Joseph Copied Parts Of The Book Of Mormon From The Kjv Bible (Church Source)

[tagriffy]

You may be correct and I may be just mixing up what Emma said about him with what his mother said.

There is indeed evidence that he had some interaction with the Bible...such as his appeal to James. I don't see it as likely that was the first time he sat down with a Bible either. It makes sense that he would appeal to the Bible when in the debate on what was the church of God on earth to find out what that church should look like. He couldn't have come to the various judgments he made beforehand if he hadn't (in one version he states, IIRC, that he had decided no church he knew of matched the NT description).

So the question for me is how familiar was he, was he familiar enough to identify scripture references, was it a photographic memory and was this evidence that he had read Isaiah and other parts of the Bible referenced in the BoM or was he at least familiar enough with scriptural language to recognize that something was scripture and then appeal in J Green's scenario to a copy of the Bible through the Spirit or in others' scenario to one that was on hand or was it whatever was giving him the language that was the source....or something else.

My inclination is to think Joseph had far more familiarity with the Bible than he would be given credit for even by his contemporaries. He grew up with it, probably learned to read with it, it suffused the very cultural atmosphere. I don't think he would have needed a photographic memory to do what he did with the Bible in writing the Book of Mormon. Mike made a statement earlier in this thread that I thought was very impressive:

That seems reasonable to me. We should remember that the BOM was translated in the language of JSs day. I don't know whether or not he had long passages of the KJV memorized or not but my understanding is that he had been brought up with the KJV being his primary if not only reading material. Remember we are told in D&C 84;85 ..." treasure up in your minds continually the words of life' date=' and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meeted unto every man." So it seems reasonable to me that that which he had "treasured up" throughout his life would be brought to the forefront when the various KJV passages provided the best "translation" to what he was seeing in the plates![/quote']

This would certainly be a good explanation of why so much of the KJV showed up in the BOM, and may partly explain some of the differences between, say KJV Isaiah and BOM

[tagriffy]

This would certainly be a good explanation of why so much of the KJV showed up in the BOM, and may partly explain some of the differences between, say KJV Isaiah and BOM Isaiah.

(Sorry. I hit the wrong button and accidently posted before I meant to.)

[canard78]

There is wide agreement among NT scholars that the Sermon on the Mount is a literary creation of Matthew, who basically took various unrelated sayings attributed to Jesus (mostly drawn from the sayings source Q) and arranged them in his own composition, supplying his own wording where necessary. On this view, while the historical Jesus probably did say a number of the things that appear in the sermon (or something roughly similar), he never spoke the words of the Sermon on the Mount as a single, unified discourse. The Sermon on the Mount didn't exist in history until Matthew created it.

If you're interested, I'll start a separate thread on this topic. This one is going downhill fast.

By the way, I'd be interested in a new thread but these comments are also welcome and pertinent here. It's entirely the point that the KVJ can be shown to not be the original words said my Jesus and the disciples. The idea that Mormon also happened to record the same words is ludicrous.

It's simple the KVJ words are just that. The KJV words. Whether God inspired it or Joseph defaulted to it or straight up copied it is still open. But they're the words of the Bible and carries over the 'as far as it is translated correctly issues.'

[canard78]

Cal, this may be true, but then why are we not being taught this? Sometimes I wonder if I attend the same church as the rest of you. I have been in the church for over 30 years rarely missing a Sunday, grew up in a very active family in the heart of Utah, attended seminary/institute, served a mission, MIT, and I have always been taught that they reason for the large plates was because God in his infinite wisdom knew the 116 plates would be lost so he had Lehi and his family create a second set. It's the same with the JST, I have always been taught that it was an inspired translation that JS used to correct the mistakes of the Bible.

This doesn't even begin to get into the many other discrepancies between what I learn here as opposed to what I learn in church or conference regarding pre-Jaradites/Nephites/Lamanites on the American continent, seer stone in the hat, JS papyri being used as a catalyst, etc...but I guess that's for another thread.

Weren't the small plates a prep for the loss of the 116 pages? Mormon compiled off the large plates and then added the small ones as an 'afterthought.' The whole issue of 116 pages (where Joseph had reached when they were lost which perfectly overlaps with the galloped summary at the end of Omni & WoM so the otherwise out of context opening to Mosiah makes sense).

