Isaiah 53 and the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

You wrote:

I find it more interesting that out of the entire works of the Bible up until the departure of the Lehites from the land of Jerusalem; that it is Isaiah that was valued enough by the Lord to include in the final product that became the Book of Mormon.

Not Leviticus, not Kings, not Song of Solomon or Psalms, even Deuteronomy; but Isaiah.

Perhaps Rob would like to tell us his theory on why Joseph Smith chose those sections of Isaiah to plaugrize from the KJV. Or for that matter, why he chose to include any parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon. Are those chapters of any signifigance? Surely Rob has a brilliant theory as to why those sections, and not just that he did it.

This is easy and does not take brilliance to answer. Joseph chose chapters from Isaiah that clustered around the most famous Christological passages in the Old Testament--in Isaiah 7, 9, and 11, and in Isaiah 52-53. This goes a long way, probably most of the way, to explaining why he chose Isaiah 2-14 and 49-54. Joseph also found in some of these chapters passages of relevance to the BOM theme of restoration, among other themes. Since the Christological passages were among the most familiar OT passages to Christians in the early nineteenth century, they would also have been the easiest for Joseph Smith to memorize, assuming that is how he managed to include them in the BOM. The only other chapter from Isaiah copied into the BOM is Isaiah 29, the middle of which the BOM rewrites into a prophecy of the Anthon incident.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

And at least one purpose they served was to provide the right substitute to the initial 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation that was lost by Martin Harriss.

Well, we agree on something, at any rate, and that is that the heavy use of Isaiah in the first part of the BOM served the purpose of replacing much of the material from the lost pages. That is a purpose that fits nicely, without any ad hoc assumptions, into the theory that Joseph Smith was the one who originated the idea of including those chapters from Isaiah in the BOM.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You seem to be assuming that Joseph Smith was ignorant of basic facts concerning the Bible. He wasn't. It didn't take a Bible scholar to know that Malachi was written after the Babylonian Exile.

I have written an article on young Joseph Smith's knowledge of the Bible that is of relevance to this topic.

Yours is indeed an interesting question, but another one that no one has managed to answer is how Joseph figured out which books to quote.

Isaiah (the questions of Deutero- and Tertio-Isaiah notwithstanding) lived 700 bc. Malachi lived much later. Oddly, Joseph quoted Isaiah after he lived, but only quoted Malachi through the Savior, because Malachi lived long after Lehi left Jerusalem.

Just another (series of) lucky guess(es), I must needs suppose.

Lehi

[ELF1024]

I have written an article on young Joseph Smith's knowledge of the Bible that is of relevance to this topic.

Backing up your arguement with something you wrote? Seems like cheating to me. How about using something that is written by a less biased authority.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

You wrote:

Backing up your arguement with something you wrote? Seems like cheating to me. How about using something that is written by a less biased authority.

I didn't cite my article as an authority. What is of relevance are the arguments I present, not who I am. Try dealing with the issues instead of resorting to an ad hominem. By your reasoning, I should ignore anything a Mormon says in defense of the BOM because a Mormon will be obviously biased on the subject. But this is not the approach I take (see Prov. 18:13; Matt. 7:12).

[ELF1024]

I didn't cite my article as an authority. What is of relevance are the arguments I present, not who I am. Try dealing with the issues instead of resorting to an ad hominem. By your reasoning, I should ignore anything a Mormon says in defense of the BOM because a Mormon will be obviously biased on the subject. But this is not the approach I take (see Prov. 18:13; Matt. 7:12).

Project much Mr. Bowman? Pete sake, I just asked for something written by someone OTHER THAN YOU. No need to go all Woody Allen.

Get a grip.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

You wrote:

Project much Mr. Bowman? Pete sake, I just asked for something written by someone OTHER THAN YOU. No need to go all Woody Allen.

Get a grip.

No, you didn't just ask for something written by someone else. But I will accommodate you:

Lucy

[ELF1024]

No, you didn't just ask for something written by someone else.

I suppose your going to say that your not biased to your own opinion.... that was all I was saying. That something you wrote would naturally back up your own opinions. If you read more into it, then I apologize for your confusion.

But I will accommodate you:

Lucy

[Mark Beesley]

I have written an article on young Joseph Smith's knowledge of the Bible that is of relevance to this topic.

