BofM Part 2: Churches say NO to unauthorized bibles too

Continued from part 1

There is a large market for modern English bibles. Some of the modern translations are among the best-selling of all time. They are easier to understand and even LDS general authorities find themselves quoting them from time to time.  Once you understand, you have new opportunity to live your life by it.  Readers of scripture seem to naturally want this.  But big religion has a catch to this. 

Hear ye Hear ye, we only approve one bible. 

The LDS Church has instructions about which bible is approved for use. Only the King James Bible. And if you don't speak English they exercise the authority who tell you which foreign language version is approved for you to use and which are not.  The Church's statements admit that other versions are easier to read, however they don't seem to want you reading those.  The accuracy of those is questioned.  Which, in their defense is sometimes justified.  But as prophets seers and revelators one might think they would solve that problem and simply fix the issues. Because as they stated (see last post), their oversight of translations guards against doctrinal errors.  So, the question is left unanswered as to why they don't fix the errors in the modern translations.   

I don't know the full answer to why there hasn't been an effort by the LDS church to address this, but as noted last post by Hugh Nibley, when it comes scripture, the Church has contempt for them. It's wealth that is reverenced, not scripture.  Speaking of wealth, I want to review the definition of an older word that most of us gloss over.  It's this word:

Covetousness. 1 : marked by inordinate desire for wealth or possessions.

Keep that in mind as the word covetousness will get used in just a minute and it'll be helpful to have the definition fresh in mind.

First here's part of another official First Presidency Message about the bible, part of which also finds itself in the current Handbook of Instructions.  This is from August 1992:

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Before we return to the language, we need to talk about the Joseph Smith Inspired version of the Bible.  We should be careful what things are said in Joseph Smith's name.  Joseph Smith had a divine mission to correct the King James bible, and to do an inspired translation.  Which is a far cry from encouraging the KJV's continued use in the Church as the quote above says. But it gets worse:  

This is Joseph Smith in 1831: You can read the original here.  Pasted below. 

further said that the God had often sealed up the heavens because of covetousness in the Church. Said that the Lord would cut his work short in righteousness

24

 and except the church recieve the fulness of the Scriptures that they would yet fall. [p. 13]

There's the word covetousness. This is 1831 and Joseph is warning about covetousness in the Church.  Hugh Nibley termed this same idea "reverence for wealth".  And the other end of the same stick is what Hugh called "contempt for the scriptures".  These two things apparently go together.  Joseph's statement about the “fullness of the scriptures” includes the Book of Mormon, the revelations, and the new, inspired Bible revisions.  Without those, Joseph said the church would fall.  

Ok so where is Joseph's inspired translation of the bible?  The Community of Christ publishes one, however the LDS church does not.  In 1866 Joseph's wife Emma wouldn't give the original JST documents to the quorum of the 12, so to this day the originals are the property of the Community of Christ. Which is an interesting side topic for another day.  The Church could publish their own version of the JST, (BYU scholars have published the manuscripts) but the Church doesn't recognize the JST as official.   

This is from an official editorial of the Church News, dated December 7, 1974:

“The Inspired Version does not supplant the King James Version as the official Church version of the Bible, but the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages. …

There you have it. "Does not supplant".  It's secondary.  The JST excerpts that do get included in the LDS Edition are reduced to "useful commentary".  It's enlightening they say, and to quote from the article: "bears a much stronger testimony of the divinity and mission of Jesus Christ than the KJV" (go read all 8 of the bullet points at the bottom of their article) but despite all that, it's apparently still just a useful commentary and, according to them, still comes up lacking in order to supplant the KJV as an official Church version.  Why is that?

I don't know about you, but that attitude relegates the JST to a clearly second-class translation of the bible. Reducing it to a commentary, study aids (see the handbook 38.8.5), and footnotes, and not including all of the edits. Even the Joseph Smith papers project isn't going to publish the JST.  This is shabby treatment, contempt even, for this inspired translation of the Bible by a Prophet of God.  

Joseph's had a mission to do an inspired translation of the bible. Now why would such a thing be needed if the KJV was so great?  Well because the KJV was incorrect and corrupt. So, referring to that First Presidency statement above we have to ask how it is that Joseph Smith supported the KJV, encouraging it's continued use in the Church if he himself worked on a different version of the bible? And then went so far as to say that if the Church failed to receive it, they would fall.  Doesn't add up. 

