Daniel Ludlow - Article about Title Page of The Book of Mormon

[caspianrex]

As a non-LDS reader of The Book of Mormon, it wasn't until just a few years ago that I realized that the Title Page of The Book of Mormon is considered a part of the inspired text. (I think my first inkling of that concept may have been when I first began looking at the Restored Covenant Edition, published by the Zerahemla Research Foundation.

Anyway, I have long been fascinated by various historical editions of the BoM: the 1830, the 1840, the 1879, the 1920, etc. And looking at the development of the formatting of the Title Page is particularly interesting to me.

So I was quite pleased to discover this fascinating article by Daniel H. Ludlow about the Title Page: 

https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-first-nephi-doctrinal-foundation/title-page

Yeah, I know it's kind of a weird thing to geek out on, but it made me happy. Well worth reading, I thought.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

As a non-LDS reader of The Book of Mormon, it wasn't until just a few years ago that I realized that the Title Page of The Book of Mormon is considered a part of the inspired text. (I think my first inkling of that concept may have been when I first began looking at the Restored Covenant Edition, published by the Zerahemla Research Foundation.

Anyway, I have long been fascinated by various historical editions of the BoM: the 1830, the 1840, the 1879, the 1920, etc. And looking at the development of the formatting of the Title Page is particularly interesting to me.

So I was quite pleased to discover this fascinating article by Daniel H. Ludlow about the Title Page: 

https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-first-nephi-doctrinal-foundation/title-page

Yeah, I know it's kind of a weird thing to geek out on, but it made me happy. Well worth reading, I thought.

As an aside, I have found the Title Page to serve as an extremely helpful key to understanding the content of the Book of Mormon in a proper light.

[longview]

At the bottom of the title page is the "signature" of Joseph Smith.  In the 1830 edition, Grandin inserted "By Joseph Smith, Junior, Author and Proprietor".  But the church modified it to "Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun."

I have seen several comments on this board about whether JS translated from ancient script or wrote through the inspiration of the Lord.  My conviction is that he did it through inspired transcription.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Yeah, I know it's kind of a weird thing to geek out on, but it made me happy. Well worth reading, I thought.

Book collectors are weird.  

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, longview said:

At the bottom of the title page is the "signature" of Joseph Smith.  In the 1830 edition, Grandin inserted "By Joseph Smith, Junior, Author and Proprietor".  But the church modified it to "Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun."

I have seen several comments on this board about whether JS translated from ancient script or wrote through the inspiration of the Lord.  My conviction is that he did it through inspired transcription.

To the bolded part above, Joseph Smith is the one who changed it to "Translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.", because the change was made in the 1837 edition, and continued in the 1840 edition (all during Joseph Smith's life time).

Compare the following:

Title Page of the Book of Mormon - 1830 Edition

Title Page of the Book of Mormon - 1837 Edition

Front Page of the Book of Mormon - 1840 Edition (where it says Translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.) but here is the Title Page of the 1840 Edition

(Don't you just love the Joseph Smith Papers web site?  How did we survive before the internet!  But I'd like to find out which Church historian worker put the huge "Historians Office" stamp on the title page of the 1840 edition.  I hope the person is not a relative of mine.) 

Incidentally, the the 1837 Edition says that Joseph Smith was involved in the changes made to that edition. This is in the PREFACE page:

Quote

Individuals acquainted with book printing, are aware of the numerous typographical errors which always occur in manuscript editions. It is only necessary to say, that the whole has been carefully re-examined and compared with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr. the translator of the book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O[liver] Cowdery, who formerly wrote the greatest portion of the same, as dictated by brother Smith.

The same goes fore the 1840 edition.  On the first page of the 1840 (third) edition, it says "CAREFULLY REVISED BY THE TRANSLATOR".

Edited April 1, 2022 by InCognitus

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, caspianrex said:

As a non-LDS reader of The Book of Mormon, it wasn't until just a few years ago that I realized that the Title Page of The Book of Mormon is considered a part of the inspired text. (I think my first inkling of that concept may have been when I first began looking at the Restored Covenant Edition, published by the Zerahemla Research Foundation.

Anyway, I have long been fascinated by various historical editions of the BoM: the 1830, the 1840, the 1879, the 1920, etc. And looking at the development of the formatting of the Title Page is particularly interesting to me.

So I was quite pleased to discover this fascinating article by Daniel H. Ludlow about the Title Page: 

https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-first-nephi-doctrinal-foundation/title-page

Yeah, I know it's kind of a weird thing to geek out on, but it made me happy. Well worth reading, I thought.

Yes, Corey, it is a worthwhile read.  I attended one of Prof Ludlow's lectures on the title page, from which that article is taken.  He worked hard on that project.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, longview said:

At the bottom of the title page is the "signature" of Joseph Smith.  In the 1830 edition, Grandin inserted "By Joseph Smith, Junior, Author and Proprietor".  But the church modified it to "Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun."

The 1830 format with "author and proprietor" was required by copyright.  Joseph actually had to defend that copyright when a newspaper began publishing pages from the still being printed book.