I read your article. It has an awful lot of speculative language. If your purpose was to show that Joseph Smith had some knowledge of the Bible, you succeeded. If your purpose was to show that he was so immerse in the Bible that he memorized vast passages that he was later able to dicatate, well, not so much. One example:

You write that Joseph Smith once told his mother that he could learn more in two hours studying the Bible in the woods that a person could learn in two years by going to services and listening to sermons. You rely on this as evidence that Joseph Smith spent hours on end in the woods studying the Bible. But that isn't what Joseph was saying. He was saying that going to services of apostate Christian denominations was a waste of time if you want to understand what the Bible says.

[consiglieri]

Perhaps Rob would like to tell us his theory on why Joseph Smith chose those sections of Isaiah to plaugrize from the KJV. Or for that matter, why he chose to include any parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon. Are those chapters of any signifigance? Surely Rob has a brilliant theory as to why those sections, and not just that he did it.

I used to ask similar question, Elf, but then I realized it was merely a form of shifting focus from the actual issue.

If Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon, it makes no difference "why" he cribbed certain passages from the KJV.

We can argue all day long that he wouldn't do something so obvious because he would be sure to be caught, and yet it does nothing to respond to the mountainous Book of Mormon evidence of KJV dependence.

Having said this much, I would also like to add that the ways the Isaiah sections are interwoven throughout the Book of Mormon are intricate, involved and, in many instances, show an understanding of Isaiah quite different from what might appear on the surface. In once instance, at least, there appears to be an intentional allusion to an understanding of Isaiah that significantly predates second temple Judaism.

But even this position shifts focus away from the issue of KJV dependence.

The fact is it is there.

Many on this board have acknowledged it.

The real question for my money is whether Joseph Smith actually opened a Bible and read out of it to the scribe.

It would seem hard to argue for a different method, given the virtual verbatim correlations, and even Sidney Sperry seems to have believed as much.

And I, along with Dr. Peterson, doubt Joseph Smith memorized it just to recite it later.

And yet, once we posit an open Bible (or even Bible pages) somewhere in the translation process, what does that do with the witnesses who avowed Joseph had nothing to assist him?

And if a Bible (or its pages) were used by Joseph and somehow escaped being mentioned by the witnesses, what else might have been used?

So, to be clear, I believe (and testify) that the Book of Mormon is true, and that it was translated by the gift and power of God.

And yet this question seems insoluble to me at present.

I believe Rob Bowman has the best of the argument, not only because he is well-versed, but also because it is a good argument against the Book of Mormon, with little to contradict it on a purely rational basis.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

Well, we agree on something, at any rate, and that is that the heavy use of Isaiah in the first part of the BOM served the purpose of replacing much of the material from the lost pages. That is a purpose that fits nicely, without any ad hoc assumptions, into the theory that Joseph Smith was the one who originated the idea of including those chapters from Isaiah in the BOM.

That makes no sense. 1 and 2 Nephi provide enough

[WalkerW]

I guess I don't really have a problem with Joseph Smith being well-versed in the Bible. To me, this would make the flow of revelation much easier.

I'm with Kevin. I'm more impressed with the Book of Mormon as a coherent whole and the contextual aspects of it.

[WalkerW]

Frankly, I have a harder time wrapping my head around how Christ's atonement works than how the BoM translation did.

[David T]

Yours is indeed an interesting question, but another one that no one has managed to answer is how Joseph figured out which books to quote.

Isaiah (the questions of Deutero- and Tertio-Isaiah notwithstanding) lived 700 bc. Malachi lived much later. Oddly, Joseph quoted Isaiah after he lived, but only quoted Malachi through the Savior, because Malachi lived long after Lehi left Jerusalem.

Just another (series of) lucky guess(es), I must needs suppose.

Lehi

You do realize that direct language of Malachi is cited several times in the small plates portion of the Book of Mormon, right? Read Malachi 4:1-2, and then do a search for some of those phrases in the Book of Mormon. See especially 1 Nephi 22 and 2 Nephi 25 & 26.

I like to think that Nephi the Disciple was possibly the pseudepigraphical writer of the small plates, but there's only a few (although intriguing) elements of circumstantial evidence to back up that idea.

[LeSellers]

You seem to be assuming that Joseph Smith was ignorant of basic facts concerning the Bible. He wasn't. It didn't take a Bible scholar to know that Malachi was written after the Babylonian Exile.

I don't see that the dating of Malachi is a "basic fact concerning the Bible." I have studied it for many years, many decades even, and still have trouble keeping the chronology straight. There are no useful little footnotes, as in the Book of Mormon, to help the reader.

