What Are The Critical Arguments For The Production Of The Plates?

[Robert F. Smith]

If the manuscripts that you mention were corrupt, why is the KJV so widely quoted in the BoM? And if there were errors in the KJV is it possible that these errors were transported to the BoM, if so why didn't Joseph Smith correct them when he was revising the bible, which I believe he did without the benefit of having access to the original manuscripts?

As Mason pointed out, the Brass Plates frequently have a better, more archaic text that the Massoretic Hebrew tradition (which the KJV and its predecessors represent).  Many of the most knowledgeable LDS scholars believe that Joseph utilized a copy of the KJV when he came to long quotes from Isaiah and other biblical prophets.  The circumstantial evidence presses us to that conclusion.

 

As to the non-canonical biblical revisions by Joseph and Sidney Rigdon, surely you are aware that Alexander Campbell, Thomas Jefferson, and others, were doing pretty much the same thing in preparing their own biblical revisions.  Joseph had Oliver purchase an 1828 Phinney KJV Bible at Grandin's Bookstore, and that is what he and Rigdon used to make a variety of unsystematic clarifications and revisions to the Bible.  Aside from the extraordinary revelations of the Book of Moses, and of part of Matthew, these are simply non-canonical suggestions as to how the Bible might better be read.  Joseph and Sidney ought to be entitled to their opinions.

[cdowis]

 

 

Spiritual eyes could merely be an imaginative process identified as spiritual seeing.  It really isn't that complicated to understand.  There was all sorts of highly imaginative experiments of consciousness and spiritual seeing going on at the time.  I disagree with Dan, as I believe that they saw plates... but I do so for different reasons than you present.  I don't think that my thesis undermines his argument in any significant way.  Our theses merely propose different theories and cite different evidence.  I don't think it is an open and shut case in the slightest, and I am perplexed as to why you find Dan's thesis so faulty. It is perfectly reasonable... especially since it gives a natural explanation, and does not rely on supernatural assumptions.

 

You are contradicting yourself -- either it has ONLY one definition (assumption), or it can mean different things.  An award winning historian should, at the very least, attempt to define it according to his quoted source, and then clearly show that he is using another meaning in the analysis.

 

OR, you can be a cheap purveyor of propaganda, and use the juvenile technique of defining a word differently from your source, and **pretending** that the meaning is the same as your source.

 

Vogel gives us a wink and a nod that we *really* know what is meant, as you say, "it really is not that complicated".

 

He then moves from the three witnesses and then uses this phrase in reference to the eight witnesses, even though it was a very different experience.  NEVER was this phrase used by anyone except himself to describe the the eight  witness experience.  He becomes his own source!!

 

Dan and I have discussed this at length, and have given no satisfactory answer.  Why don't you just let him explain it himself, rather than stumbling around trying to justify his credentials.

 

He can speak for himself.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2013 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

Again, evidence for what? Joseph Smiths attempt to sell the copyright?  I posted the Hiram Page quote, and there are many others. Based on your statements, apparently only Mormon "Scholars" are the only historians who are able to intereperate mormon history. I don't need to be a "Historian with professional training in interpereting historical documents", in order to read the accounts of say Joseph Smith soliciting Sarah Whitney for sex while Emma was out of town, pretty easy to interperet. Or say a statement from a close associate, who went on the actual trip to try and sell the copyright, namely Hiram Page, when he says that Joseph Smith was trying to sell the copyright for money. It demonstrates behaviour that makes sense later in his life...IE: Illegal Bank, illegal destruction of a printing press etc.

 

On the flip side, these so called scholars, who are the only ones able to apparently tell us what mormon historical documents say, according to you, would those happen to be mormons with a pre-concieved belief system, who's interest is in aggrandizing the church and Joseph Smith? Hmmmm

One prominent non-Mormon reviewer of Fawn Brodie titled his review "By Sex Obsessed."  Mike Quinn talked about her bitterness as one of the motivating factors in how she approached historiography.  Since she had not been trained in history (she had a masters in English), she bungled a good many parts of her biographies of Joseph Smith and Thomas Jefferson -- committing most of the same elementary errors in each.

 

Vituperative anger and sexual obsession will get us only so far in evaluating Joseph Smith.  I think that a more professional and dispassionate approach it called for.  Don't you, iriemon?  Or, are you too angry to see it that way?

[Robert F. Smith]

I remember someone mentioning that recently a forensic audit was conducted of the financial records for the Banking Society.  Didn't get the details, only that Joseph Smith was cleared of any misconduct.

 

Perhaps someone can give us a reference to that study.

 

The history of that time period is very interesting.  Banks were allowed to issue their own currency.  I understand this was before the Federal Reserve was established.