This is among the most perplexing things we've come upon yet.  Could it really have something to do with money? Does reverence for wealth really come into play here?  Would a worldwide church lose public credibility and perhaps gain less followers if they were to use an obscure translation of the bible instead of the gold standard King James version?  You decide. 

To recap: The church does not promote, publish, nor use an actual Joseph Smith Inspired translation of the bible.  As we all know, they only authorize only the KJV.  And then contradict Joseph by incorrectly asserting that Joseph supported and encouraged the continued use of the KJV for the Church.  Which is nonsense.  The history and the truth set us free from these errors.  

Obscuring Evidence of Ancient Origin

Going back to the Book of Mormon specifically, and the Ensign First Presidency statement from part 1.  The risk of obscuring evidence of ancient origin was one of the other things the Ensign article mentioned was a concern with creating a modern English version. My question regarding this concern is this:  Why don't you just keep an existing edition that retains that evidence?  And then also have additional modern edition available for all the benefits it would offer?  There is no contradiction if a version is retained to preserve historicity, and a version also exists in modern language for people to gain better understanding. 

The bible too has evidence of ancient origin in it, but yet the world clearly tolerates Modern English editions of the Bible.  The evidence of ancient origin in the bible haven't been removed from our consciousness or from libraries simply because a modern edition also exists. Why would the Book of Mormon be any different?   

The curious thing with remnants of ancient origins is that without any understanding of them they can just become a vanity-relic. Mere collector's items, or museum pieces that have a form of Godliness but no power. If we fearfully guard what we've been given rather than unfolding them for our understanding and betterment, then how does an evidence of ancient origin help anyone?  God's word was said to be something living, not just a relic to be observed preserved and not understood. Would it really cause such enormous heartburn as to collapse Sunday School (held for only 50 minutes every 2 weeks) if someone read from a different edition?  I've rarely been in a Sunday School lesson where more than a few brief moments are spent actually reading scripture text anyway.      

But that aside, I do have a question when it comes to preserving ancient origin.  Which "ancient origin" time period exactly is the one that ought to be preserved?  Is it Joseph Smith day, 1800's?  What about Nephi's day, around 600 BC?  What about the brother of Jared's day?  Tower of Babel time period?  Or even further back?  

When Joseph Smith was alive, the restoration wasn't so much about clinging to relics as it was restoring, expanding, and adding light and knowledge. The restoration in our day has halted among the LDS Church.  Nothing is being restored anymore.  In fact, numerous things are instead being discarded at an increasing rate (the temple ceremonies are one example).  Not only is nothing being restored in our day, but more and more things are not even being preserved anymore.       

Back to the Ensign article.  I want to be fair, so I did a little fairness exercise to ensure a degree of balance in the discussion.  Here's a brief list as an attempt to discuss this topic with mutual respect.      

Fair: 
-Readers should be able to safely assume the speaker means what they say, and they do not mean things which they did not say.      

-Speakers can clarify things they said in the event they were not as clear as they intended to be or forgot to say something.  Everyone should be able to clarify if they would like to.       

-Readers ought to respect intellectual property and trademarks.  This is not only fair but required by law.

-Readers should show respect to organizational roles and organizational authority as part of basic human respect shown to each other.          

Not Fair:
-Projecting assumptions onto people’s words, putting words into people’s mouths, and inferring they mean to say things which they did not say.     

-Insisting someone spoke for God when they never claimed to be doing so. This seems like an especially unfair burden to put on a speaker.       

-Not allowing speakers or readers to be human and exercise their freedoms and have their own opinions and views.       
-Exercising too much authority over others and or going too far with it.  

Ok, with that list in mind, it seems reasonable and also respectful to accept the 1993 Ensign statement about the Book of Mormon exactly as it appears.  In this case, it was their statement, of their own view, about their trademarked material, stating what they do not authorize to be put forward as representing the specific Church they manage.  This seems fair on all accounts.    

The article did not say their message came from God or represented God's view.  We have only our assumptions to tell us otherwise.  And after going through the list above, that wouldn't be fair to project assumptions the speaker didn't communicate.  Church leaders, same as anyone else, are entitled to hold their own ideas, create policies, espouse doctrinal views, and have always been free thinking human beings. So, it's our job as listeners to discern inspired moments from all other moments.     