I have written an article on young Joseph Smith's knowledge of the Bible that is of relevance to this topic.

It says absolutely nothing about whether Joseph would have known when Malachi wrote his book.

I am reading John W. Miller's Origins of the Bible and find yet more reason to see the lack of internal evidence (which was all Joseph would have had to work from) about which book was written when. The sequence of the minor prophetic books are somewhat more than a minor enigma.

Lehi

[USU78]

I used to ask similar question, Elf, but then I realized it was merely a form of shifting focus from the actual issue.

If Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon, it makes no difference "why" he cribbed certain passages from the KJV.

We can argue all day long that he wouldn't do something so obvious because he would be sure to be caught, and yet it does nothing to respond to the mountainous Book of Mormon evidence of KJV dependence.

Having said this much, I would also like to add that the ways the Isaiah sections are interwoven throughout the Book of Mormon are intricate, involved and, in many instances, show an understanding of Isaiah quite different from what might appear on the surface. In once instance, at least, there appears to be an intentional allusion to an understanding of Isaiah that significantly predates second temple Judaism.

But even this position shifts focus away from the issue of KJV dependence.

The fact is it is there.

Many on this board have acknowledged it.

The real question for my money is whether Joseph Smith actually opened a Bible and read out of it to the scribe.

It would seem hard to argue for a different method, given the virtual verbatim correlations, and even Sidney Sperry seems to have believed as much.

And I, along with Dr. Peterson, doubt Joseph Smith memorized it just to recite it later.

And yet, once we posit an open Bible (or even Bible pages) somewhere in the translation process, what does that do with the witnesses who avowed Joseph had nothing to assist him?

And if a Bible (or its pages) were used by Joseph and somehow escaped being mentioned by the witnesses, what else might have been used?

So, to be clear, I believe (and testify) that the Book of Mormon is true, and that it was translated by the gift and power of God.

And yet this question seems insoluble to me at present.

I believe Rob Bowman has the best of the argument, not only because he is well-versed, but also because it is a good argument against the Book of Mormon, with little to contradict it on a purely rational basis.

I've got to disagree, consig. The failure/refusal by critics of RB's ilk to engage the actual documents on their own terms, whether it be the BoM or the BoA make finding common ground illusory. How can one have a conversation about the uniquely Mormon scriptures if the one side of the conversation cannot get past production issues? They beat the production drum incessantly, and no actual conversation takes place.

Impenetrable stubbornness cannot keep up its side of a give and take.

[Daniel Peterson]

The real question for my money is whether Joseph Smith actually opened a Bible and read out of it to the scribe.

It would seem hard to argue for a different method, given the virtual verbatim correlations, and even Sidney Sperry seems to have believed as much.

But the actual direct evidence is against that.

once we posit an open Bible (or even Bible pages) somewhere in the translation process, what does that do with the witnesses who avowed Joseph had nothing to assist him?

Exactly. But you and I draw different conclusions from the question. You seem to think that the unanimous and unambiguous testimony of the witnesses on this point needs to be dismissed. I'm not inclined to agree.

And if a Bible (or its pages) were used by Joseph and somehow escaped being mentioned by the witnesses, what else might have been used?

Almost anything.

But they didn't only fail to mention the presence of a Bible. They explicitly denied it.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Here's my (highly speculative) argument, for what it's worth:

God has power to act in ways which we see as being "miraculous", because we do not yet understand the physical processes which are occurring. All "spirit" is merely some form of refined matter, therefore there really is something physical happening at levels we cannot now perceive. This is not "magical"; this is the equivalent of bringing a cellphone to an isolated preindustrial tribal village and "magically" having a transoceanic conversation with "invisible" people. God just knows how to do cooler stuff than we have the capability to do right now.

One type of "miracle" he performs which we do not currently understand is to somehow, in a sense, communicate with His children mind-to-mind. Cool stuff. Very scifi.

When Joseph was translating, he did not use a KJV. The witnesses were honest and accurate.

Yet, he was receiving a communication from God.

We do not understand the nature of this communication, as it was a subjective event which we cannot replicate in a laboratory in order to test. Evidently, people are born with different levels of "ability" in this area (Gifts of the Spirit, anyone?) - for instance, Oliver Cowdery was not able to "study it out in his mind" to the degree that Joseph was able to. (I know I sure can't, either - yet, I can hold callings in the Church without producing translations of ancient texts myself, just like most of the men called to be Prophets these days. The fact that later Prophets have not produced more "Books of Mormon" is not evidence that they receive no revelations at all - they merely come in response to different needs. Joseph needed to restore a radically different kind of Church; present-day Prophets need to hold it together. We all receive as much revelation as we need and are willing to have.)

