Book Of Mormon: Dependence Upon The Bible

[Uncle Dale]

CK-

JS didn't dictate puncuation. We know that was added later, probably, it seems, with reference to a King James Bible. Maybe other things were tweaked too?

Good point. I don't suppose punctuation had its origin in the hat. But, I think, the closely-followed punctuation demonstrates that it is more than merely probable that 1830 Mosiah VIII/14 was secondarily correlated with KJV Isaiah 53 prior to publication. What that means, I don't fully know. But, clearly, there is textual dependence here.

Best.

CKS

Probably the vast majority of punctuation in the 1830 edition was added by Mr. Gilbert, with perhaps an

occasional suggestion from Oliver Cowdery. The printers mention having to use a Bible to help them

punctuate and correctly spell out parts of the manuscript text.

Savvy Mormons no longer deny that Smith had an open Bible with him, as he finalized the manuscript

text. The illustration has yet to make the cover of The Ensign, but it will, given enough time.

The Isaiah chapters in 1st Nephi preserve some printing errors from a certain edition of the KJV -- unless

Smith had a photographic memory, he did not introduce those oddities into the "translation" from his

"subconscious."

I would guess that Smith and friends frequently got out the Bible to compare with the text which was

emerging before their eyes, as the BoM was "translated." I do not see the BoM textual finalization process

as being much different from the JST working methods. In fact, I think that the two projects overlapped

and were essentially two parts of the same work.

UD

[Warship]

David,

I enjoyed your op, I have always felt the same.

CKS,

Isaiah quotes in the BOM. The words of Iaiah were brought in the brass plates of laban. Nephi quotes them to some extent as well and emphasizes the importance of the words of Isaiah to his people, so I see nothing odd about Mosiah following suit. That being said, the long tracts in Nephi also follow KJV language.

It has always been my line of thinking that when JS came to long tracts such as these, he noted the beginning and end, and later came back and filled in the tracts using the bible. He complained that looking in the hat at the peep stone hurt his eyes so I could see why he'd rather copy these parts from the bible instead of translating the same material by means that were painful to him.

Just my opinion.

BTW to all. Some of the new testament phrases in the bOM thought to be anachronistic have been found to be quotes by New testament authors of earlier noncanonical works. These works may have been included on the brass plates. Ofcourse JS' influence from the bible might have been a significant factor as well.

[Not quite me]

Maybe you'll get the idea....

Right now I'm in the middle of a web project, doing something similar with the 1830 Book of Alma

and the Oberlin Spalding manuscript textual overlap.

This work-in-progress is only in the preliminary stages right now, but I can there show you a sample

(the brown text is identical in Spalding and Alma -- the underlined word-strings are identical or similar):

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/Alma20c.htm

Hi Uncle Dale,

Just in case you missed it, Page 341 in your textual overlap analysis has the equation

[448 - U38 = 410 - N15 = 390/410 = .951], which i believe should be [448 - U38 = 410 - N15 = 395/410 = .963].

Great study. I enjoy your knowledgeable comments and insight. keep up the great work!

Wow! My first 96% Spalding page in the BoM!!!!!

I'll make the change.

Uncle "Mamas, don't let yer babies grow up to be Mathematicians" Dale.

Really interesting stuff, Dale. Maybe we can say that Joseph and Spalding were both guided by the same spirit, eh?

[Uncle Dale]

Really interesting stuff, Dale. Maybe we can say that Joseph and Spalding were both guided by the

same spirit, eh?

Too soon to say, I'd guess. But it is an interesting question and might be answered in ways either positive

or negative to the Latter Day Saints.

If it's all a total coincidence, it is a fascinating one to me. If it is more than coinciddence..... well, I suppose

that others, wiser than myself, will have to guide us in dealing with that unsettling possibility.

UD

[Not quite me]

Really interesting stuff, Dale. Maybe we can say that Joseph and Spalding were both guided by the

same spirit, eh?

Too soon to say, I'd guess. But it is an interesting question and might be answered in ways either positive

or negative to the Latter Day Saints.

If it's all a total coincidence, it is a fascinating one to me. If it is more than coinciddence..... well, I suppose

that others, wiser than myself, will have to guide us in dealing with that unsettling possibility.

