The State of the Evidence

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

A third possibility: Joseph quoted it from memory. That might explain the variations from the KJV text. 

Why not a fourth:  The translation process itself rendered, unknown to Joseph, exact passages from the KJV and at other times, concepts and phrasings from the KJV. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Fussing about whether Joseph Smith was influenced by, or should have been influenced by, the most influential text ever published seems to me a bit hysterical.  The way to ensure an independent translation would have been to ensure that Joseph Smith never read, or talked with anyone one who had ever read the King James Bible.  After all, I think it was Brant Gardner who reported his experience with a class room full of students studying New Testament Greek who all simultaneously produced a translation that replicated the KJV.  They did so because they recognized what they were reading.  I noticed that the 1828 Websters definition of translation says nothing requiring that to be a real translation, a translation must be completely independent of previous translations, and must never show any influence from the language of the time in which it is produced.  The only way not to have an influence from the time and place of the translator, is not to translate at all, which is not as useful.

And what are the chances that the both the author of Hebrews and Moroni could have been influenced by Jesus?  It's not as if Jesus could have known or would have said anything about atonement and the temple (the theme of the Book of Hebrews), and if he did, by what means could he have influenced the author of that book?  It's not as if the author of Hebrews could have known anyone who knew Jesus.  And it's not as if Moroni ever claimed to have talked with Jesus face to face, in plain humility, as one man speaks to his friend, especially not in Ether 12:39, or if there could be any possible reason why Jesus would ever want to say the same kind of thing to different people.  The very notion is absurd.  What would be the point?  Wouldn't saying different things to everyone make a lot more sense?  Wouldn't that be a good way to reduce contention and controvery?

Personally, I'd find the 19th century origin theory (something not quite the same thing as Joseph Smith's account of a 19th century translation into his own "language and understanding" in a form that had only to be "sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands") a lot more compelling if it managed to account for the whole of the Book of Mormon, rather than targeted bits.   I liked Hardy's book, but it is not the only book.

People with a serious interest could start with Welch's Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount., which I think is one of the most insightful and essential things ever published.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 1, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Nevo]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not aware of any apologetic arguments that address this, other than Ostler's. The Welch and Sorensen articles Kevin C. posted don't deal with this, as far as I can see.

Hardy throws out a couple before he convincingly demonstrates the literary dependence of Ether 12 on Hebrews 6 and 11, to cushion the blow for fellow believers:

"Nonbelievers simply view the English Bible as one of Joseph Smith's sources, while Latter-day Saints look instead for more apologetic explanations. Although a case can be made, for example, for the resurrected Jesus' knowledge of the contents of the gospels, and even perhaps more tenuously for Nephi's citations of Second Isaiah, it is difficult to explain how it is that Moroni and his father before him had access to writings attributed to the apostle Paul. Believers might assume that some of the 'things' Jesus himself shared with Moroni when he spoke with him 'face to face, in plain humility' (Ether 12:39), included the contents of particular New Testament epistles" (Hardy, Understanding, 255). In a footnote, he also mentions Sidney Sperry's suggestion that "Paul himself may have gotten his ideas from Jesus, who also had taught them to the Nephites when he visited the New World" (324n13).

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Nevo said:

Hardy throws out a couple before he convincingly demonstrates the literary dependence of Ether 12 on Hebrews 6 and 11, to cushion the blow for fellow believers:

"Nonbelievers simply view the English Bible as one of Joseph Smith's sources, while Latter-day Saints look instead for more apologetic explanations. Although a case can be made, for example, for the resurrected Jesus' knowledge of the contents of the gospels, and even perhaps more tenuously for Nephi's citations of Second Isaiah, it is difficult to explain how it is that Moroni and his father before him had access to writings attributed to the apostle Paul. Believers might assume that some of the 'things' Jesus himself shared with Moroni when he spoke with him 'face to face, in plain humility' (Ether 12:39), included the contents of particular New Testament epistles" (Hardy, Understanding, 255). In a footnote, he also mentions Sidney Sperry's suggestion that "Paul himself may have gotten his ideas from Jesus, who also had taught them to the Nephites when he visited the New World" (324n13).

This is pretty much the special pleading argument. Fair enough.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's fine. You're arguing that the plates were Dumbo's feather. But you realize that's a totally different story and purpose for the plates than was originally taught, right?

More for other people than for Joseph Smith, but for him initially, too, yes. If God gave a semi-literate rural American in the early 1800s the assignment to dictate a sacred record, it would be a lot easier for anyone to "go forth with faith" if they had their records in front of them. That Joseph Smith and his contemporaries of that area were steeped in seer stone culture was a plus, both for him and for those who did not reject it out of hand. His experience scrying gave him confidence that such a thing was possible in a way that would be a major stumbling block for even the most true blue of TBMs today given the same assignment. 

