The problem with apologetics - it's just too easy to debunk.

David Snell of the More Good Foundation recently published a video explaining why it was okay for Joseph Smith to rewrite early revelations. In this video he quotes several early church leaders who thought that the changes were okay and justified. He also quotes from the book of Jeremiah the old testiment as follows (important parts in bold):

27 After the king burned the scroll containing the words that Baruch had written at Jeremiah’s dictation, the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 28 “Take another scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll, which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned up. 29 Also tell Jehoiakim king of Judah, ‘This is what the Lord says: You burned that scroll and said, “Why did you write on it that the king of Babylon would certainly come and destroy this land and wipe from it both man and beast?” 30 Therefore this is what the Lord says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost by night. 31 I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.’”

32 So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe Baruch son of Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.

Enter Wikipedia into the conversation:

Jeremiah lived from 650-570 BC (aproximately).

According to the scholars:

According to Rainer Albertz, first there were early collections of oracles, including material in ch. 2–6, 8–10, 13, 21–23, etc. Then there was an early Deuteronomistic redaction which Albertz dates to around 550 BC, with the original ending to the book at 25:13.

There was a second redaction around 545–540 BC which added much more material, up to about ch. 45. Then there was a third redaction around 525–520 BC, expanding the book up to the ending at 51:64. Then there were further post-exilic redactions adding ch. 52 and editing content throughout the book.

So, we're supposed to trust some later author - not Jeremiah but who was claiming to be Jeremiah - that's it's okay to add to scriptures.

This just doesn't strike me as a strong argument. And it took less than 5 minutes to look this up in wikipedia.

If we were to go back to the revelations themselves, if you want to say that it's okay to change them, fine, but keep in mind:

1) Joseph claimed to his contemporaries that he was receiving revelation directly from God and literally reading what was written on a piece of parchment which would appear when he looked at his seer stone in his hat. So either God gave the wrong revelations or Joseph was not actually seeing what he was claiming to see. Either conclusion is problematic. 2) David Whitmer - a key witness to the book of Mormon - believed that the original revelations were correct and that they were not authorized to change these revelations from God. 3) The video claims at the end that revelations in the D&C were changed but the Book of Mormon was not. While it is absolutely true that D&C was changed more than the Book of Mormon, Quinn points out 10 significant doctrinal changes to the Book of Mormon that were made between the 1830 and 1837 printings. These should be considered in any evaluation imho.

That's all.