In addition to which, unlike modern bankers who get bailed out by taxpayers, Joseph reimbursed all his creditors from that banking Panic of 1837.  That's what an honest man does.  Today, dishonest bankers not only don't bother to make it right, but they don't even go to jail.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

No he wasn't.  He was a avid historian, specializing in the ancient middle east.  He spent most of his time in the Palmyra library studying Hebrew, Egyptian and Akkadian languages, culture and geography.

 

Between his studies, treasure digging, court trials, and writing pious fiction, he had very little time for farming

C'mon, cdowis!!  You know he was a child prodigy who spent his time at Harvard College, while supposedly recuperating at his uncle Jesse's place in Salem, Mass (ostensibly there to recuperate from leg surgery).  Five generations of Smiths had lived in Massachusetts.  Joseph not only got admitted due to his incredible intellectual capacity, but he was also a "legacy."

The later "awe shucks", farm boy stuff was merely a cover.

He went back later (again ostensibly to Salem to find "treasure") to complete his doctorate at Harvard, as reading between the lines of D&C 111 proves:

D&C 111

4And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; . . .

..............  

7 Tarry in this place, and in the regions round about;

 

8 And the place where it is my will that you should tarry, for the main, shall be signalized unto you by the peace and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you.

.......................................

10 For there are more treasures than one for you in this city.

 

Dan Vogel is right!!  The Restoration was coming out of the environmental "woodwork" and Joseph was right on top of it!

Edited September 15, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

You don't understand my position at all. Since I believe the evidence shows that the eight witnesses saw the plates with spiritual eyes, it was unnecessary for JS to make plates to pass visual inspection. The whole idea that no one could see them but only feel them through the cloth was for that very reason. Does it make any sense for JS not to let his family see the plates? No. JS therefore need only to make plates that could be felt through the cloth. It would have been easy to cut out plates from tin or iron, punch three holes along one edge, and then bend iron rods into rings.

Especially if he could find a local Kinkos Copy Center.  They are pretty good at three-hole punch and binding for a reasonable fee..

[MormonMason]

If the manuscripts that you mention were corrupt, why is the KJV so widely quoted in the BoM? And if there were errors in the KJV is it possible that these errors were transported to the BoM, if so why didn't Joseph Smith correct them when he was revising the bible, which I believe he did without the benefit of having access to the original manuscripts?

 

It is so widely quoted because it formed the vocabulary of Joseph Smith.  He grew up on the Bible.  The verbiage would have been embedded deeply in his mind.  He also did not have to have a book with him to be able to read it.  According to one non-Mormon, Joseph demonstrated the ability to read a book with his back to it by putting his face into a hat and looking at a stone.

 

There are those among us who are of the opinion that Joseph Smith must have used a Bible to quote from when he got to biblical passages on the plates, because of the closeness of the phraseology.  If there were a Bible in use for this purpose, it would be little different from translators of other texts in the 19th Century.

 

Many translators, including those who were actual linguists in the 19th Century, often used the King James Version to translate biblical quotes in early Christian and other texts.  If you want to see a really good example of that, just read through the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  You will see many biblical quotes that read almost word-for-word like the King James Bible.  And we know that the King James Bible did not exist in early Christian times.

 

However, a serious problem with any theory that claims that Joseph Smith used a Bible to do this is that Joseph Smith did not have a Bible during the time he was translating the Book of Mormon.  He did not purchase one until October of 1829.  Another problem is that Joseph pulled a hat over his face during translation.  Even if he had a Bible, how would he read it with a hat pulled over his face? The only times he got hold of a Bible was when they weren't translating and were attempting to settle a dispute, and that had to be borrowed from a neighbor down the road and returned.

 

But, in the case of Isaiah passages of the KJV quoted in the Book of Mormon, the passages were mostly "close enough for government" so to speak.  But, if you compare the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon line-by-line with that King James Version, you will see that many of the verses (more than half) do not read identically to the King James Version and are not exact quotes.  In some cases, there are substantial differences in text.

 

Some of these modifications have been seen in other Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah.  Some have not.  In other cases, one of which I showed above in a previous post, there are differences that only could have arisen from accidental modifications of a Hebrew text, either in what would become the Masoretic text or in the text that formed the exemplar of the Brass Plates version of Isaiah which Nephi quoted.  To be able to make a modification that reads in English one way with slight modifications to the Hebrew as the underlying cause, particularly when Joseph did not know Hebrew at that time and would have had no way of knowing that his modification would work even though it does, is pretty amazing.  See my post above where I discuss one of these examples here.