I think the biggest value of the plates were for the informal and formal witnesses. They knew that Joseph Smith had metal plates, and people who knew them personally couldn't counteract their testimony.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's definitely dependent upon the KJV. That isn't really in question. The question is why. There are many different ideas on that subject.

It really does depend on the definition of dependent being used.  An unborn baby is dependent on the mother-the baby wouldn't exist or being able to live without the mother.  I don't believe that the BOM wouldn't have existed without the bible.  It wouldn't be the same words, definitely, but I don't believe it is dependent on the bible for its 'life'.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

So far as I am aware, Sidney B. Sperry was the first person to posit this idea many decades ago in a volume he called, "Book of Mormon Problems."

First, it is interesting that Sperry felt he needed to go this far to explain away the obvious KJV dependence in the BOM.  None of the other ideas seemed reasonable to him, and indeed they are not reasonable.

So Sperry had to go all the way to theorizing that the reason the BOM is dependent on the KJV is because . . . well . . . the BOM is dependent on the KJV.  I.e., Joseph opened his KJV and started copying whenever it "suited his purposes" in translating what was written in the BOM.

A few points about this theory:

1. It does nothing to explain why it is that KJV Bible passages dated after Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BCE should appear in the BOM.  (Let's not lose sight of the elephant in the living room, okay?)

2. The Sperry theory made better sense when we were still conceiving of the Church Art method of BOM translation; Joseph just looking at the plates and thinking real hard.  In that scenario, having a Bible handy to "help out" makes more sense than what the Church has just a year ago publicly stated the real translation method was--Joseph looking at a rock in a hat.  Think about it.  How does it work that Joseph is looking in a hat at words coming off a stone, and yet he suddenly knows that the words are the beginning of the entire Sermon on the Mount, so he runs for his Bible and starts copying?  At a minimum, this would mean that Joseph would have to be looking in his hat for some words; then taking his head out of the hat and comparing with his Bible to make sure they match; then reading them to his scribe; then sticking his head back in the hat for some more words; etc.  BUT OLIVER COWDERY NEVER MENTIONS ANYTHING LIKE THIS.  Nor do any of the other witnesses.

3. Finally, this theory runs head on into the eyewitness accounts that Joseph NEVER used any books (like a Bible) or papers during the BOM translation process.

 

So, in sum, the Sperry theory ends up being unreasonable, I think.

 

That's not what I was thinking about when talking about how the KJV Book of Mormon is dependent on the KJV Bible.  I simply meant that since Joseph's experience with sacred text was limited to only the KJV Bible, prior to translating the Book of Mormon from it's original language which looked like nothing but gibberish to him without God's help in translating that language into a language he was familiar with, and since the original BoM was a sacred text, that when God helped Joseph to translate the original BoM into a sacred text God translated it for him into the language Joseph was familiar with as a/the language he associated with sacred text.

I suspect that Joseph had already read all of the Biblical texts that were used in the translation of the original BOM, with God enhancing his memory when Joseph could not remember on his own, but that would not have been necessary.  God could have translated the original BOM into KJV Bible language even if Joseph had never had any experience at all with the KJV Bible or the KJV Bible language, but I think God used the KJV Bible language because Joseph was already familiar with it as a language for sacred text.

You do realize the original BOM was not in the KJV Bible language, originally, don't you?  And that God helped Joseph to translate the original BOM into the KJV Book of Mormon? 

What other reason can you think of then for why God helped Joseph to translate the original BOM into the KJV Book of Mormon than because Joseph was already familiar with the KJV Bible and the KJV language and it suited God's purposes to help Joseph to translate the original BOM into a language that Joseph was already familiar with?

If God had helped Joseph to translate the original BOM into Latin or German or Greek or some other language that Joseph wasn't already familiar with he would have still wound up with a book that looked like pretty much nothing other than gibberish to him.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

It really does depend on the definition of dependent being used.  An unborn baby is dependent on the mother-the baby wouldn't exist or being able to live without the mother.  I don't believe that the BOM wouldn't have existed without the bible.  It wouldn't be the same words, definitely, but I don't believe it is dependent on the bible for its 'life'.

It is, however, dependent on the KJV for much of its textual and thematic contents.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It is, however, dependent on the KJV for much of its textual and thematic contents.

It uses them, i don't believe that means it's dependent on them.

[rongo]

57 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'll work on answering the CFR.

But there are many reasons to believe that Isaiah was written by mutliple authors, that go way beyond rejecting the idea of someone predicting the future. 