UD

Yep, you really can't say one way or the other, but it is fascinating nonetheless.

[juliann]

The repeated use of the word "translation," especially in conjunction with the term "ancient record" is not, in my view, helpful to these discussions or an accurate description of what is known to have happened. It is said that an ancient record existed, but it was not actually used to produce the BoM, much less translated. The words came out of Joseph Smith's mouth -- that's really all we know, isn't it? Hence, it is much better to use the more generic word "produced", or else the more specific word "dictated", in conjunction with the term "divine inspiration" (if you are a believer) or with the term "human imagination" (if you are not a believer).

I have seen articles about the problematic nature of the description "translation". I could be wrong...but I think I read there was a slightly different understanding of it in the 1800s. I'm just not sure what word to use since not even believers seem to agree on the process. I just don't see how anything can happen outside the human brain so I would always assume that whatever was in Joseph's brain would get into any translating/producing/whatever activity no matter how inspired.

[Markk]

Hi,

If I remember correctly, there are clear translation mistakes in the KJV that JS owned, that are word for word mistakes in the BOM. This alone proves that JS copied from his bible in the "translation" process, or a incredible coincidence that iether JS or God made the same errors? I'll see if I can find where I read that, it's been awhile.

Mark

John 1:12

[Uncle Dale]

Hi,

If I remember correctly, there are clear translation mistakes in the KJV that JS owned, that are word for word mistakes in the BOM. This alone proves that JS copied from his bible in the "translation" process, or a incredible coincidence that iether JS or God made the same errors? I'll see if I can find where I read that, it's been awhile.

Mark

John 1:12

I brought this topic up with Dr. Anthony Chavala-Smith, the Community of Christ's official theologian (and a

disciple of Fawn Brodie). His generalized answer is that Joseph Smith Jr. dictated the entire Book of Mormon

from a pre-written, inspired text he had already compiled in his head.

In other words, the man had such tremendous mental powers that he knew the entire KJV Bible, printer's

errors, italicized words, and translator's oddities -- perfectly, before he ever began his dictation. He also

held within that super-human brain all of the intricate inter-relationships of the Book of Mormon -- its chaismus

and its Hebraic phraseology -- and was able to dictate it all without any substantial contradictions.

So -- if Smith were THAT wonderful, perhaps he IS now mingling with Gods; and perhaps he DOES

deserve to displace Christ, as the judge of the quick and the dead.

My head is beginning to hurt.....

UD

[David Bokovoy]

Hi Juliann,

I have seen articles about the problematic nature of the description "translation". I could be wrong...but I think I read there was a slightly different understanding of it in the 1800s.

Noah Websterâ??s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language provides the following meanings for the word â??translateâ?:

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another.

2. To remove-or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another

5. To change.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.

7. To explain.

From my persepctive, a word that means to transfer, to interpret, or to explain works quite well for both the JST and the Book of Mormon.

Regards,

--David

[Neighbor]

Or conveyed materials from anothers work to his own peculiar work of wonder:-)

I side with Mark Twain. Dale, how on earth do you endure to your compilations!!!?:-)

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

What is the Dr. Smith, F. Brodie relationship? Does he hold the same views that Smith's revelations were more or less a by product of him getting into trouble and the revelations being a "out" so to speak of those troubles? That is a major theme I got out of her book (NMKMH).

Thanks

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Drewm777]

The Isaiah 53 issue is not as dry cut as you think. Look at the very last line of Mosiah 14

"and he bore the sinS of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

Interestingly, when I was exploring a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls recently, I noticed that the word in the Dead Sea Scrolls (and according to the footnote, in many other old manuscripts) reads plural-sinS. The KJV reads singular. If Joseph Smith was just copying the KJV word-for-word, what would motivate him to change it to "sins" instead of "sin" when both readings really mean the same thing? It could be accidental. It doesn't prove anything, but it does raise some questions for me, at least.

[Drewm777]

This thread died too fast.

[USU78]

Perhaps if some of the topmost leaders would first of all make such a point, in their Conference talks or elsewhere, then the lower level LDS members would feel more comfortable in discussing the matter.

Maybe Rabbi Dale remembers GBH's talk (2 years ago now? Can't remember) where he mentioned with approval a book he was reading on the Documentary Hypothesis.

