TYPOS & ISSUES Tracking Doc

View Typos & Issues Tracking Doc here.


  1. Not sure if this is how or where you want it done but in NC 2 Nephi 6:9 there is either a period where should be a coma or if the period is correct the word wherefore should be capitalized.


    Issue #1:
    Teaching and Commandments Section 154 (Previously Section 170 in the first printing) has Mike Hamill’s additions incorporated into the text of the revelation alongside Joseph’s words rather than as an italicized header as it was in the Preview Edition.

    Issue #2:
    The current wording referencing Mike Hamill’s words reads: “Extract from Section 3 of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Additional material provided 4 February, 2017 by Michael Hamill” giving the reader the impression that like Joseph’s 1835 revelation, Mike’s words are likewise revelation from God, when in fact they came from the 2 hour conversation with Denver about this text as he explained himself when he spoke directly about it in his talk Things To Keep Us Awake At Night.

    Proposed Fix #1: Revert this portion of the Section back to the top as an italicized header as was done in the Preview Edition and pick up paragraph numbering starting with Joseph’s words.

    Proposed Fix #2: Reword the text in the header describing Mike’s additions to be consistent with how Denver described this addition in his talk Things to Keep Us Awake at Night (starting at 1’38” into the lecture). Namely, that the added information for this section was sourced from ongoing work with Denver and a member of the scripture committee, Mike Hamill.

    1) The Introduction of the Volume reads: “Great effort has been put into honoring the work of Joseph Smith in this collection. This includes the use of his New Translation as the text for the Bible, and stripping away most alterations to his revelations which were made by others. We believe his work is to be honored above any who would claim to be his successors.”

    One of the guideposts we have used as we determined what Sections to include or exclude was that we would exclude anything that did not come from Joseph so as to keep the language as pure as possible. We realized that the text would never be perfect, but we could at the very least remove anything that either added to or detracted from the original revelations. In particular, this Section of the LE had portions of the revelation removed due to questionable origin. By adding Mike’s words into the text of the revelation, even numbering the paragraphs to seamlessly adjoin his words to Joseph’s, we are most definitely adding to the revelation and adding back in the questionable sourcing. While Mike’s summary of his conversation with Denver is very valuable and adds context to Joseph’s revelation, it do not belong in the body of the text but rather as a header to clearly set them apart from Joseph's words.

    2) Concerning the language describing Mike’s additions, Denver was very clear about how he came to this information in his talk in St. George, Things to Keep Us Awake At Night starting at 1’38” into the talk. In short, Denver and Mike spoke about this section for 2 hours and then Mike emailed Denver back with his written summary of that conversation which Denver was pleased with and it labeled as Mike's additions, which were then later incorporated into the textual body of the current revelation. However, this is disingenuous and incorrect to leave the reader assuming it was an authorized revelation from God as was Joseph’s portion of the text.

    3) I was present at a meeting in Denver's office in April of 2017 when this issue was first brought up and the solution agreed upon was to move the text into a header where it more appropriately assigned both pretext for where the addition came from as well as context for what Joseph laid out in the revelation. The Preview Edition was reflective of this adjustment which resolved the issue in the minds of many. The voting in September included in our understanding that this fix was resolved. Now, here in the second printing, the layout has reverted back to the original printing which leaves us with the same problem. We cannot introduce heterogeny back into a revelation in which we were trying to keep homogeny.

  3. NC Helaman 2:10 "But behold, the Lamanites were exceeding fraid..."
    This line occurs in this way in 1830, 37 and 40 editions. But so far as I can tell, "fraid" was not a word back then, nor is it a word in use today. We might consider "exceedingly afraid".

    1. According to Royal Skousens work, he talks about this very issue in his commentaries starting at Alma 43:21. He says the following,

      "therefore they were exceeding [fraid 01BCDG| afraid AEFHIJKLMNOPQRST]

      The original text hows variation between afraid and nonstandard fraid. The standard afraid is found in every passage (seven of them) that quotes from the book of Isaiah (the King James Bible consistently afraid, never fraid):...

      In all these [seven] examples, the expression is of the general form "be afraid".
      In nonbiblical passages in the Book of Mormon, there are foudr instances of fraid in the earliest text and two of the standard fraid: [see Alma 41:19, 42:20, 43:21, 47:2, and Helaman 4:3 LDS edition]

      Note that the two cases of afraid are of the general form "be afraid" (just like the seven cases in the biblical quotes), but the four cases of the original fraid occur in the more specific expression "be exceeding fraid". Thus there is a systematic difference in the usage for afraid and fraid in the original text.

      The emendation of fraid to afraid has been very unsytematic in the printed editions; I list here which editions made the change to afraid: [lists editions]

      Except for the first case, the RLDS text remains the original fraid, while the LDS text now has only afraid. Note, in particular, that for Alma 43:21 the 1837 edition reverted to the original fraid, a restoration of the reading in P, which implies that Joseph Smith, the editor for the 1837 edition, did not consider fraid as nonstandard. Of course, in the 1800's the form fraid was very common in colloquial nonstandard speech, as it is even today. The critical text will restore the four instances of original fraid in the Book of Mormon text.

      The Oxfor English Dictionary, under frayed, lists examples of fraid from about 1300 on, including these examples from Early Modern English: [lists examples]