It’s also been 28 years since that statement was published.  Adequate time to have made an amendment, correction, update, or said something else about the topic if it was unclear.  To date, it hasn't been updated or clarified, but has instead been elevated in importance by adding the statement to the Handbook of Instructions. So, I leave it at that. The Church and its leaders said "no", still say no, and "the thinking is done!" Or so says that one eyebrow raising phrase from LDS history: “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. " (Improvement Era June, 1945).  That is not unlike things said in centuries past.  More on that in a second.    

Who owns the book?   

If you remember the Ensign article from part 1, there was the part of the statement saying that the First Presidency did not authorize efforts at a modern English effort.  This implies that they are the sole authorizers and gatekeepers of what can/cannot be done with this book of scripture. Which being fair, is accurate for their particular published version of the content. The LDS Church has the right to carry a trademark and copyright their own unique publications. And with that comes the right to state what can and cannot be done with Church owned intellectual property.  But let's also continue to be fair and not get confused that those rights also encompass outright sole ownership of the underlying scriptural content, and what anyone can do with it.    

No single Christian denomination says, "The Bible only belongs to our specific denomination, and not yours!". The same should apply to the Book of Mormon. It was published before the LDS Church as an organization even existed. Its claim is that it contains God's word, not a Church's word. The original material from Joseph Smith is also now in the public domain. It's not the property of the LDS Church. Therefore, it makes no more sense to consider the LDS church as "owning" the underlying substance of The Book of Mormon than to accept that a particular Christian denomination "owns" the Bible.

Rome spoke long ago too....but the thinking wasn't done, nor was it God's plan!  

I'm reminded of Martin Luthor. Was Martin Luthor authorized (by the Church of his day) to translate the Bible from Latin (language of scholars and clergy) into the common German language? Nope. His translation was a revolutionary act, in defiance of Rome. It put the book into the hands of the common man (non-clergy) who could now read and understand it rather than being limited to what the clergy told them was the "correct" and "authorized" meaning. 

Luther observed and then protested church corruption, such as the sale of indulgences for financial gain, and rejected the pope's role as the infallible interpreter of scriptures. Let that sink in for a minute. He rejected the claims of the highest leaders of the Church to be the only people who could correctly interpret scripture. (And thus, oversee a modern translation, or prohibit one, as the case may be)  

Martin Luther sought to put the bible into the hands of ordinary Christians, in the language they could understand. 

“One may not ask the Latin language how to speak German as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask mothers in the home, children on the street, the common man at the market, and watch carefully how they speak. After that one may translate. Then those who read will understand you and know that you are speaking German with them” Martin Luther, Ein Sendbrieff. Von Dolmetschen... (Wittenberg, 1530)

One critic argued that Luther’s Bible should be ‘forbidden to the common man’.  Such are the fears and attempts at control that historically always seems to surround God's word.  

Putting the bible into the common language reduced the Church's power (but no doubt caused great irritation). And we all know how well it goes over when power is removed from those who seek it or hold lots of it. This was a pivotal act in Christian history. Luthor's translation was deemed "heretical" by the religious powers at the time. But time changes things.  Luther's "rogue" bible, lacking Church authorization, changed Christianity and the world.  In hindsight it's easier to God's hand inspiring Martin Luthor in spite of it being a revolutionary act towards Rome and the Church at the time. 

Does the fact that no specific religious denomination can claim to own the Bible diminish or dilute the truth found in the bible?  Certainly not.  Could the same perhaps apply to the Book of Mormon?  The bible is just the bible. Anyone can read it and learn from it. Some translations may be more correct than others, but that's a matter of how well the translation preserved the truth.  When scripture is free from religious ownership and control it allows anyone, religious or not, to search, study, investigate and find insights into the word of God for the benefit of all. Clearly that does not hinder, but instead helps the cause of scripture.  

I can only speculate on what Luther's attitude might be if he lived in 2021 and saw another situation where a central religious authority calls itself the sole interpreter of and owner scripture. Seems to me if men atop religious empires are to that point, it's likely the scriptures and their meaning are already being corrupted by the same people.      

Food for thought: If you remove the Book of Mormon from the modern LDS Church, the Church loses foundation. But if you remove the Church's association from the Book of Mormon, the book and what it contains stand on its own.  And belongs to the people, not a corporation.  

What is it with religions and various forces all throughout history trying to suppress, have a monopoly on, or alter scripture?  