How much more does one need?

[Uncle Dale]

Perhaps if some of the topmost leaders would first of all make such a point, in their Conference talks or elsewhere, then the lower level LDS members would feel more comfortable in discussing the matter.

Maybe Rabbi Dale remembers GBH's talk (2 years ago now? Can't remember) where he mentioned with approval a book he was reading on the Documentary Hypothesis.

How much more does one need?

That's enough for me!!!

Will your elders be quoting the Moroni formula word-for-word at my re-baptism, or did that get changed

along with "which" to "who" and "white" to "pure" ???

Uncle "Can't you just imagine me as the coming Pres. of the 3rd Quorum of LDS Seventies!" Dale

[Uncle Dale]

Hi Dale,

What is the Dr. Smith, F. Brodie relationship? Does he hold the same views that Smith's revelations were more or less a by product of him getting into trouble and the revelations being a "out" so to speak of those troubles? That is a major theme I got out of her book (NMKMH).

Thanks

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

I doubt that I'm telling any secrets, when I say that Brodie's book and Vogel's books are on display in

high stacks, for sale at the bookstore within the CoC Temple in Jackson County.

Why is that so? Because the CoC topmost leaders have become Brodieites, with a touch of reverence

for JS's "inspired fiction."

Don't just take my word for it -- go ask them in person (though not in front of any large saintly gathering).

No wonder that 50,000 RLDS fundamentalists have fled from the CoC's liberal leadership.

d'Unk

[USU78]

Perhaps if some of the topmost leaders would first of all make such a point, in their Conference talks or elsewhere, then the lower level LDS members would feel more comfortable in discussing the matter.

Maybe Rabbi Dale remembers GBH's talk (2 years ago now? Can't remember) where he mentioned with approval a book he was reading on the Documentary Hypothesis. How much more does one need?

That's enough for me!!! Will your elders be quoting the Moroni formula word-for-word at my re-baptism, or did that get changed along with "which" to "who" and "white" to "pure" ??? Uncle "Can't you just imagine me as the coming Pres. of the 3rd Quorum of LDS Seventies!" Dale

Not until the good Rabbi trims his hair, gets wire-rim glasses, shaves his beard, and starts getting 2 suits for $250 at Mac's will he be considered a possible candidate for the 3rd . . . or even the 4th Quorum.

USU "'course, the documentary hypothesis fits pretty neatly what Mormon said he was up to" 78

[Uncle Dale]

and starts getting 2 suits for $250 at [Mr.] Mac's will he be considered a possible candidate...

Just as long as I get to keep SolomonSpalding.com --- I'd rather part with my left ... er, ah... arm.

UD

[Noggin]

I just got done reading Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus" wherein Mr. Ehrman shows how the bible has changed over the centuries from willful (proactively protective) deletions and additions by learned scribes in the 4th century, to the outright bungling of unlearned barely literate scribes in the 2nd century. For example, the woman taken in adultery and brought before Jesus has long been known to be a fabrication. And several verses (the last ten) towards the end of Mark are invented. Key scriptures that show Jesus claiming he was god were subtly changed to emphasize that claim. As were the troublesome wordings here and there about Joseph being Jesus' father, incorporating a suggestion about the virgin birth not being so virgin.

It would be interesting to see if any of the now verified changes/additions/deletions in the bible made it into the book of Mormon. That would strengthen the case for plagiarism. I have read the first couple pages and it appears that suspected plagiarism from the KJV to the Book of Mormon does not bother those LDS who posted to this thread. Interesting.

Noggin

[cksalmon]

For example, the woman taken in adultery and brought before Jesus has long been known to be a fabrication.

Noggin

Hey Noggin--

I think you may have in mind that this passage doesn't appear in the best and earliest manuscript traditions. Certainly, it is an insertion, not original to the original MSS. But I'm not sure this makes it a de facto "fabrication."

In other words, the story could be true, could have been part of oral tradition that was finally inserted into later manuscripts--sometimes in the middle of John, sometimes at the end of John, sometimes in Luke(!). But, then, that would be a heckuva long tenure as an oral tradition, I suppose (a few hundred years...?)

Anyway, just a thought.

Best.

CKS