[omni]

Weren't the small plates a prep for the loss of the 116 pages? Mormon compiled off the large plates and then added the small ones as an 'afterthought.' The whole issue of 116 pages (where Joseph had reached when they were lost which perfectly overlaps with the galloped summary at the end of Omni & WoM so the otherwise out of context opening to Mosiah makes sense).

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. It's been a long day and my brain is tired.

[Calm]

His comments suggest that he read it quite carefully.

I will have to reformat my ideas then...he is probably the best authority on his interests, after all.

Either way, his recall is impressive.

Hadn't thought of that, good point. Edited May 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[guerreiro9]

Take pause and reflect on what you're really saying. Link together the thoughts you're giving voice to and see if it makes sense. You're saying that an expression, used in the Eastern Orthodox priest liturgy but that wasn't used in the Greek Bible text, that was written many, many years (30 to 70 years) after the death of Christ, a piece of text that gets lost or taken away, then somehow gets re-added to the text and then confirmed by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon? It wasn't written down originally due to oversight, human error or incorrect memories but then gets found again after someone, somewhere, thinks it fits better in the text?

Or is it not simpler to say that Joseph Smith had the King Jame's version readily available and used the same text copied from that version?

If that is what you think I said then I have not explained my thoughts very clearly.

Let me list the assumptions as I see them and hopefully I will communicate more clearly this time.

1) Jesus lived near Jerusalem and sometime around the year 30 CE (approximate) he instructed people how to pray (probably multiple times).

2) Sometime later the teachings of Jesus were written, eventually being written by a person named Matthew (Presumably).

3) The writings of Matthew were circulated, and copied multiple times.

4) At some point between 325-350 CE (estimate) what is now known as Codex Vaticanus was written. Codex Vaticanus contains the earliest extant copy of Matthew containing the Saviors instructions on how to pray. It does not contain the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen"

5) At some point near 400 CE (estimate, probably completed earlier) what is now known as Codex Washingtonensis (Washingtonianus) was written. The copy of Matthew's writings in this codex do contain the phrase above known as the doxology.

6) The doxology was in use among Christians from an early period, most likely predating the Codex Vaticanus, we simply do not have any extant copies of Matthew's writing from this period. The didache which is estimated to have been originally written between 40-60 CE contains a nearly identical form of the doxology.

7) John Chrysostom (347-407 CE) goes to great lengths to explain the writings of Matthew (as transmitted to him) in his Homily 19 on Matthew. He spends several paragraphs explaining the doxology. Whatever copy of Matthew he had in his possession, it was not Codex Vaticanus, nor was it Codex Washingtonensis. It could have been a contemporary of theirs or it could have been something older. Whatever it was, it did contain the Doxology

So let's recap what we know.

Codex Vaticanus does not contain the doxology. Does this imply that Jesus never taught the doxology? No. Does this imply that no copies of Matthew ever contained the doxology? No. What does it imply then? All we can say definitively is that this particular copy of Matthew does not contain the doxology.

Was the doxology in use by Christians before the Codex Vaticanus was written? The evidence suggests yes, but we cannot say this definitively. What can we say then? We can say that the copy of Matthew contained in Codex Washingtonensis included the doxology. We can also say that the copy of Matthew used by John Chrysostom contained the doxology and that it probably predated the Codex Washingtonensis.

The claim by Johnnie Cake that the doxology was never a part of the writings of Matthew until the King James Version in the 1700s is false (as acknowledged by Johnnie Cake). It is included in some of the earliest extant copies of Christian writing. The fact that it is not included in Codex Vaticanus (or Codex Sinaiticus) does not imply that is was not taught by Jesus while in Jerusalem or while in the Americas. All that it implies is that these particular copies did not contain the phrase.

Again, I see no problem here. I understand why people choose to believe that Joseph Smith simply copied the King James version, but this is not the only plausible explanation.

