While the Mormon church has not printed the Inspired Version
in its entirety, a few chapters are printed in the Pearl of Great
Price under the title, "Book of Moses." Joseph Smith's
"inspired revision" of Matthew, chapter 24, is also
included in the Pearl of Great Price. The Mormon church accepts
the Pearl of Great Price as Scripture, and it is one of the four
standard works of the LDS church.
When we compare the text of the "Book of Moses" as
it was first printed in 1851 with the way it reads today we find
that some serious changes have been made. James R. Harris, who
was a student at Brigham Young University, wrote a thesis in which
he stated:
Orson Pratt was the Editor of the first American edition of
the Pearl of Great Price. This publication became available
to the public about the 21st of June 1878.
The American edition was more drastically changed than any
previous publication by a member of the Church ("A Study
of the Changes in the Contents of the Book of Moses From the
Earliest Available Sources to the Current Edition," M.A.
thesis, Brigham Young University, 1958, typed copy, p.226).
From the standpoint of omissions and additions of words, the
American Edition is the most spectacular rendition.... There
were 147 words omitted in the American edition, 113 of those
omissions are sustained in our current edition. Some of the
words added to the American edition had impressive doctrinal
implications (pp.224-25).
Although Dr. Harris admits that changes were made in the Pearl
of Great Price, he feels that Joseph Smith himself made the changes
in manuscripts before his death. In other words, he feels that
when the Mormon leaders changed the text of the Pearl of Great
Price in 1878, they were bringing it into conformity with changes
Joseph Smith made in the manuscripts during his lifetime.
Richard P. Howard, church historian for the Reorganized Church,
has recently released new information which gives some support
to Dr. Harris' idea. He shows that there were a number of different
manuscripts involved in the production of the inspired revision
and that Joseph Smith often revised his own revisions and left
the manuscripts in a very confused state:
Many texts reveal that the process was not some kind of automatic
verbal or visual revelatory experience on the part of Joseph
Smith. He often caused a text to be written in one form and
later reworded his initial revision. The manuscripts in some
cases show a considerable time lapse between such reconsiderations.
A considerable number of places in NT #2 [as Mr. Howard now
numbers the manuscripts] show that initially Joseph Smith considered
certain texts in the King James Version to be either correct
or in need of slight revision, but that on latter consideration
he decided to amend them further. Since the manuscript pages
were already written and filled to the extent that the later
corrections could not be included, the problem was solved by
writing the text out on a scrap of paper and pinning or sewing
it to the appropriate manuscript page (Restoration Scriptures,
pp.93, 96).
... OT #3 represents a third draft manuscript of Section 22
and Genesis 1-7, a second draft manuscript of Genesis 8-24:42a,
and a first draft manuscript of the remainder of the Old Testament,
although revised considerably by interpolations written in later
years between the lines and on separate scraps of paper pinned
to the manuscript pages (p.106).
When one turns to nearly any page of OT #3 containing substantial
initial revision of the King James Version, different colors
of ink appear, showing later revisions, written between the
lines or on separate scraps of paper and pinned to the manuscript
pages (p.122).
... the manuscripts indicate rather clearly that Joseph Smith,
Jr., by his continued practice of rerevising his earlier texts
(occasionally as many as three times), demonstrated that he
did not believe that at any of those points of rerevision he
had dictated a perfectly inerrant text by the power or voice
of God.... It is thus unnecessary and could be misleading to
appear to claim 'direct' revelation in the determination of
the entire text of the Inspired Version as the preface written
for the 1867 edition apparently implied (p.151).
Richard P. Howard's admission that Joseph Smith rerevised his
earlier texts "occasionally as many as three times"
is certainly a serious indictment against Joseph Smith's work
and plainly shows that his "inspired revision" is anything
but "inspired." The fact that he could not make up his
mind shows that he was tampering with the Scriptures according
to his own imagination rather than receiving revelation from God.
Mormon writer Truman G. Madsen admitted that Joseph Smith
often revised a passage, later added to or amended it, and
then, in a third attempt, clarified it further. (Improvement
Era, March 1970, p. 70)
The many changes in the "inspired" renderings tend
to undermine confidence in Joseph Smith's work on the Bible. Earlier
in this chapter we quoted Apostle John A. Widtsoe as saying that
the "inspired revision" is "a remarkable evidence
of the prophetic power of Joseph Smith." We cannot accept
this statement, for a careful examination of his work reveals
unmistakable evidence that it is merely a human production and
contains many serious errors.
Mormon writer Milton R. Hunter made a fantastic claim concerning
Joseph Smith's works:
The Prophet Joseph Smith produced for the world three new
volumes of holy scriptures, ... and, in addition, he revised
the Bible. No prophet who has ever lived has accomplished such
a tremendous feat. There are only 177 pages in the Old Testament
attributed to Moses, while Joseph Smith either translated through
the gift and power of God or received as direct revelation from
Jehovah 835 [pages]. (Deseret News, Church Section, July 18,
1970, p.14)
Joseph Smith produced a great deal of material that purports
to be Scripture, but it does not appear that this material bears
any evidence of divine inspiration.