In our day, similar to the bible, the Book of Mormon is not diminished or downgraded by being free from control and ownership by a specific Church denomination.  It might actually be the opposite.  That is if we stop neglecting it. 

Continued in part 3

BofM Part 1: LDS Church says NO to a Modern English Book of Mormon

This is the first post in a series about the Book of Mormon. 

In the April 1993 Ensign of the LDS Church there is a section titled "News of the Church" which has an article about the Book of Mormon.  

(This issue of the Ensign has a particularly interesting cover, containing Hebrew.  How the Church, Hebrew, The Book of Mormon and Israel have been interacting all these years is a very worthwhile topic.  See here for a worthwhile series on that topic).

The article says a Modern English version of the Book of Mormon is not only discouraged, but not authorized by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12. Here's the relevant section: 

From time to time there are those who wish to rewrite the Book of Mormon into familiar or modern English. We discourage this type of publication and call attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon was translated “by the gift and power of God,” who has declared that “it is true.” (Book of Mormon title page; D&C 17:6.) The Prophet Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth.” (History of the Church, 4:461.) It contains “the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (D&C 20:9.)

When a sacred text is translated into another language or rewritten into more familiar language, there are substantial risks that this process may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure evidence of its ancient origin. To guard against these risks, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve give close personal supervision to the translation of scriptures from English into other languages and have not authorized efforts to express the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon in familiar or modern English. (These concerns do not pertain to publications by the Church for children.) 

This same quote is also part of the current March 2021 General Handbook: Serving in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on page 410 (38.8.6).  From their concluding parenthetical, I guess it's ok for kids to learn scriptures in modern English, but adults apparently aren't so lucky.   

This idea of modern scripture comes up again and again.  People want words they understand.  It's a bit puzzling that the leaders would not address the need, but instead create a policy against it.  What's also curious is that the leaders give closer personal supervision of language translations of languages they don't even speak.  Yet they prohibit a modern English version, which is a language all of them speak.  Very curious.     

There's a couple underlying assumptions in that section from the handbook I hope to explore in this post.  But first some thoughts about the language.       

KJV Language:

King Jamesian English is often a barrier.  And the Book of Mormon has a lot of it.  Some publications do exist that are a modern English reference for the Book of Mormon.  Such as this one: A Plain English Reference to the Book of Mormon.  It presents itself as a reference and includes notes and things to assist readers of all ages.  And many people find it helpful.  The introduction states:  This book, A Plain English Reference to the Book of Mormon, reads on an 8th to 9th grade level, making it a useful tool for students of all ages.  This book was created to bridge the gap between the text of The Book of Mormon and the reading and/or word comprehension and/or signing skills of many people. 

Perhaps in order to not overstep the restriction imposed by that section from the handbook, that Plain English publication along with a few other modern English reference type publications seem to make an effort to stay within the parameters.  They present themselves as a reference or as tools to help younger readers. Not as an actual Book of Mormon scriptural text.   

Based on the reviews, people find value in it.  There's a clear desire from members to be able to read the Book of Mormon in a Modern Language that they both speak and understand. But the handbook makes it clear that a full modern language Book of Mormon is not authorized.  

The "King Jamesian" language of the Book of Mormon today, although English, can be foreign to modern readers causing people to frequently gloss over the material and gain limited understanding.  The youth especially feel more distant from the old English styles. It's possible to understand but it can be difficult and require tools and dictionaries not everyone has easy access to.  

Being accustomed to archaic biblical language is not the same as understanding it. The definitions of archaic words and phrases evolves with time. So just because you recognize a word or have read it a bunch of times does not guarantee the words still carry the same meaning as they did hundreds of years ago. So, if many of the words and grammar can carry different meaning today than they did in centuries past, would not reason suggest that our comprehension is negatively affected by this?  And would that not pass onto all of our lessons, discussions, not to mention pass into all the foreign language translations of the book?  

Wouldn't we want to treasure this book and bring it into as much light as possible in language we can all clearly comprehend?  Food for thought. 

Money vs Scriptures

When it comes to the Book of Mormon and our day, we must speak of Hugh Nibley.  Hugh Nibley lived and taught outside any of the Church's highest quorums and leadership positions.  Yet he was the one who brought the Book of Mormon to the forefront of the Church's attention and gave people meat to chew on. Hugh Nibley was able to say some things so bluntly it makes you almost laugh. Here's an example from an interview November 11th, 1982, ten years prior to the above Ensign article we've been talking about. 

