Church is marked up even if it doesn't answer the question at hand.

I'm certainly not defending Mormonism here, in fact I think that to become a Mormon in this day and age is to exhibit many of the symptons of mild insanity. However, it needs to be understood that all the mainstream religions have doctored their history in the past to make it say what they wanted it to say. Governments do it, businessmen do it, royalty does it, the winners of wars and battles do it. I even doubt that most peoples diaries or personal journals tell the whole truth about events in their lives. . The only difference bewteen Christianity and Mormonism is that the Christian church did it's 'editing' in a time when there was no mass media to tell the general public that it was happening. The Mormons are doing theirs in modern times where mass media and communications means that they are under the spotlight while they are doing it.

who cares

The same reason all of the religious nutjobs deny the truth of their own histories. Pride.

Good question. The same could be asked of Scientology. Many of those people have spent 1-2 decades before they were awakened in the truth their religion was false and even today, the lies were so ingrained, they look back to that time as they felt loved and belonged to "Something Greater then themselves" It's that "Clinging" to such after being so immersed in the religion and the others who have supported you all this time. You feel safe, you ignore those "Parts" which you cannot answer. But they get more vocal and finally you confront them and suddenly see, that what you thought was true, is not. It's painful, it HURTS and you either square your shoulders and gather the facts and research, ignore everything and run back to the church and are re-enveloped in what you "Perceived" is the truth. But in time, those doubts will resurface at sometime.

For the same reason Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and just about any other large religious or ideological group does: it's convenient.

"Mormons" don't do so any more or less than Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Moslems, and any other faith based community. Institutionally churches like to control their image and have a vested interested in "authorized" history. That doesn't mean objective history isn't out there. It just means people have to actually read books instead of limiting their education to Sunday sermons. And that being said, some people simply don't care about history. They get their spiritual warm fuzzies and know Jesus loves them, and that's enough for them.

Peir pressure from christians and muslums.

Same reason Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Bhuddists, and any other religionists do.

Ask a Mormon. Most likely they will say they don't - which is an answer more spiritual than truthful I suspect. Everyone denies their "humble beginnings", except those who never had any.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does NOT deny the TRUTH of our history; it denies and rebukes the spin and falsities others have spread regarding our past (and present).

It's a "strong delusion" for sure and many who have fallen for it just don't do any research before joining. Of course there are mormons even now who know just how corrupt the church is, but are extremely afraid to admit it except among themselves. I saw their blatant political corruption in Phoenix in the 1980's and when I mentioned to a mormon that "I saw it but could hardly believe it." He replied (word for word) "What I can't believe is, you saw it up close AND STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT." He has since refused to talk to me, and I suspect it's because he's too afraid to. The mormon church offers opportunities for business success that some people may not have outside of it. They offer advancement in politics in the agencies they control. Who else offers money and power to his followers?

The church publishes several volumes of hisory. The Journal of Discourses and the Comprehensive History of the Church are both published by the church and easily accessible to anyone who cares to use them.