 

Now, in the case of the the Matthew passages that appear in the Book of Mormon, the same applies.  Those quotes are not a slavish copy or exact quotation of KJV Matthew verses.  In addition, there are subtle differences that occur in the Book of Mormon version that fit better with the culture of the Nephites rather than that of the Middle East.  You will notice such differences as senine vs. farthing, the fact that there is no mention of scribes and Pharisees, and so forth.  You will also notice other differences in vocabulary, particularly if you can read Greek.  One instance of this is that the version of the Sermon on the Mount that occurs in the Book of Mormon carries a more spiritual sense than that in the King James Version, such as the difference between pleroō and chortazō (the KJV rendering is based on Greek referring to "being filled to satisfaction" as in having the stomach filled).  The Book of Mormon version, however, makes reference to being filled with the Spirit.

 

In addition, a number of the biblical passages quoted in the Book of Mormon that people say contain KJV errors that wouldn't be there unless Joseph just slavishly copied the Bible, actually are disputed and can be taken either way, depending upon how you wish to render the translation.  One such example is in the passage where Joseph Smith uses "defence," as does the KJV, whereas modern versions use canopy.  Is that really a translation error, or just a matter of semantics? The "canopy" involved is from the context a protective shelter or covering.  Some Hebrew lexicons actually put "defence" as definition 1 or as one of the definitions of the underlying Hebrew word.

 

 

In other words, "defence" is adequate enough a functional translation and not really an error.  There are many examples I could give had I were home with my books and had I the time to put my notes together.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is so widely quoted because it formed the vocabulary of Joseph Smith.  He grew up on the Bible.  The verbiage would have been embedded deeply in his mind.  He also did not have to have a book with him to be able to read it.  According to one non-Mormon, Joseph demonstrated the ability to read a book with his back to it by putting his face into a hat and looking at a stone.

 

There are those among us who are of the opinion that Joseph Smith must have used a Bible to quote from when he got to biblical passages on the plates, because of the closeness of the phraseology.  If there were a Bible in use for this purpose, it would be little different from translators of other texts in the 19th Century.

 

Many translators, including those who were actual linguists in the 19th Century, often used the King James Version to translate biblical quotes in early Christian and other texts.  If you want to see a really good example of that, just read through the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  You will see many biblical quotes that read almost word-for-word like the King James Bible.  And we know that the King James Bible did not exist in early Christian times.

 

However, a serious problem with any theory that claims that Joseph Smith used a Bible to do this is that Joseph Smith did not have a Bible during the time he was translating the Book of Mormon.  He did not purchase one until October of 1829.  Another problem is that Joseph pulled a hat over his face during translation.  Even if he had a Bible, how would he read it with a hat pulled over his face? The only times he got hold of a Bible was when they weren't translating and were attempting to settle a dispute, and that had to be borrowed from a neighbor down the road and returned.

 

But, in the case of Isaiah passages of the KJV quoted in the Book of Mormon, the passages were mostly "close enough for government" so to speak.  But, if you compare the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon line-by-line with that King James Version, you will see that many of the verses (more than half) do not read identically to the King James Version and are not exact quotes.  In some cases, there are substantial differences in text.

 

Some of these modifications have been seen in other Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah.  Some have not.  In other cases, one of which I showed above in a previous post, there are differences that only could have arisen from accidental modifications of a Hebrew text, either in what would become the Masoretic text or in the text that formed the exemplar of the Brass Plates version of Isaiah which Nephi quoted.  To be able to make a modification that reads in English one way with slight modifications to the Hebrew as the underlying cause, particularly when Joseph did not know Hebrew at that time and would have had no way of knowing that his modification would work even though it does, is pretty amazing.  See my post above where I discuss one of these examples here.

 

Now, in the case of the the Matthew passages that appear in the Book of Mormon, the same applies.  Those quotes are not a slavish copy or exact quotation of KJV Matthew verses.  In addition, there are subtle differences that occur in the Book of Mormon version that fit better with the culture of the Nephites rather than that of the Middle East.  You will notice such differences as senine vs. farthing, the fact that there is no mention of scribes and Pharisees, and so forth.  You will also notice other differences in vocabulary, particularly if you can read Greek.  One instance of this is that the version of the Sermon on the Mount that occurs in the Book of Mormon carries a more spiritual sense than that in the King James Version, such as the difference between pleroō and chortazō (the KJV rendering is based on Greek referring to "being filled to satisfaction" as in having the stomach filled).  The Book of Mormon version, however, makes reference to being filled with the Spirit.

 

.......................................................

The Phinney Bible Joseph had Oliver purchase from Grandin's Bookstore in Oct 1829 was a clean copy so that he and Rigdon could set about making revisions in the Bible (now the LDS JST, but which the RLDS published many years ago as their Holy Scriptures, and which they termed their "inspired revision").

