?As Does the Bible?: Official Statement Forthcoming?Maybe

By November 12, 2007

There has been considerable question concerning how we should interpret the omission of the phrase “as does the Bible” from the Introduction to the Book of Mormon. The phrase first appeared thus in the 1981 edition: “It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americans and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” However, in the 1992 Spanish-language edition, the phrase “as does the Bible” was removed. The change was reflected in subsequent foreign-language (re)printings, and first appeared in English in the 2004 Doubleday edition.

Carrie Moore in her Deseret News article mentioned the “as does the Bible” change, but stated that the church had declined to comment. In a response to an email from the Juvenile Instructor, Church spokesman Mark Tuttle stated the following:

Support and reference materials for the scriptures are only changed for major new editions (the last English edition was in 1981), and not with individual (re) printings. How this is done and its timing (considering all of the individual language translations), is a complex problem that we hope to address in detail in the near future. Until that time we are not able to provide additional comments.

This response gives me hope that the Church’s media representatives will soon address the issue of how the “as does the Bible” change occurred. Although Tuttle confirmed that a statement is forthcoming, he was unable to state that it would address this specific issue.

Article filed under Categories of Periodization: Modern Mormonism Current Events


Comments

  1. Support and reference materials for the scriptures are only changed for major new editions (the last English edition was in 1981), and not with individual (re) printings. How this is done and its timing (considering all of the individual language translations), is a complex problem that we hope to address in detail in the near future. Until that time we are not able to provide additional comments.

    I’m impressed that you obtained a response. (My previous emails to church spokespeople on other subjects have been ignored.) I’m surprised that the Doubleday edition would feature changes prior to the official English edition.

    Comment by Justin — November 12, 2007 @ 3:04 pm

  2. Justin: I established a bit of a relationship with Tuttle during the MM apology/not an apology thing. He’s been quite helpful.

    I agree that it’s strange. I hope that this statement that he mentioned will contain some type of explanation.

    Comment by David Grua — November 12, 2007 @ 3:27 pm


Series

Recent Comments

Steve Fleming on BH Roberts on Plato: “Interesting, Jack. But just to reiterate, I think JS saw the SUPPRESSION of Platonic ideas as creating the loss of truth and not the addition.…”


Jack on BH Roberts on Plato: “Thanks for your insights--you've really got me thinking. I can't get away from the notion that the formation of the Great and Abominable church was an…”


Steve Fleming on BH Roberts on Plato: “In the intro to DC 76 in JS's 1838 history, JS said, "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important…”


Jack on BH Roberts on Plato: “"I’ve argued that God’s corporality isn’t that clear in the NT, so it seems to me that asserting that claims of God’s immateriality happened AFTER…”


Steve Fleming on Study and Faith, 5:: “The burden of proof is on the claim of there BEING Nephites. From a scholarly point of view, the burden of proof is on the…”


Eric on Study and Faith, 5:: “But that's not what I was saying about the nature of evidence of an unknown civilization. I am talking about linguistics, not ruins. …”

Topics


juvenileinstructor.org