-guerreiro9

Edited May 30, 2013 by guerreiro9

[Damien the Leper]

I have long been interested by the presence of so much of the 17thC KJV of the Old and New Testament in the Bible. In addition to obvious Isaiah quotes we also have extensive verbatim quotes from the New Testament. I wrote a long post about the problems of Mormon 9 borrowing from Mark 16 given the latter is considered a 2ndC tag-on by a scribe: (you also have Nephi quoting Peter and the entire Sermon on the Mount, including identical 'narrators' words).

I was reading one of the sources from why me in the 'hidden history' thread and read this from an Ensign article:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

Given how 'loose' the translation of the rest of the BoM seems to have been I would agree that the best explanation for large chunks of the KJV in the BoM is that they were read straight out of it during the translation/dictation process.

If this is what happened, I wonder if Oliver was aware of him doing this and Joseph explained that he was testing the wording by the spirit (as suggested above) or whether he did it out of sight/memorised in advance.

It also presents the issue of him first quoting from the KJV but later correcting it with the JST, but not updating the same wording in the BoM.

There hasn't been a reasonable response on this matter. I refuse to give any room to plausible deniability. This is a serious issue that the church must face. The tired argument of why would God have anything different to say flies in the face of modern revelation claims. There will have to be a more solid answer for these questions. The translation and transmission process is far from exactly how church history and the church reports.

[Questing Beast]

Well, this thread has certainly kept my attention all the way through! And what else is new? The Church's version of its own history is no different than those histories created by Muslims or Catholics, et al. every religion on the planet, where the miraculous aspects obscure the commonplace and the personality of the founder. Try and get to what/who JS really was. Try the same with Muhammad, or Jesus Christ for that matter. Good luck....

[guerreiro9]

So neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon contain the actual words of Christ. Just a writer's (and later translators) interpretation of them. And yet both these processes throw up an (almost) identical rendition of those original sermons?

Umm... How?

Correct! Neither the King James Version of the Bible (or any version of the bible) nor the English translation of the Book of Mormon contain the actual words of Christ. They do however contain the teachings of Christ. When a translation is made from one language to another the words are not translated directly (unless it is a horrible translation) the meaning of the words is translated.

This is always done today, and it was always done anciently. One example I can think of off the top of my head is the Spanish phrase "Con el dinero baila el perro." If this was translated into English word for word it would read "With the money dances the dog." which is meaningless in English. It is usually translated as "With money, anything is possible" which has nothing to do with dogs or dancing but translates the meaning very nicely. This is not the only way I could translate this phrase. I could just as correctly translate it as "You can do anything with enough money." A lot of the "art" of translation also takes into account the context in which a phrase was said to render the translation. If the phrase was said in a lower class environment it might be translated as "We rule this joint with enough dough". If the phrase was said in a higher class environment it might be translated as "With enough money the world is your oyster." Those were cheesy phrases, but I think you understand my point.

Which brings us to the English translation of the Book of Mormon. The context behind this translation was that it needed to properly convey the teachings of Christ and it needed to use language indicative of scripture. In Joseph Smith's time the language of scripture was the King James Version of the Bible. Could the Book of Mormon have been translated into English as used by rural farmers? Of course, but the context would have been all wrong and it would not have conveyed the meaning as well. I don't think we should be surprised that many of the same phrases that were used to translate the Saviors teachings into English in the King James Version of the Bible were also used to translate the same teachings, by the same person, into the same language, in the same context in the Book of Mormon.

That's how I would have done the translation. That's how I do it now. Whenever I speak of religious things in another language I tend to use that language's equivalent of thees and thous, because to me, as to Joseph Smith that is the language of scripture.

As I said above, I understand why people choose to believe that Joseph Smith simply copied the King James Version, but that is not the only plausible explanation.

-guerreiro9

Edited May 30, 2013 by guerreiro9

[mrmendoza]

There hasn't been a reasonable response on this matter. I refuse to give any room to plausible deniability. This is a serious issue that the church must face. The tired argument of why would God have anything different to say flies in the face of modern revelation claims. There will have to be a more solid answer for these questions. The translation and transmission process is far from exactly how church history and the church reports.

I don't think that the Church "must face" any such thing! Nor does there "have to be a more solid answer for these questions"!