If we blackbox the method of the transmission between God and Joseph for now and trust that some form of communication was in fact occurring, then my speculation is that God was sending something like a mental "image" of the Golden Plates into Joseph's mind (which he came to "see" with greater clarity as the work progressed, eventually making it unnecessary for him to reference the physical plates as time went on). In addition, Joseph was provided with a flow of the wordless "understanding" of the nonverbal "meaning" of what was written on the plates which he then "studied out in his mind" and formulated into serviceable English. (As Orson Scott Card wrote, not the "most beautiful" or "inerrant" book - merely the "most correct".)

(As a side note, this also accounts for the Book of Abraham and other fragments of texts. Also, I speculate that the additions made in the JST/Book of Moses are not "restorations" of material lost from the "original" texts, but rather an inspired "editing-together" of many other different lost "source texts" in order to provide a fuller account. [i confess I personally have trouble with the "inspired pseudepigrapha" apologetic approach, though it is not without merit] This is all tangential to my main point, however.)

Now. After having taken an enormous leap by assuming that all the above is even remotely within the realm of serious possibility, I submit that it is a much smaller leap to speculate that it was also possible for God to "show" Joseph a mental-image version of the text of the KJV alongside the passages in which the original words (in whatever language) are quoted in the BoM.

For whatever reason, God thought it best for Joseph to consolidate, correlate, unify, etc., the two texts. Joseph drops the KJV italics, fiddles with the text here and there, but so long as the meaning of the verses is intact and faithfully transmitted, all is well. Why do this? There could be a hundred reasons. Maybe God just wanted the readers to pay attention to the meaning of the parallel passages rather than the distracting novelty of their being expressed in slightly different vocabulary.

Conclusion:

The witnesses didn't lie; Joseph used no outside references. The Seerstone was not a magical LCD screen that Joseph merely read off of; yet the King James is quoted extensively throughout the translation.

And the Book of Mormon is still true.

[Uncertain]

Here's my (highly speculative) argument, for what it's worth:

God has power to act in ways which we see as being "miraculous", because we do not yet understand the physical processes which are occurring. All "spirit" is merely some form of refined matter, therefore there really is something physical happening at levels we cannot now perceive. This is not "magical"; this is the equivalent of bringing a cellphone to an isolated preindustrial tribal village and "magically" having a transoceanic conversation with "invisible" people. God just knows how to do cooler stuff than we have the capability to do right now.

One type of "miracle" he performs which we do not currently understand is to somehow, in a sense, communicate with His children mind-to-mind. Cool stuff. Very scifi.

When Joseph was translating, he did not use a KJV. The witnesses were honest and accurate.

Yet, he was receiving a communication from God.

We do not understand the nature of this communication, as it was a subjective event which we cannot replicate in a laboratory in order to test. Evidently, people are born with different levels of "ability" in this area (Gifts of the Spirit, anyone?) - for instance, Oliver Cowdery was not able to "study it out in his mind" to the degree that Joseph was able to. (I know I sure can't, either - yet, I can hold callings in the Church without producing translations of ancient texts myself, just like most of the men called to be Prophets these days. The fact that later Prophets have not produced more "Books of Mormon" is not evidence that they receive no revelations at all - they merely come in response to different needs. Joseph needed to restore a radically different kind of Church; present-day Prophets need to hold it together. We all receive as much revelation as we need and are willing to have.)

If we blackbox the method of the transmission between God and Joseph for now and trust that some form of communication was in fact occurring, then my speculation is that God was sending something like a mental "image" of the Golden Plates into Joseph's mind (which he came to "see" with greater clarity as the work progressed, eventually making it unnecessary for him to reference the physical plates as time went on). In addition, Joseph was provided with a flow of the wordless "understanding" of the nonverbal "meaning" of what was written on the plates which he then "studied out in his mind" and formulated into serviceable English. (As Orson Scott Card wrote, not the "most beautiful" or "inerrant" book - merely the "most correct".)

(As a side note, this also accounts for the Book of Abraham and other fragments of texts. Also, I speculate that the additions made in the JST/Book of Moses are not "restorations" of material lost from the "original" texts, but rather an inspired "editing-together" of many other different lost "source texts" in order to provide a fuller account. [i confess I personally have trouble with the "inspired pseudepigrapha" apologetic approach, though it is not without merit] This is all tangential to my main point, however.)