And the two marks of the Church I see are and have been for a long time these: a reverence for wealth and a contempt for the scriptures. Naturally, the two go hand in hand. We should call attention to the fact that these things we are doing are against the work of the Lord. There is one saying of Joseph Smith I think of quite often. If the heavens seem silent at a time when we desperately need revelation, it is because of covetousness in the Church. “God had often sealed up the heavens because of covetousness in the Church.” And now the Church isn’t just shot through with covetousness, it is saturated with covetousness. And so the heavens are going to be closed. We’re told we don’t get revelation if we put our trust in money in the bank. (Hugh Nibley, Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2008)

Nibley seems almost prophetic when you look at the state of affairs in 2021.  We currently find the Church has $100+ billion dollars of amassed wealth, an army of volunteers and paid professionals, but yet curiously missing a modern English Book of Mormon (as well as a full BofM in Hebrew). It's as if the Church does have a reverence for wealth and a contempt for the scriptures. Nibley was not wealthy yet take a look at the fact that his work and teachings on the Book of Mormon completely dwarf any Church leaders' teachings on the same subject. In fact, in terms of Book of Mormon doctrinal education, the Church leaders are some of the most quiet.  

If you've ever had a church calling (or even a professional position), you know that Church positions don't magically give you doctrinal knowledge, scriptural understanding, or confer a new language on you.  The things of God are not obtained by merely possessing a Church office. That seems like common sense, but also worth stating.     

Most members assume that top church leaders have the most doctrinal understanding of anyone, and the leaders pretty much never do or say anything to counter such assumptions.  But what's interesting about those assumptions is when you glance at Church owned Deseret Bookstore, or the Church's website over the past 10 years.  There's a total absence of doctrinal books, scriptural commentaries, or anything historical authored by a member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12. The Church's leaders who are sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators interestingly don't explain prophetic history, now days they get permission from the scholars and professionals to use their work to explain it.  Below is one such example at the end of the Church essay about how the Book of Mormon came to be.  More on this in part 3. 

So, what does all this have to do with the Book of Mormon and Modern English?  If you pay attention to the news, in 2021 LDS Church leaders are publicly preoccupied with things like ever changing policies, handbooks, procedures, global managerial affairs, public health, and proclamations such as the Bicentennial Proclamation of April 2020 that reiterates commonly known Church beliefs. 

Given the sheer magnitude of managerial responsibilities the leaders carry, it's not a silly possibility to consider that perhaps many of the top leaders haven't spent a lot of time on the Book of Mormon's doctrinal content.  Perhaps placing them in an uncomfortable position of not wanting to oversee a modern English edition. This starts to be even more of a possibility when we see that the scholarly voice is what the sustained prophets seers and revelators looked to in order to even explain things such as the book's origins.  

The original section from the handbook above has the underlying premise that the leaders actually know the doctrinal content of the book, hence they give closer personal supervision to the translations.  But that premise does not appear to be super solid.  If the leaders do understand all the doctrinal content, then they are definitely withholding it from the members in every talk, sermon, and published book. 

I'm only posing questions as I look for answers.  Perhaps it's time to disturb the sounds of silence on this topic.  

What about the book being "true" and the "most correct book" isn't that reason enough not to touch the text?  

The reason given in the Ensign article for the "no-go" on a Modern English version was because the book is "true" and was translated by the gift and power of God. For leaders claiming those same gifts, powers, and positions, you'd think a modern text would be an obvious way for them to confirm to the world that they do indeed have these gifts. But apparently not. 

I don't take issue with the statements about the book being true, correct, and translated by the gift and power of God. But I do find issue when those statements misdirect the audience, and totally bypass all the relevant history.  For example, those statements imply that there haven't already been errors introduced into the text after Joseph Smith translated it. But there have been! The statements in the article imply that "all is well", everything is perfect, and give the impression that what you read today is precisely what Joseph put down.  But that is not accurate and gives a misleading impression.      

A quick recap of BofM history.

Perhaps the "risks" of introducing errors is something Church leaders know all too well, because such things are already part of the history of the book. With Sunday School now being reduced to 2 hours twice a month we're even less likely to ever hear about it.  We do hear a lot of feel-good stories though.  But we don't need more feel-good narratives or partial histories; we need the truth. And questions are a great way to try and find it.   