While these are interesting distractions, they only become problematic for those who feel that The Lord has to reveal all things now before they can accept what has already been revealed! If we are faithful to what we already know, the Lord will reveal,"in His own due time" how all things were done.

In the mean time, as I said these things might be interesting distractions and speculations, and yes they may be problematic, for those with weak faith, but that is why we're told time and again, how to stay strong in the faith; through prayer,scripture study, and keeping the commandments! I suppose that that's just to simple for some.

Mike

[canard78]

The scriptures are full of inaccuracies, but I suspect even erroneous, compromised scripture can still serve God's purposes. Brigham Young seemed to think so:

"Revelations, when they have passed from God to man, and from man into his written and printed language, cannot be said to be entirely perfect, though they may be as perfect as possible under the circumstances; they are perfect enough to answer the purposes of Heaven at this time. . . . When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. . . . Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation." (

JD

9:310-311)

Awesome quote. I think that fits well with my perspective on what and why scripture 'is.'

I often wonder where this continues though. We get talks and articles that are very relevant to our life and day and tend to be commentary on existing scripture.

What about ongoing scripture and other people publishing thei record of Christ's vist:

Moreover, still "other sheep," a third group—neither of Jerusalem nor the Americas—heard Jesus' voice and were visited by Him. (See 3 Nephi 16:1-4; 17:4; 18:27.) Will there be an additional or third group of convincing and witnessing scriptures? Yes! Will the lost Ten Tribes—those of ancient Israel who did not remain with Judah, as well as a portion of Benjamin—bring their own records and scriptures? Yes! And eventually, by three scriptural witnesses, the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth will be finally established.

Plain and Precious Things

by Neal A. Maxwell

Chapter 2

(Having read the entirety of that chapter this morning I feel somewhat rebuked. Elder Maxwell had some strong words to say about those who question the Book of Mormon. Maybe this is God's humour/Abrahamic test/measure of faith. The ability to see things that don't make any logical sense and believe it anyway. I find that difficult to accept as a teaching method. I wouldn't expect a perfect parent to be like that. He wants us to 'become' something in the refiners fire... Not test our breaking point. )

[mrmendoza]

Correct! Neither the King James Version of the Bible (or any version of the bible) nor the English translation of the Book of Mormon contain the actual words of Christ. They do however contain the teachings of Christ. When a translation is made from one language to another the words are not translated directly (unless it is a horrible translation) the meaning of the words is translated.

This is always done today, and it was always done anciently. One example I can think of off the top of my head is the Spanish phrase "Con el dinero baila el perro." If this was translated into English word for word it would read "With the money dances the dog." which is meaningless in English. It is usually translated as "With money, anything is possible" which has nothing to do with dogs or dancing but translates the meaning very nicely. This is not the only way I could translate this phrase. I could just as correctly translate it as "You can do anything with enough money." A lot of the "art" of translation also takes into account the context in which a phrase was said to render the translation. If the phrase was said in a lower class environment it might be translated as "We rule this joint with enough dough". If the phrase was said in a higher class environment it might be translated as "With enough money the world is your oyster." Those were cheesy phrases, but I think you understand my point.

Which brings us to the English translation of the Book of Mormon. The context behind this translation was that it needed to properly convey the teachings of Christ and it needed to use language indicative of scripture. In Joseph Smith's time the language of scripture was the King James Version of the Bible. Could the Book of Mormon have been translated into English as used by rural farmers? Of course, but the context would have been all wrong and it would not have conveyed the meaning as well. I don't think we should be surprised that many of the same phrases that were used to translate the Saviors teachings into English in the King James Version of the Bible were also used to translate the same teachings, by the same person, into the same language, in the same context in the Book of Mormon.

That's how I would have done the translation. That's how I do it now. Whenever I speak of religious things in another language I tend to use that language's equivalent of thees and thous, because to me, as to Joseph Smith that is the language of scripture.

-guerreiro9

Makes sense to me! A true translation can only give the translators views of the meaning of the origanal, not a word for word transliteration!

Mike

[Robert F. Smith]

Isn't speculation the same as not arriving at a conclusion? Skousen observes 16th century English phraseology no longer extant in JS's milieu, and speculates what that means, even offers a tentative opinion. I didn't see a conclusive explanation for the archaisms JS used....

