The first edition names Benjamin in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1. The current Latter-day Saint edition names Mosiah in both. Eric Johnson and the Salt Lake City Messenger argue that Benjamin was already dead and that the revisions repaired a mistake. The timeline makes that an understandable reading. The two verses make different claims, though, and the years in Mosiah leave some room for overlap. Johnson, point 6 · Salt Lake City Messenger, p. 3
Compare the editions
- Mosiah 21:28 says Limhi learned from Ammon that a king had the gift to interpret the engravings. The 1830 edition says Benjamin. The 1837 edition changes it to Mosiah, the name in the current Church edition. 1830, p. 200 · 1837, p. 213 · Current verse
- Ether 4:1 names the king who withheld the brother of Jared’s writings from the public. The 1830 and 1837 editions say Benjamin. Orson Pratt’s 1849 Latter-day Saint edition changes it to Mosiah, the name in the current Church edition. 1830, p. 546 · 1837, p. 575 · Current verse
The printer’s manuscript reads Benjamin at both places. Royal Skousen retains that name when reconstructing the earliest English text. He thinks the 1837 editor, probably Joseph Smith, changed the name to resolve the apparent contradiction. The printer’s manuscript has no mark recording that particular change, so the reason is an inference from the text. Printer’s manuscript, Mosiah · Printer’s manuscript, Ether · Skousen’s comparison
Does the chronology rule out Benjamin?
Mosiah 6:4–5 says Benjamin lived three years after Mosiah took the throne. Mosiah 7:1–4 says that after three years of peace, Mosiah sent Ammon to find the people of Limhi. The party wandered forty days before arriving. A strictly sequential reading puts Benjamin’s death before the trip. Skousen points out that the two notices count years and give no dates within those years. If Benjamin lived into Mosiah’s fourth year, the events could overlap. The text leaves the dates uncertain. Mosiah 6:4–7 · Mosiah 7:1–4 · Skousen
- Having the gift. In Mosiah 8, Ammon tells Limhi that the king of his people can translate the record. That makes a living interpreter the natural reading and explains why Limhi rejoices. Mosiah 21:28 gives the king’s name in a recap of the encounter. Mosiah 28:10–19 explicitly names Mosiah as the one who eventually translated the records. Even if Benjamin also had the gift, Mosiah could still have done the translating. Mosiah 8:6–17 · Mosiah 28:10–19
- Withholding the writings. Ether poses the harder question. Mosiah 22:13–14 says Mosiah received the records after Limhi’s people reached Zarahemla. For Skousen’s proposed reconciliation, Benjamin would have had to live long enough to have access to the record and exercise some authority over what was disclosed. The earlier text of Ether names him, but the other account does not describe such an arrangement. Keeping a revelation from public view and translating a record are separate acts. Mosiah 22:13–14 · Ether 4:1–5
What do the revisions establish?
The changes affect who did what in the story. They make the passages easier to reconcile with the places where Mosiah receives and translates the records. A chronology correction is a plausible editorial purpose. To conclude that the first edition names a king who was already dead, you still have to establish the order of the events. To conclude that Joseph invented the account, you would also have to show where the earlier reading originated. The editions document when editors changed the names. They leave the origin of the discrepancy open. 1830 Mosiah · 1830 Ether · Skousen
How I’d answer a friend. “You’re right about the names. I’d check both verses in the first edition. The chronology is tight, especially for Ether, since withholding a record requires access to it. I can see why an editor would prefer Mosiah. Mosiah is named as the translator either way, and the year counts leave room for Benjamin to have overlapped with him. The early readings and the timeline are two different pieces of evidence.” Test the inference · Practice the conversation