And so, we must ask: How was the BofM text handled subsequent to its divine transmission to Joseph Smith?  Pointing out how a spring of water is pure, good, and correct at its source can be terribly misleading if you neglect to tell your audience that the spring is not where they are presently drinking from. So, for purposes of this post, it's worthwhile to stop and assess where we all drink from and see what we need to do to get back to the source as best we can. 

Although Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon, he didn't punctuate it.  What's interesting is how good of spellers some of the scribes were, some were much better than others.  But back to punctuation, that was done by John H. Gilbert’s. John H. Gilbert worked for E. B. Grandin, the publisher of the first edition. John Gilbert's effort resulted in somewhere between 30,000–35,000 punctuation marks. And we know some of them did/do not doctrinally match Joseph's teachings and has led to confusion and debate still today.  And that's just punctuation.  

Can punctuation change meaning?  

Here's a real-life example.  2 Nephi 9:13. You're going to have to read this slowly and carefully if you want to appreciate the point here.     

... and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like unto us in the flesh, save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect. 

Speaking of the immortal state, this passage says they (the immortals) are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like us in the flesh.  Wait, say what?  Since when do we (mortals) have a perfect knowledge here in the flesh like the immortals?  Then it goes on to say: "Save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect"?  Wait..... how will our knowledge be perfect at some later day if it's already perfect now in the flesh?         

The punctuation as it exists today in the LDS Book of Mormon is what you read above and what causes the confusion.  Why does it say the immortals have a perfect knowledge like us in the flesh if that's obviously not the case?  Punctuation.  

Try this, go up to the red words above and add a comma after "perfect knowledge".  Then read it that way.  Doing that makes the "having a perfect knowledge" a parenthetical which clarifies that the phrase "like unto us" was referring to the immortals and mortals both having a living soul, with a body and a spirit united.  The perfect knowledge bit was a parenthetical thought only applicable to the immortals.  The mortals will have to await a future day to have a perfect knowledge.  However, for now in the flesh, mortals have something in common with the immortals: A living soul.  Which as Joseph Smith defined soul is a spirit and body joined together.   

Second Example: 

Mosiah 3:8 (as it exists in the LDS cannon) 

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

It says Jesus is the Son of God.  The it says Jesus is the Father of heaven and earth. This can be confusing and has led to debates about this doctrine for decades.   

But what if we just move the comma that was placed after God?  Read it like this: 

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Father of Heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his Mother shall be called Mary. 

Now Jesus is not the Father of Heaven and Earth but is "the Son of God the Father of Heaven and of earth".  Doctrinal implications resulting from a comma.  

A few more humorous images of how much punctuation can change meaning. 

Ok, all of that was just the potential of punctuation.  Then there's typesetting.  The first edition typesetting was from the printer’s manuscript (technically 1/6 was from the original), which was Oliver Cowdery’s handwritten copy of the original manuscript. This first printer's manuscript edition in 1830 contained numerous scribal errors. The original, as was just mentioned, had been hand copied and the printer used the duplicate hand copy containing the errors.  That copy had on average of 1.5 copy errors per page.  

Joseph Smith revised the printed copy in 1837, and again in 1840 to try to eliminate errors and make the text more correct.  But he got killed so he never finished.  This is relevant textual history that gets hidden if all you tell people is that the book is true and was translated by the Gift and power of God.   

Then there's all the changes that have taken place since Joseph's death.  Decades after his death, Orson Pratt prepared an 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon where the chapters were re-divided (increasing them from 114 to 239) and verse numbers and references were added. One result of versification is that verses disconnect thoughts.  Whatever benefit they provide, they do disrupt thoughts. It's an interesting thing to read the Book of Mormon without verses. But anyway, then there was a 1920 edition prepared by James E. Talmage which included a double-column page layout, revised references, a pronouncing vocabulary, an index, and grammatical updates. 

We no longer have the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon to compare to. It was placed into the cornerstone of the Nauvoo temple. The cornerstone became unsealed, and nature did what nature does to poorly preserved items. It ruins them. Only 28 percent of the original pages survived in any form. So, it's impossible to see all of the original. 

Well, as mentioned, Joseph never finished his corrections. So yes, it was translated by the gift and power of God but as you can see, it's important to at least be familiar with the whole story.  Even Joseph throughout his life was still making corrections until his death. There remains doctrinal debate over various issues in the text still today.  Errors which provoked the Lord's condemnation of the Saints.  

Continued in part 2.