I don't offer a conclusive explanation either. I was simply correcting your false statement about what Royal Skousen has been saying in several public venues. What he has been saying needs to be verified by actual detailed investigation of all published works in English prior to publication of the Book of Mormon. One probably also ought to examine manuscript evidence, but most of it hasn't been digitized, making a check for such words & phrases very arduous and time-consuming.

[Robert F. Smith]

There hasn't been a reasonable response on this matter. I refuse to give any room to plausible deniability. This is a serious issue that the church must face. The tired argument of why would God have anything different to say flies in the face of modern revelation claims. There will have to be a more solid answer for these questions. The translation and transmission process is far from exactly how church history and the church reports.

The real question here is, If there were a reasonable response, would you accept it? Do you in fact point to an authentic disjuncture between "exactly" what Church history and reports (whatever they are) say and the actual translation & transmission process? You demand "solid" and exact answers in an inexact world, and thus display the fallacious approach to what you term "a serious issue." Why don't you treat it with seriousness then, instead of taking the by-gosh-and-by-golly approach?

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree with Ellen, with no distractions like we have now,it's amazing what people in his era were able to do. I even think he could have channeled things from HF and made up stories to go along, sort of like parables. The gal that wrote Harry Potter was amazing wasn't she? Couldn't JS have done the same thing? I'm sure he may have been inspired to set things straight. People during that time desired answers and what better way than through JS, that took the time to ask and asked in faith. People are always saying there is no way a farm boy with such a low education could have written the BoM. Joseph had a library, he also had plenty of time to read several books that align closely with the BoM. Sometimes God needs his children to do things for him, well most of the time his work is done with our hands, right? Still on the fence about the church and my up and down testimony attests to it, but if I'm going to believe in the church again, that's the way I would have to look at it.

ETA: Oh Cal, is that true that JS hardly ever read? Or is it possible that later in life he devoured books, there was a long time in between the time he said he got the plates to the time he produced the BoM.

So Joseph had a personal library? Or are you referring to the Manchester Public Library? And what about the "plenty of time" he had to read books which "align closely with the BoM." Where do we know this? Which books are you speaking about?

He may have spent a good deal of time reading in Nauvoo, but we have no evidence that "he devoured books" before his translation of the Book of Mormon. That all borders on pure poppycock. Even his wife didn't believe it and said so. Looking over the few handwritten documents which Joseph produced from his early years leaves one with the definite impression that he couldn't spell or write coherently, and he used no punctuation.

[canard78]

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. It's been a long day and my brain is tired.

No worries, my message was garbled. You'd been talking about the large plates being prepared to 'fix' the 116 pages issue. I'm fairly sure it was the other way round.

Joseph translated from Mormon's account on the large plates up to Mosiah (including, according to Skousen, the first 2 chapters of Mosiah). He then lost the 116 pages and the plates went AWOL for a year. (ETA: Cal has kindly challenged this one. It's 9 months from Jun 28 when pages are lost and Apr 29 when Joseph & Oliver start translation. The plates were taken in Jul 28 and returned Sep 28)

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Chronology

He's then believed to have picked up with Oliver from Mosiah and translated through Moroni and only then translated the small plates which contain Nephi-Omni, finishing with the Words of Mormon. I'm still looking for a good reference for this but am confident I've read it few times in 'supportive' books/websites.

It doesn't quite fit with the words of Mormon though as he says on the one hand he has finished and is about to give the plates to his son Moroni (so the large plates have been finished). Having explained this he then says he will 'proceed to finish' the plates and goes into an explanation about Amaleki and King Benjamin. So he got to the end of the Large plates compilation and then just before calling it a wrap he added in the small plates (uncondensed) -inserted after Amaleki or at the back of the plates??

It's impressive that the translation had stopped and Martin's wife asked and Joseph repeatedly prayed until persuading God to let the 116 pages be shown at the very moment in the plates where the large plates were about to transition into the second half of the large plates and where Mormon had decided to insert the small plates. Small plates which 1000 years before Mormon's abridgement had been started by Nephi as a 'second journal' but still right from the beginning of their exit from Jerusalem and continued to be maintained right through a whole group of 'non-writer' generations and was finally wrapped up as a document and handed not to the next Lehite generation but to King Benjamin who tucked away for about 600 years or so for Mormon to discover in the archives and add in.