Are there any other than the ones that Sperry spelled out:

1) Disbelief in the possibility of predictive prophecy

2) Stylisitc differences

3) Theological differences

And for #2 and #3, the jumping off point is #1. #2 and #3 aren't compelling enough on their own, in a vacuum, without the underlying assumption of #1. #2 and #3 were necessary explanations because of #1.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It uses them, i don't believe that means it's dependent on them.

I'm using the word in the sense of textual dependency, as that term is used in textual criticism. I think consig is right that the textual dependency of the Book of Mormon on the KJV is undeniable. The only issue is what that dependency means. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by jkwilliams

[SteveO]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

More for other people than for Joseph Smith, but for him initially, too, yes. If God gave a semi-literate rural American in the early 1800s the assignment to dictate a sacred record, it would be a lot easier for anyone to "go forth with faith" if they had their records in front of them. That Joseph Smith and his contemporaries of that area were steeped in seer stone culture was a plus, both for him and for those who did not reject it out of hand. His experience scrying gave him confidence that such a thing was possible in a way that would be a major stumbling block for even the most true blue of TBMs today given the same assignment. 

I think the biggest value of the plates were for the informal and formal witnesses. They knew that Joseph Smith had metal plates, and people who knew them personally couldn't counteract their testimony.

I like a lot of your explanations.  I always thought the reason the KJV was used was perhaps because the authors of the BoM gave an inferior rendering of Christ's words when he visited the Americas?  The lamentation of men's weaknesses is stressed often in the BoM and pardons are begged for any mistakes made.  Is the KJV being used in place of the inferior renderings an example of making "weak things strong"?

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm using the word in the sense of textual dependency, as that term is used in textual criticism. I think consig is right that the textual dependency of the Book of Mormon is undeniable. The only issue is what that dependency means. 

I agree. Like Inigo Montoya, though, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

In general, I look at it as similar to how a patriarch uses scriptural phrases in patriarchal blessings. His scriptural background form the Gedankengut (Google translate is so inadequate with this word --- it literally means "thought goods" and refers to the store from which thoughts and ideas spring) from which he expresses his ideas.

It is undeniable that Joseph Smith was profoundly impacted by the Bible. As I've pointed out repeatedly here, he was not a reader growing up and only first started studying the Bible after his angelic visitations. From that point, he absorbed it ---- and think about the perspective and vantage point from which he absorbed it, if his story is true! As he translated (I lean much more to the loose end than the "iron clad" --- a la B. H. Roberts's explanation), he used the language and Gedankengut at his disposal to express images, ideas, and concepts. 

I reject Sperry's theory that he physically used the Bible for lengthy passages when they were similar, for the same reasons that consiglieri does (i.e., the witnesses to the process, male and female, unanimously declare that he used no books, manuscripts, or notes at any time). For items such as Ether 12 and Hebrews or Moroni 7 and Paul's writing, I think that he used essentially the same phrasing as the KJV in lengthy passages because he had such superhuman familiarity with the Bible, and the ideas on the plates were very close (maybe even close to identical) to the Bible passages. He may or may not have been consciously aware that that was what he was doing. 

From one perspective, this is dependent on the Bible. But, when doubters and unbelievers say "dependent," they really mean "cribbed/copied/plagiarized," and this is why believers don't like the word "dependent."

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I like a lot of your explanations.  I always thought the reason the KJV was used was perhaps because the authors of the BoM gave an inferior rendering of Christ's words when he visited the Americas?  The lamentation of men's weaknesses is stressed often in the BoM and pardons are begged for any mistakes made.  Is the KJV being used in place of the inferior renderings an example of making "weak things strong"?

I think it was also important for it to have a "King James" ring to it. Definitely in the 19th century, and also today, even with the contemporizing of the Bible. As Hugh Nibley pointed out, when the New Testament records angels quoting scripture, they quote the Septuagint. They do not quote some mysterious Urtext or give their own translation of the "ultimate original." They use the form of the scriptures known to those they deliver their messages to. 

Similarly, it should be no surprise that a book purporting to be scripture in 19th century America quoted and sounded like the version of the scriptures known to its audience. 

As to your second point, as you point out, the Book of Mormon authors are constantly apologizing for their clumsiness in writing and expressing their thoughts. They were using a shorthand of a shorthand (reformed Egyptian) for brevity and perhaps security, and were frequently frustrated with their inability to adequately express their thoughts as you said. I think you make a very good point here.

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It really does depend on the definition of dependent being used.  An unborn baby is dependent on the mother-the baby wouldn't exist or being able to live without the mother.  I don't believe that the BOM wouldn't have existed without the bible.  It wouldn't be the same words, definitely, but I don't believe it is dependent on the bible for its 'life'.