 

Everybody had Bibles in their homes in those days, and there is no reason why Joseph might not have had immediate access to one.  Oliver might well have read each line and waited for Joseph to correct it before writing it down.  We don't know the mechanics of what they did when coming to major quotations from the Bible.  However, B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney B. Sperry, Stanley R. Larson, and Daniel H. Ludlow all expressed the opinion that Joseph certainly had a Bible out on the table when translating those sections.  I discussed some of the reasons why in my three-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text for FARMS (second edition 1986-87).  Thus, you can add my name to that list.

[omni]

It is so widely quoted because it formed the vocabulary of Joseph Smith.  He grew up on the Bible.  The verbiage would have been embedded deeply in his mind.  

 

 

Yet we are often told the story of Emma having to explain to Joseph the commonly know fact that Jerusalem had walls surrounding the ancient city.  So was he deeply familiar with the book or ignorant of some of its basic claims as Emma would suggest?

 

There are those among us who are of the opinion that Joseph Smith must have used a Bible to quote from when he got to biblical passages on the plates, because of the closeness of the phraseology.  If there were a Bible in use for this purpose, it would be little different from translators of other texts in the 19th Century.

 

Many translators, including those who were actual linguists in the 19th Century, often used the King James Version to translate biblical quotes in early Christian and other texts.  If you want to see a really good example of that, just read through the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  You will see many biblical quotes that read almost word-for-word like the King James Bible.  And we know that the King James Bible did not exist in early Christian times.

 

However, a serious problem with any theory that claims that Joseph Smith used a Bible to do this is that Joseph Smith did not have a Bible during the time he was translating the Book of Mormon.  He did not purchase one until October of 1829.  Another problem is that Joseph pulled a hat over his face during translation.  Even if he had a Bible, how would he read it with a hat pulled over his face? The only times he got hold of a Bible was when they weren't translating and were attempting to settle a dispute, and that had to be borrowed from a neighbor down the road and returned.

 

 

 

 

I'm curious as to how you think the mechanics of the translation took place.  If Joseph didn't have a copy of the Bible, did he simply dictate from his photographic memory the KJV verses every time he encountered them?  If so did he have the entire Bible memorized or just happen to have those specific verses memorized?  

 

It is doctrine that the Bible while still scripture has been corrupted with significant errors and omissions.  Why do you think God would have Joseph copy verbatim from the KJV when he has the most powerful and perfect aid for translation, the Holy Ghost?  Remember, this is the most important book on the planet, it makes no sense to me that God would essentially say, "alright I'm gonna take a break here, go ahead and copy verbatim the next couple chapters from Isaiah in the KJV and let me know when you're ready for my help again."

[MormonMason]

The Phinney Bible Joseph had Oliver purchase from Grandin's Bookstore in Oct 1829 was a clean copy so that he and Rigdon could set about making revisions in the Bible (now the LDS JST, but which the RLDS published many years ago as their Holy Scriptures, and which they termed their "inspired revision").

 

Everybody had Bibles in their homes in those days, and there is no reason why Joseph might not have had immediate access to one.  Oliver might well have read each line and waited for Joseph to correct it before writing it down.  We don't know the mechanics of what they did when coming to major quotations from the Bible.  However, B. H. Roberts, H. Grant Vest, Sidney B. Sperry, Stanley R. Larson, and Daniel H. Ludlow all expressed the opinion that Joseph certainly had a Bible out on the table when translating those sections.  I discussed some of the reasons why in my three-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text for FARMS (second edition 1986-87).  Thus, you can add my name to that list.

I know the main reason why he purchased the Phinney Bible.  Evidence also suggests that Joseph Smith did not have a Bible in his home prior to this time.  He could not afford it at the time (Bibles were very expensive for day laborers in those days, especially when you consider that they made about 55 cents a day or less in income and a Bible was often between $3.50 and $5.00 to purchase) and the evidence that suggests he didn't have one occurred when he had to have someone obtain a Bible to help settle a dispute.  If he had had a Bible there would have been no need to borrow one to settle the disputes and answer certain questions.

[Tacenda]

Yet we are often told the story of Emma having to explain to Joseph the commonly know fact that Jerusalem had walls surrounding the ancient city. So was he deeply familiar with the book or ignorant of some of its basic claims as Emma would suggest?

I'm curious as to how you think the mechanics of the translation took place. If Joseph didn't have a copy of the Bible, did he simply dictate from his photographic memory the KJV verses every time he encountered them? If so did he have the entire Bible memorized or just happen to have those specific verses memorized?

It is doctrine that the Bible while still scripture has been corrupted with significant errors and omissions. Why do you think God would have Joseph copy verbatim from the KJV when he has the most powerful and perfect aid for translation, the Holy Ghost? Remember, this is the most important book on the planet, it makes no sense to me that God would essentially say, "alright I'm gonna take a break here, go ahead and copy verbatim the next couple chapters from Isaiah in the KJV and let me know when you're ready for my help again."