Now. After having taken an enormous leap by assuming that all the above is even remotely within the realm of serious possibility, I submit that it is a much smaller leap to speculate that it was also possible for God to "show" Joseph a mental-image version of the text of the KJV alongside the passages in which the original words (in whatever language) are quoted in the BoM.

For whatever reason, God thought it best for Joseph to consolidate, correlate, unify, etc., the two texts. Joseph drops the KJV italics, fiddles with the text here and there, but so long as the meaning of the verses is intact and faithfully transmitted, all is well. Why do this? There could be a hundred reasons. Maybe God just wanted the readers to pay attention to the meaning of the parallel passages rather than the distracting novelty of their being expressed in slightly different vocabulary.

Conclusion:

The witnesses didn't lie; Joseph used no outside references. The Seerstone was not a magical LCD screen that Joseph merely read off of; yet the King James is quoted extensively throughout the translation.

And the Book of Mormon is still true.

Hi JeremyOrbe-Smith,

If I may quote myself.

"We have empirical quantifiable textual evidence linking the BOM with the KJV text. It might be possible to construct convoluted ad hoc scenarios to get a KJV somewhere in the loop but not in the hands of JS but it is not necessarily easy as I argue above."

Yeah I totally called it.

Are you familiar with the parable of the dragon in my garage? Suppose I was to tell you a dragon lived in my garage. Show me you say. So I lead you to my garage but it is empty. Where's the dragon you say? Well it's an invisible dragon you can't see it. So you walk around my garage feeling at the air trying to contact it. Well I say my dragon is quite shy and light on it's feet it is simply dodging all of your attempts to feel it. Why can't I smell the dragons fiery breath you say? Good question I reply my dragon practices excellent oral hygiene using mouthwash twice a day his breath is quite unnoticeable. And so on it goes for every objection I simply invent a new reason why you can't detect my dragon in any way. The moral of the parable is that it is always possible by adding ever more elaborate and ad hoc scenarios to preserve a given claim from falsification. (The original author of this example is not me but Carl Sagan. )

Lets go back to my original example of a suspect placed at the scene of a crime by extensive empirical forensic evidence i.e.(DNA, fingerprints etc.). But who has a witness i.e.(his wife) claiming he was with her all night. Is it possible to construct ad hoc scenarios to reconcile these two contradictory claims? Sure, one can claim elaborate conspiracy involving the CIA, national security and men in black SUVs all designed to frame my poor innocent suspect. Hence the forensic evidence is perfectly compatible with witness testimony and all is well . Why then is our legal system not perpetually engaged in trying to get to the bottom of an infinite chain of ad hoc scenarios? Because doing so is a terrible way to get at the truth of what actually happened. Not all evidence is created equal. And witness testimony is far more unreliable than empirical quantifiable evidence. It is good deal more likely my witness is either mistaken or lying than it is that an elaborate conspiracy framed my suspect. If indeed all empirical quantifiable evidence places a KJV in the hands of JS and this contradicts witness testimony so much the worse for witness testimony.

Luckily we don't necessarily have this situation. I am not convinced witness testimony must be interpreted such that a KJV was never in the hands of JS during translation. I already addressed Emma's testimony what did you find unconvincing about my explanation? Or is there some other witness testimony you believe must be interpreted such that JS did not ever use a KJV during translation?

(I am busy this weekend and might not be able to reply until Monday).

Best,

Uncertain

[consiglieri]

But they didn't only fail to mention the presence of a Bible. They explicitly denied it.

Understood, Herr Professor.

I think it reasonable to accept what the actual witnesses said, especially since so many of them gave so much in support of their testimony.

In other words, I think it unlikely they would intentionally prevaricate on Joseph Smith's use of sources during the translation of the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand, the text of the Book of Mormon itself strongly suggests the use of the Bible during the translation process.

I think a faith-based answer will continue to be elusive.

But if Joseph Smith (or someone else) did not consult the Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon, are we left with the only answer that the Lord revealed the virtually verbatim text of the King James Version, for not only Isaiah, but also Malachi, Hosea, Paul and the author of Hebrews?

I would seriously like to know how you have resolved this issue if you don't mind sharing.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I've got to disagree, consig. The failure/refusal by critics of RB's ilk to engage the actual documents on their own terms, whether it be the BoM or the BoA make finding common ground illusory. How can one have a conversation about the uniquely Mormon scriptures if the one side of the conversation cannot get past production issues? They beat the production drum incessantly, and no actual conversation takes place.