If the BoM would have existed without the Bible what was all the fuss about getting the brass plates?  The story of that reads as if the brass plates were absolutely essential.

I don't think anyone is saying if the BoM people's existed they simply could not have written down their story without the Bible.  But that the text of the BoM as we have it, in many ways relies on the text of the Bible.  There doesnt' seem to be any way to escape that reality.  The problem identified in this is, much of the text in the BoM that relies on the KJV is from an era after Lehi left Jerusalem, long after the brass plates as described in the Book of Mormon were written. 

[stemelbow]

As one studies how the bible came to be you'll find often unidentified people seemingly putting together stories that existed orally and attributed to other's--those who became the heros of the bible.  Even the NT seems to follow this type of pattern. 

I struggle with the testimonies of those who were scribes because they seem to assume what Joseph was doing rather than testifying exactly what he was doing.  So when we hear that he read off phrases he had in front of him, it may be assumed the phrases appeared in the light, rather than the phrases coming into Joseph's mind.  It feels assumed that there was a picture of a parchment and then the English translation appearing.  As far as we know things were said to Joseph or imprinted on his mind.  It could be as this was all taking place he had a KJV opened up to him, sitting in his brain, or floating around in a vision appearing an disappearing as needed.  maybe the story teller to Joseph used all sorts of stories and sources familiar to Joseph. 

This is just one of those things we'll never know.  And if we believe, there'll never be a very good explanation because it's all just guesswork. 

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If the BoM would have existed without the Bible what was all the fuss about getting the brass plates?  The story of that reads as if the brass plates were absolutely essential.

The plates had information on them that the KJV Bible did not have, and however we got what we got what we now have as the 'Book of Mormon' is a combination of what was originally on the plates translated into KJV Bible language and KJV Bible text, and I think also some of Joseph's own ideas and thoughts relative to what he was writing.

I mean, come on, adieu?  Where did that come from?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Why not a fourth:  The translation process itself rendered, unknown to Joseph, exact passages from the KJV and at other times, concepts and phrasings from the KJV. 

Sure. I'm sure we could come up with many more hypotheses. 

[Ahab]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

From one perspective, this is dependent on the Bible. But, when doubters and unbelievers say "dependent," they really mean "cribbed/copied/plagiarized," and this is why believers don't like the word "dependent."

I mean depends as in depends on something being what it is.  The KJV Book of Mormon being what it is because of the KJV Bible being what it is.

One might ask if the KJV Book of Mormon depends on English, as in the English language, for example.  As in depends on English to be what it is, as we have it. And I would say Yes to that question because without English, that is the English language, we would not have it as it is.  And in this case what we have is the Book of Mormon in the KJV English language, such that without the KJV English language we would not have the Book of Mormon as it is.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 I struggle with the testimonies of those who were scribes because they seem to assume what Joseph was doing rather than testifying exactly what he was doing.  So when we hear that he read off phrases he had in front of him, it may be assumed the phrases appeared in the light, rather than the phrases coming into Joseph's mind.  It feels assumed that there was a picture of a parchment and then the English translation appearing.  As far as we know things were said to Joseph or imprinted on his mind. 

B.H. Roberts made this point when he wrote an article about the translation process (an article that provoked violent reaction from many Church members, by the way, because it challenged the notion of "mechanical" translation, that Joseph simply read off words that appeared in the seer stone or U&T).

As you point out, all of the witness statements assume that he read them off, but Joseph himself, the only one to actually know what the process was like, was careful not to give any details. When he was pinned down in Far West and asked to give detail, all he famously said was that the Book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of God." I'm not sure he even *could* describe what it was like to others who don't know. 

As Roberts pointed out, the witnesses give the important clue that Joseph's spiritual state was crucial. Similar to the Liahona, which wouldn't work when they weren't worthy, he was unable to translate until he had apologized to his wife for an argument. So, there was a large degree of spiritual "in-tune-ness" that was necessary. 

A bit of a tangent, but something to think about when thinking about translation mechanics: Another thingI've thought about is the grammatical errors in the 1st edition (I have a facsimile copy, and love reading it without verses. It really flows better). These errors reflect Joseph's and his scribes' language at the time of translation --- and the language of their neighbors. I'm originally an English teacher, and a stickler for grammar. I received a revelation once that fell just short of hearing a voice, but the words were pressed so firmly in my mind that there wasn't any real difference between "hearing" and "feeling" them. It was unmistakable to me as a communication from God. The thing that I found interesting was that it was (technically) ungrammatical, being in a commonly-used ungrammatical construction in accepted modern English (think along the lines of "It's me!" instead of the correct, but never used, "It is I!" We actually use a lot of ungrammatical constructions in English, even educated and urbane people). The thought occurs to me that when God communicates to us, he does so in a way that is natural and direct for us ---- even if this does not follow standard canons of usage.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If the BoM would have existed without the Bible what was all the fuss about getting the brass plates?  The story of that reads as if the brass plates were absolutely essential.