I think you're right, he most likely had a bible, and it may have been handed down through generations, that could buy one. And they were supposedly very good Christians, therefore wouldn't you own a bible in order to know Jesus/God?

And didn't someone say, I believe it was Robert, that they bought a new one so that it was fresh (my word) and not marked in?

[Calm]

I think you're right, he most likely had a bible, and it may have been handed down through generations, that could buy one. And they were supposedly very good Christians, therefore wouldn't you own a bible in order to know Jesus/God?

And didn't someone say, I believe it was Robert, that they bought a new one so that it was fresh (my word) and not marked in?

He wouldn't have inherited one given that his parents were still living and they were a young married couple living in pretty tight financial limitations****.  Given that a Bible would have cost a lot more in comparison to salary in those times, I don't see it as unlikely that they needed to buy a new one or borrow one because they didn't have one in their house at the tim (which I believe was the reason, not to get one not marked in...I'd like to see that comment if someone made it as I missed it).

 

PS:  never mind, found it.

 

Robert, was this the one always referred to as having to send out for one and is there any indication that he had his own?  I would think it likely that Oliver might have had one in his possession due to being a school teacher and Rigdon would have had one for sure as a preacher.

 

PPS:  never mind, found MM's response about having to send for a Bible to settle a dispute which was the one I was thinking of.

 

****married Jan 1827, first child born and died June 1828, lived with Joseph's parents first, than in Dec 1827 moved into a small house and farm of their own apparently with the help of Emma's parents, left that in May 1829 and went to live with the Whitmers.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/02/joseph-smiths-susquehanna-years?lang=eng

 

 The Prophet lamented that he was virtually without means and “had become reduced in property and … had not where to go, and I cried unto the Lord that he would provide for me to accomplish the work whereunto he had commanded me.”......The Lord not only furnished a scribe but also provided for the physical necessities of the Prophet and his household. On more than one occasion the Joseph Knight Sr. family came to the aid of the Prophet in times of want. While returning from a business trip to Catskill, Joseph Knight related: “I bought a barrel of mackerel and some lined paper for writing. And when I came home I bought some nine or ten bushels of grain and five or six bushels [of] taters [potatoes], and … I went down to see him and they were in want. Joseph and Oliver were gone to see if they could find a place to work for provisions, but found none. They returned home and found me there with provisions, and they were glad, for they were out. … Then they went to work and had provisions enough to last till the translation was done.”

 

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I have discussed this with Dan, and he has no satisfactory explanation on why, as an award winning historian, he conflates the stories behind the three witnesses with that of the eight.  He prefers second and third hand accounts, rather than the first hand statement of the witnesses.

That they actually handled the plates, looked at them individually and saw the engravings.... his silence is thunderous.

 

This is no supernatural vision -- no angel, no voice of God.

 

Perhaps you can succeed in dragging out some sort of cogent explanation from him.

 

I'm not so hopeful. Not that I can't be pretty convincing, but Dan's mind seems well made up.

[MormonMason]

 

Yet we are often told the story of Emma having to explain to Joseph the commonly know fact that Jerusalem had walls surrounding the ancient city.  So was he deeply familiar with the book or ignorant of some of its basic claims as Emma would suggest?

 

I'm curious as to how you think the mechanics of the translation took place.  If Joseph didn't have a copy of the Bible, did he simply dictate from his photographic memory the KJV verses every time he encountered them?  If so did he have the entire Bible memorized or just happen to have those specific verses memorized?  

 

It is doctrine that the Bible while still scripture has been corrupted with significant errors and omissions.  Why do you think God would have Joseph copy verbatim from the KJV when he has the most powerful and perfect aid for translation, the Holy Ghost?  Remember, this is the most important book on the planet, it makes no sense to me that God would essentially say, "alright I'm gonna take a break here, go ahead and copy verbatim the next couple chapters from Isaiah in the KJV and let me know when you're ready for my help again."

 

Everything you ever have done, everything you ever have seen, everything you ever have heard or smelled, and everything you ever have felt, is stored in your mind--even if you have forgotten much of it.  It was the same for Joseph Smith.  It is a matter of being able to recall the information.  Sometimes in heightened spiritual states things are brought to the memory in a way that is quite different from your standard recall methodology.  I see this as no different.  The vocabulary is embedded in his mind and his mind recalled it and made use of it during the translation process, even though he could not recall any specific verses at the time that spoke of walls around Jerusalem. It is possible that he couldn't recall it because he did not read verses about Jerusalem having walls. But the overall vocabulary of the KJV passages he did read still would have been locked up in his mind.  It is likely that the vocabulary flowed from his mind while he was studying it out in his mind before dictating the actual words. That is how I view it.