If your head hurt before, mine does now.

Edited May 30, 2013 by canard78

[Calm]

Not test our breaking point.

Maybe what we think of as our breaking point really isn't. Maybe one of the reasons God has this approach is to teach us we aren't as limited as we think we are, that we are much, much more if we would just let go of our prejudices and expectations about ourselves and see ourselves as He sees us..

[Calm]

Looking over the few handwritten documents which Joseph produced from his early years leaves one with the definite impression that he couldn't spell or write coherently, and he used no punctuation.

I have been told by educators that people's spelling and grammar is most affected by how much they read, it is as much if not more of what they see other people doing as what they have been personally taught about rules. I don't know if this is accurate, but in many cases I have found it to be accurate...those with poor spelling and grammar have been poor readers as well, those who were good at these things, read extensively.

[Calm]

He then lost the 116 pages and the plates went AWOL for a year..

Was it for a whole year!? Sheesh, I really need to pay more attention to dates in my reading, I am always thinking things took less or more time than they did.

[Calm]

Small plates which 1000 years before Mormon's abridgement had been started by Nephi as a 'second journal' but still right from the beginning of their exit from Jerusalem and continued to be maintained right through a whole group of 'non-writer' generations and was finally wrapped up as a document and handed not to the next Lehite generation but to King Benjamin who tucked away for about 600 years or so for Mormon to discover in the archives and add in.

If your head hurt before, mine does now.

I assume that this issue is not that Nephi chose to begin at the beginning when describing the spiritual highlights of his and his people's lives, but rather where it ended as well as the bit from Mormon?

[Calm]

No worries, my message was garbled. You'd been talking about the large plates being prepared to 'fix' the 116 pages issue. I'm fairly sure it was the other way round.

Joseph translated from Mormon's account on the large plates up to Mosiah (including, according to Skousen, the first 2 chapters of Mosiah). He then lost the 116 pages and the plates went AWOL for a year.

He's then believed to have picked up with Oliver from Mosiah and translated through Moroni and only then translated the small plates which contain Nephi-Omni, finishing with the Words of Mormon. I'm still looking for a good reference for this but am confident I've read it few times in 'supportive' books/websites.

Is this sufficient: https://www.lds.org/new-era/2012/09/the-book-of-mormon-from-plates-to-press?lang=eng

Also here in more detail: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=426

Edited May 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

Why is Joseph being inspired to use the wording of Mark 16 when that passage of scripture has no origin in the original. What is essentially a made up summary of what happens later in Acts finds its way into the 'fullness of the gospel' with promises of snakes and poison.

Help me. Your question is based on assumptions. Where is JS using this passage? Provide proof that "it was not in the original." I assume you have access to Mark's original manuscript.

I apologize if you have already provided those answers.

Edited May 30, 2013 by cdowis

[Vance]

Yes, how right you are. We do not have the original writings.

<SNIP>

From these Greek scriptures, neither Luke nor Matthew first included the doxology ending to the Lord's prayer.

Again, you are making a statement as fact that can NOT be known, (by your own admission).

[cdowis]

I'll buy your explanation if you can find similar "training wheels" in the life of Jesus, President McKay or President Monson. Where did any of these three (and I could name many more) practice to become the persons they turned out to be, by testing their skills with mystic or magical or suspicious or simply, hard to believe, methodologies? I know Jesus was put on trial, but no one called into question his healing of the sick or lame. I can't recall President Monson being on trial for anything, do you? I cannot recall President McKay ever doing anything that was considered below his title, at least not something that he talked about in conference, do you?

Each person has their own lessons to learn depending on their individual needs and the requirements of the church at that time. The "training wheels" do not have to be identical.

One of the major accomplishments of the church is the printing of the new editions of the scriptures, and Pres. Monson's lessons were regarding the printing trade. He played a major role in that new edition of the scriptures. He did not need to go to jail.