I don't think anyone is saying if the BoM people's existed they simply could not have written down their story without the Bible.  But that the text of the BoM as we have it, in many ways relies on the text of the Bible.  There doesnt' seem to be any way to escape that reality.  The problem identified in this is, much of the text in the BoM that relies on the KJV is from an era after Lehi left Jerusalem, long after the brass plates as described in the Book of Mormon were written. 

I get that and I agree. I understand why some people have problems with it. 

Like I said, it all come down to the definition of dependent. I agree that using the definition that you are using above that the BOM does use the KJV. That is reality. 

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get that and I agree. I understand why some people have problems with it. 

Like I said, it all come down to the definition of dependent. I agree that using the definition that you are using above that the BOM does use the KJV. That is reality. 

okee dokes.  Thanks for that.  I'm curious what definition of dependent are we using to say the BoM is not dependent on the Bible?  It feels to me like the whole implication of the story of needing to get the brass plates suggest without them, there'd be no such BoM at all--at least not one that testifies of Christ. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

okee dokes.  Thanks for that.  I'm curious what definition of dependent are we using to say the BoM is not dependent on the Bible?  It feels to me like the whole implication of the story of needing to get the brass plates suggest without them, there'd be no such BoM at all--at least not one that testifies of Christ. 

Well, I explained earlier that if the bible didn't exist or JS had never heard of it, I don't think that would have meant that the BOM could not exist either.   God would have just given us that information in some other way.  

As for the brass plates, they aren't the bible.  They could certainly still have existed even if the books of the bible had never been compiled and published thousands of years later.  And I never thought of them as necessary for the existence of the BOM, but more necessary for the nephites and lamanites so that they didn't end up like the Mulekites, not knowing the language of the Jews or anything about Christ.  A way to keep their culture and religious traditions from changing so much over time.  I think that they were necessary because it was the easiest way for God to make sure all of that happened and all of that information stayed with the group.   But not necessary in that, without them, God would have had to just give up on us ever having a BOM in our day.

It's always easier and takes less time to build on a pre-existing foundation (if it's secure) than to start over from scratch.  I think the Brass plates were the pre-existing foundation that God worked with.  I don't think that means that He couldn't have started from scratch if He had had to.

[Guest]

On June 27, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Jeanne said:

Picked number 2.  I am here on this board to find any concrete evidence..which is what is basically more discussed than anything else.  Faith, belief..and a lot  of guesswork.

Yet "Faith" is what God gives us and by which his word is true. There is little concrete evidence behind all we know about the cosmos, yet we lap it up dispite the fact that it is always referred to as theory. Most use thes theories to suspend belief in God. 

[Ahab]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, I explained earlier that if the bible didn't exist or JS had never heard of it, I don't think that would have meant that the BOM could not exist either.   God would have just given us that information in some other way.  

As for the brass plates, they aren't the bible.  They could certainly still have existed even if the books of the bible had never been compiled and published thousands of years later.  And I never thought of them as necessary for the existence of the BOM, but more necessary for the nephites and lamanites so that they didn't end up like the Mulekites, not knowing the language of the Jews or anything about Christ.  A way to keep their culture and religious traditions from changing so much over time.  I think that they were necessary because it was the easiest way for God to make sure all of that happened and all of that information stayed with the group.   But not necessary in that, without them, God would have had to just give up on us ever having a BOM in our day.

It's always easier and takes less time to build on a pre-existing foundation (if it's secure) than to start over from scratch.  I think the Brass plates were the pre-existing foundation that God worked with.  I don't think that means that He couldn't have started from scratch if He had had to.

You're still talking about what could have happened instead of what actually happened, though.  

I'll tell you what.  I'll meet you in the middle. I'll go so far as to say that what we have as the 'Book if Mormon' didn't need to be dependent on the KJV Bible or even on Joseph Smith being the one person chosen to translate the original Book of Mormon into what we now have in our day.  Didn't need to be dependent on either of those 2 things.  Kinda like how any children you have given birth to on this planet were not dependent on you to give birth to them, since those very same spirits could have been given birth to by some other woman.

But again that's not talking about what we now have and know as the 'Book of Mormon'.