 

But, this was no memorization exercise.  Martin Harris tested him to see if that were the case and would have abandoned the entire exercise had Joseph actually been doing that and memorizing passages so he could use them later the following day.  In addition, the evidence suggests that there was no Bible to use at that time, other than one he would have had to borrow each time he wanted to use it.  It also is possible that he simply read one using the seer stone, too.  Josiah Stowell and another non-Mormon stated that he proposed a test when people doubted his abilities.  That test was that someone would place a book of someone else's choosing behind him, facing away from him, and he would put his face into his hat with his back turned to the book on the table, and read the contents of the book.  According to this testimony, he actually began reading off the words of the book.  Some people present still pronounced him a fraud and the 1826 pre-trial examination came partially as a result.  But, reading a Bible remotely would not have been convincing to someone demanding an answer from a printed Bible, so a Bible would have had to have been borrowed to answer to the purpose.

 

However it was done, the KJV was acceptable as a translation in those portions that were on the plates, and where it wasn't the vocabulary was modified accordingly.  Again, the Isaiah and Matthew passages are no mere slavish copies.  With the Isaiah passages more than half of them vary, often substantially, from the KJV.

 

But, why the KJV? It is because that was the most common version out there for readers.  And, as I mentioned above in a previous post, even accepted translating standards sometimes called for the use of a previous version of the Bible in Old Testament and other quotations.  See examples of that approach by even scholars in the Ante Nicene Fathers.  The Bible quotations contained in those writers is often word-for-word that of the KJV.  At times there are differences.  But Joseph Smith did follow an accepted practice in actual translations, even though he likely didn't know it.

 

But, as I also said, most all of the "errors" claimed in the KJV verbiage used in the Book of Mormon are really not errors at all but academic preference.  I gave one example above.  Another is the use of "Lucifer" in the KJV and in the Book of Mormon version thereof.  But, was that an error? No.  Lucifer is the Latin equivalent of Hebrew חילל and Greek φωσφορος and ἑωσφορος.  All make reference to Venus as the morning and/or evening star.  Many English readers before 1913 would have understood the reference because definition 1 of Lucifer in English dictionaries was the planet Venus until after 1913, after which time dictionaries started sliding the Venus definition downward in favor of it being a reference to the Devil's alternate name.

 

From the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

 

LU''CIFER, n. [L. lux, lucis, light, and fero, to bring.]

 

1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness.

 

2. Satan.

 

And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer, never to hope again.

 

From the 1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

 

Lu"ci*fer (?), n. [L., bringing light, n., the morning star, fr. lux, lucis, light + ferre to bring.]

1. The planet Venus, when appearing as the morning star; -- applied in Isaiah by a metaphor to a king of Babylon.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O 

Lucifer

, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground which didst weaken the nations ! 

Is. xiv. 12.

Tertullian and Gregory the Great understood this passage of Isaiah in reference to the fall of Satan; in consequence of which the name 

Lucifer

 has since been applied to, Satan. 

Kitto.

2. Hence, Satan.

How wretched Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favors! . . . When he falls, he falls like 

Lucifer

, Never to hope again. 

Shak.

3. A match made of a sliver of wood tipped with a combustible substance, and ignited by friction; -- called also lucifer match, and locofoco. See Locofoco.

4. (Zoöl.) A genus of free-swimming macruran Crustacea, having a slender body and long appendages.

 

So, was it an actual error? No. It wasn't.  It was an acceptable translation at the time.

 

And, it had nothing to do with God saying anything like he was going to take a break.  The whole process was one great thinking and confirmation exercise.  It tired Joseph out to do it and periodic breaks were required.  He also had to be in tune with the Spirit or nothing would get done.  Statements of others there recorded that there were times when he could not translate after having disagreements with his wife, until he first apologized and made things right.  Then, according to those reports, he was able to translate right where he left off.  Another time, Harris switched the stone he was using with one he had found that was identical.  Joseph found he could not translate until he got the original stone back.  Harris' reason for doing that? He wanted to see if Joseph Smith was just memorizing sentences so he could dictate them and pretend to translate.  Any memorization process was not involved or he would have been able to continue as before, as if nothing happened, and Harris would no longer have been involved any further or mortgaged his farm.

Edited September 15, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

I think you're right, he most likely had a bible, and it may have been handed down through generations, that could buy one. And they were supposedly very good Christians, therefore wouldn't you own a bible in order to know Jesus/God?

And didn't someone say, I believe it was Robert, that they bought a new one so that it was fresh (my word) and not marked in?

Many people did not have Bibles because they couldn't afford them.  Consider that a Bible would cost $3.50 or more in Joseph's day.  Consider that he made (when he was working) about 55 cents a day from day laboring.  Consider also the home expenses and food and so forth, and see how much of that is left for the purchase of a Bible.  In ancient times, the majority of Christians did not have their own scriptures because they were too expensive, and the only times they would hear scripture read was in Church.  It was not like today in such times, where Bibles are readily available for a comparatively low cost and even free via various ministries that have been set up over the years, such as the American Bible Society and groups like that.