Impenetrable stubbornness cannot keep up its side of a give and take.

I hear what you are saying, USU78.

I think sometimes, we may inadvertently prevent the conversation from getting past production issues by getting bogged down in what I think to be unconvincing counter-arguments.

From the other person's perspective, they don't understand why Mormons can't see the strength of their argument, but instead insist on defending the LDS view by hook or by crook.

My experience has been that if I concede the strength of this argument (while not agreeing with the critic's conclusion), this issue can then be set aside and clear the way for a discussion of the actual text.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Questing Beast]

I find it more interesting that out of the entire works of the Bible up until the departure of the Lehites from the land of Jerusalem; that it is Isaiah that was valued enough by the Lord to include in the final product that became the Book of Mormon.

Not Leviticus, not Kings, not Song of Solomon or Psalms, even Deuteronomy; but Isaiah.

Perhaps Rob would like to tell us his theory on why Joseph Smith chose those sections of Isaiah to plaugrize from the KJV. Or for that matter, why he chose to include any parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon. Are those chapters of any signifigance? Surely Rob has a brilliant theory as to why those sections, and not just that he did it.

I find it interesting that Isaiah, "second Isaiah" to be precise, was included on the "brass plates" in c. 600 BCE, when none of it was written until long after the Lehites got to the Americas.

The reason why Isaiah is included is simply because Isaiah was and is the most prophetic of all the OT books. All denominations in Joseph Smith's day were focused on Isaiah, Daniel and Revelation. Obviously only Isaiah was assumed to have predated the Lehite emigration.

The entire Isaiah content in the BoM applies to "last days" prophecy. As such it was of direct significance to Joseph Smith, whose purpose in bringing forth the BoM was to create a greater serious interest in (and devotion to) the Bible....

[USU78]

My experience has been that if I concede the strength of this argument (while not agreeing with the critic's conclusion), this issue can then be set aside and clear the way for a discussion of the actual text.

Fair 'nuff.

Except I've encountered very few critics, either home grown or foreign bred, who ever want to talk about the actual texts.

Certainly MB isn't one of those. The 3-4 who come here to discuss the BoA production issues never speak much about the text other than to throw bombs at Kolob. Where are these reasonable, interesting people who, once we "hear them" on their production issues and acknowledge their brilliance and acuity, engage us in discussion on the texts?

[USU78]

I find it interesting that Isaiah, "second Isaiah" to be precise, was included on the "brass plates" in c. 600 BCE, when none of it was written until long after the Lehites got to the Americas.

The reason why Isaiah is included is simply because Isaiah was and is the most prophetic of all the OT books. All denominations in Joseph Smith's day were focused on Isaiah, Daniel and Revelation. Obviously only Isaiah was assumed to have predated the Lehite emigration.

The entire Isaiah content in the BoM applies to "last days" prophecy. As such it was of direct significance to Joseph Smith, whose purpose in bringing forth the BoM was to create a greater serious interest in (and devotion to) the Bible....

See what I mean, consig? Here we have it: production only . . . with a strong predeliction to assume fraud. Nary a nod towards the texts. Indeed, the text itself is only interesting to our friend QB to the extent he can do (or find) a word search that gives more evidence in support of his production issues and his fraud assumptions.

[Questing Beast]

"Fraud" is such a convenient toss-away word. I have nowhere asserted fraud. If the BoM is fraud, the Bible predates it by hundreds and thousands of years. Both books are scripture, or else there is no such thing. Your definition of scripture is bound to differ with mine or another one's. My definition is more broad than "miraculous". In fact, I don't believe in "miraculous", as in paranormal or supernatural. "God" is not supernatural or paranormal: the very idea is illogical.

If Joseph Smith claimed angels and theophanies, I would only claim fraud if the evidence of his life showed his claims to be untrue. But he suffered quite enough difficulty and finally death to show that he believed in his claims of "divine revelation". It is the content; the end result, of his doctrines that I have difficulty with. If taken to their logical and inevitable culmination, "plural marriage" as he practiced it meant multiple wives and husbands all around, i.e. NO sexual morality whatsoever as I understand it, either here or in "heaven". That, and the "one way or the highway" brand of Judeo-Christian "salvation" is simply not on offer: "God" is not that narrow. And Mormonism is more insistent on the "one way" than most denominations....