 

In the case of Joseph, if he had a Bible already, why did they have to have someone borrow one to settle disputes? If they had had their own there would have been no need for that.  Emma did not have hers because her father would not let her take anything out of the house when she eloped.  Joseph did not have his family Bible because he did not take it with him.  It belonged to his father and mother.

 

So, not only does the evidence suggest that he did not have a Bible present in the home, the other eyewitness accounts show that he did not have books or manuscripts on the table with him from which to read during times when translation activity was going on.  He would put his face into a hat to exclude light, and dictate non-stop until breaks, and then take up right where he left off--all without any books or manuscripts near him.  Had he any, both Harris and Emma would have been aware of it.  Had he any, how would he have read them with his face buried in a hat? Think about that.

 

Otherwise, you have one of the best kept conspiracies on the planet, for Joseph made many enemies of friends when excommunicating them.  Had there been collusion to defraud by claiming that Joseph did not have books with him when he really did, someone angry would have "spilled the beans," as it were.  All eyewitnesses were unanimous that Joseph had no books or manuscripts of any kind with him during translation periods.

Edited September 15, 2013 by MormonMason

[Calm]

Emma did not have hers because her father would not let her take anything out of the house when she eloped. 

 

Didn't she get it back though later on (Aug 1827)?  Or does the below mean something else than I interpreted, that Isaac withheld her possessions?

 

From Manchester, Emma wrote to her father in Harmony asking “whether she could take her property, consisting of clothing, furniture, cows.” Isaac responded that “her property was safe, and at her disposal.” ¹¹ Peter Ingersoll, a neighbor of the Smiths, was hired to take them to Pennsylvania in his wagon during August 1827. Peter said that as they drove into the yard, Father Hale came out in an agitated state and amidst a “flood of tears” confronted Joseph for having “carried away” his daughter.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/02/joseph-smiths-susquehanna-years?lang=eng

[MormonMason]

Didn't she get it back though later on (Aug 1827)?  Or does the below mean something else than I interpreted, that Isaac withheld her possessions?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/02/joseph-smiths-susquehanna-years?lang=eng

He did finally let her take things that were only hers, but not the family Bible.  That Bible belonged to her father.  Had she a Bible all her own at the time, there would have been no need to send for a Bible as they did to settle disputes. They simply could have fetched hers and so stated.

[savedbygrace]

 

The testimony of the eight makes no mention of spiritual eyes.

 

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

 

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

 

May I ask, some people have remarked that there is significance in the fact that the witnesses have not actually signed their names, but that they are merely printed. Do you think that is significant or just nitpicking?

[MormonMason]

May I ask, some people have remarked that there is significance in the fact that the witnesses have not actually signed their names, but that they are merely printed. Do you think that is significant or just nitpicking?

They originally did sign.  The original, so far as I am aware, has been lost.  There is a written copy or two floating around, but no original.  If you're interested, the handwritten copy of the testimonies of three and eight witnesses, as found in the Printers Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, can be seen here and here.

 

The original probably was lost with over 70% of the Original Manuscript when it became damaged by water and mold.  We did manage to find one of the original copyright registration forms some years back, though.  That can be seen here.

[cdowis]

 

C'mon, cdowis!!  You know he was a child prodigy who spent his time at Harvard College, while supposedly recuperating at his uncle Jesse's place in Salem, Mass (ostensibly there to recuperate from leg surgery).  Five generations of Smiths had lived in Massachusetts.  Joseph not only got admitted due to his incredible intellectual capacity, but he was also a "legacy."

The later "awe shucks", farm boy stuff was merely a cover.

He went back later (again ostensibly to Salem to find "treasure") to complete his doctorate at Harvard, as reading between the lines of D&C 111 proves:

D&C 111

4And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; . . .

..............  

7 Tarry in this place, and in the regions round about;

 

8 And the place where it is my will that you should tarry, for the main, shall be signalized unto you by the peace and power of my Spirit, that shall flow unto you.

.......................................

10 For there are more treasures than one for you in this city.

 

Dan Vogel is right!!  The Restoration was coming out of the environmental "woodwork" and Joseph was right on top of it!

 

 

 

 

As I remember, he was missing from the 1820 census.  Obviously he given a grant to travel go to the Middle East to personally investigate the path that Lehi took from Jerusalem.  

 

Several of his most significant discoveries -- the Valley of Lemuel, NHM, and the the land of Bountiful where Nephi built the ship and sailed forth.

 

Joseph Smith the farmer?!  How absurd.

Edited September 15, 2013 by cdowis

[omni]

 

 

But, in the case of Isaiah passages of the KJV quoted in the Book of Mormon, the passages were mostly "close enough for government" so to speak.  But, if you compare the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon line-by-line with that King James Version, you will see that many of the verses (more than half) do not read identically to the King James Version and are not exact quotes.  In some cases, there are substantial differences in text...........

 

Some of these modifications have been seen in other Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah.  Some have not.  In other cases, one of which I showed above in a previous post, there are differences that only could have arisen from accidental modifications of a Hebrew text, either in what would become the Masoretic text or in the text that formed the exemplar of the Brass Plates version of Isaiah which Nephi quoted.  To be able to make a modification that reads in English one way with slight modifications to the Hebrew as the underlying cause, particularly when Joseph did not know Hebrew at that time and would have had no way of knowing that his modification would work even though it does, is pretty amazing.

You say in the first paragraph if the translation was "close enough for government" there would be no change, but in the next paragraph you speak of minor modifications that show proof of a Hebrew origin. Why would Joseph make those small modifications if it didn't significantly change the meaning? Weren't many of the modifications in the BoM relatively small without any doctrinal or cultural significance?

[Tacenda]

I know the main reason why he purchased the Phinney Bible. Evidence also suggests that Joseph Smith did not have a Bible in his home prior to this time. He could not afford it at the time (Bibles were very expensive for day laborers in those days, especially when you consider that they made about 55 cents a day or less in income and a Bible was often between $3.50 and $5.00 to purchase) and the evidence that suggests he didn't have one occurred when he had to have someone obtain a Bible to help settle a dispute. If he had had a Bible there would have been no need to borrow one to settle the disputes and answer certain questions.

In Joseph Smith's History, Chapter 1. It mentions that when he was confused at which sect to join he read James 1:5 in the bible. This had been taught to me all my life, and the visuals used were of him in his home. He knew the bible well enough, and IMO probably had it read to him and he read it a lot because they were so poor they didn't have enough for any other books.

I can't believe I'd forgotten that story, until later today.

[Calm]

In Joseph Smith's History, Chapter 1. It mentions that when he was confused at which sect to join he read James 1:5 in the bible. This had been taught to me all my life, and the visuals used were of him in his home. He knew the bible well enough, and IMO probably had it read to him and he read it a lot because they were so poor they didn't have enough for any other books.

I can't believe I'd forgotten that story, until later today.

This was when he lived with his parents when he was around 15 years old, which was not when he was translating the Book of Mormon...at least not all of it.  He would have had to share the book with his 8 siblings and 2 parents.  If it was divided up equally, that would amount to about a month out of a year so if he did read it as much as everyone---which is not what his mother said---he would be relatively familiar with it.  However, his mother said he was the one who read the least in the family...or maybe it was simply he was not a great reader, can't remember which but either way that means likely much less than a month of reading (likely only evenings after work and maybe part of Sundays) overall.  OTOH, from a description of his father reading the Bible, that sounds like a common occurrence though I can't remember if the quote (having to do with his dad putting his glasses on) states how often.

 

No one has suggested his parents didn't have a Bible (just that as a young married couple, it is unlikely they had one for the first two years or so of their marriage until the Phinney Bible was bought according to info given in this thread) so I am not sure what your point was...

[MormonMason]

In Joseph Smith's History, Chapter 1. It mentions that when he was confused at which sect to join he read James 1:5 in the bible. This had been taught to me all my life, and the visuals used were of him in his home. He knew the bible well enough, and IMO probably had it read to him and he read it a lot because they were so poor they didn't have enough for any other books.

I can't believe I'd forgotten that story, until later today.

That was his parents' Bible, not his.  Families who could afford to have Bibles, or who inherited them, did read it.  It formed the cornerstone of American education and home schooling in those times.  But, Unfortunately, Joseph could not afford a Bible of his own until Cowdery was able to pitch in the money to buy one after the Book of Mormon was already done.  The terminus ad quem of the English Book of Mormon was July 1, 1829.  The "Smith Bible" that was to be used for the Joseph Smith translation was purchased on October 8, 1829.  That Bible is in custody of the Community of Christ.

 

From what I understand, another Bible also was purchased by the Smith family sometime after 1831 (the date of printing of the Bible is 1831), and for the use of the Smith family, at the beginning of the Kirtland Period.  That Bible recently went up for sale at the asking price of $1.5 million, in 2010.  This latter Bible was featured at Ken Sanders' Rare Books.  Hyrum's family Bible, that was purchased at the same time as the Joseph Smith family Bible, is in the BYU Special Collections Department.

[Tacenda]

Mormon Mason, two things......photographic memory or he started the BoM while a teenager.  Is it possible?