1 hour ago, longview said:

I have seen several comments on this board about whether JS translated from ancient script or wrote through the inspiration of the Lord.  My conviction is that he did it through inspired transcription.

Not sure what "inspired transcription" might mean, but Joseph merely read the already existing text from his seerstone as his scribes copied what he said.  The word "translate" in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary can mean "transfer, transmit," as well as make an actual scholarly translation.  Since Joseph knew no ancient languages, he could only transmit the English text as he read it on his seerstone.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

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

(Don't you just love the Joseph Smith Papers web site?  How did we survive before the internet!  But I'd like to find out which Church historian worker put the huge "Historians Office" stamp on the title page of the 1840 edition.) 

Many librarians love to stamp all books in their libraries with such stamps.

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Incidentally, the the 1837 Edition says that Joseph Smith was involved in the changes made to that edition. This is in the PREFACE page:

The same goes fore the 1840 edition.  On the first page of the 1840 (third) edition, it says "CAREFULLY REVISED BY THE TRANSLATOR".

Joseph made thousands of changes in his own handwriting.

[Bernard Gui]

I was blessed to take Bro Ludlow’s BYU Honors Book of Mormon class he was a wonderfully inspiring teacher. My life-long interest in the text of the Book of Mormon began as a result of his teaching and testimony.

I think there should be a new paragraph starting with the words, “Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel…” In its present format, this appears to modify only the Book of Ether rather than the whole Book of Mormon. Giving it a separate paragraph would make it part of the descriptive list of contents.

EDIT….I have not read Bro Ludlow’s paper before, but now as I read it for the first time I find he addresses this right off the bat! I need to get out more.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Yeah, I know it's kind of a weird thing to geek out on, but it made me happy. Well worth reading, I thought

Hey we wouldn't even be here if we were not church geeks of the highest order!  You're among friends, and I always like your posts.

[cinepro]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure what "inspired transcription" might mean, but Joseph merely read the already existing text from his seerstone as his scribes copied what he said.  The word "translate" in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary can mean "transfer, transmit," as well as make an actual scholarly translation.  Since Joseph knew no ancient languages, he could only transmit the English text as he read it on his seerstone.

I agree that's the only theory that makes sense (how do you otherwise get proper nouns?), but it does introduce some problems for which the "loose translation" theory is needed.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I agree that's the only theory that makes sense (how do you otherwise get proper nouns?), but it does introduce some problems for which the "loose translation" theory is needed.

Mystics have a long history of staring at moving water, or into flickering flames, reading tea leaves,  the entrails of animals, etc to receive their messages.

I see no difference between those aids to spiritual experience and staring at a page of hieroglyphics to receive messages from beyond as Joseph did.

The first time I was exposed to the alleged "problem" here, I immediately thought that I did not care if Joseph was "reading" the decorative patterns on the wallpaper on the walls of his room- that has no more relevance to me to confirm or disconfirm the message's validity as coming from God whatsoever!

The only question is whether or not God confirms the message in one's own heart or not.

How did Isaiah receive his messages? No one knows or cares, but yet they pick on Joseph because he used the word "translation" to describe the process

I thought of all the Catholic mystics whose validity no one questions, except on the basis of whether or not their content coheres with the rest of church Doctrine.

What's the difference?  I guess they are just more experienced with spiritual context than we are.

I find that embarrassing, to tell the truth.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

EDIT….I have not read Bro Ludlow’s paper before, but now as I read it for the first time I find he addresses this right off the bat! I need to get out more.

No, it just shows you have as deep an understanding as Bro Ludow in this area.

When this happens to me, I am just glad that the scholar got it right

I have no humility I guess 😥

Congrats. You are taught by your own testimony, which is how it is SUPPOSED to be!

Edited April 1, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Mystics have a long history of staring at moving water, or into flickering flames, reading tea leaves,  the entrails of animals, etc to receive their messages.

I see no difference between those aids to spiritual experience and staring at a page of hieroglyphics to receive messages from beyond as Joseph did.

The first time I was exposed to the alleged "problem" here, I immediately thought that I did not care if Joseph was "reading" the decorative patterns on the wallpaper on the walls of his room- that has no more relevance to me to confirm or disconfirm the message's validity as coming from God whatsoever!

The only question is whether or not God confirms the message in one's own heart or not.

How did Isaiah receive his messages? No one knows or cares, but yet they pick on Joseph because he used the word "translation" to describe the process

I thought of all the Catholic mystics whose validity no one questions, except on the basis of whether or not their content coheres with the rest of church Doctrine.

What's the difference?  I guess they are just more experienced with spiritual context than we are.

I find that embarrassing, to tell the truth.

The stones on the ephod/Urim V’Tummim reportedly shined with letters as revelation was received by the High Priest in the Jewish temple. If that was the case, Joseph is in very good company. 
 

Quote

The Urim V'Tummim was the famed, oracle-like aspect of the breastplate by which a Heavenly answer was received for important questions. According to most authoritative opinions, the expression urim v'tummim actually refers not to the breastplate itself, but to the mystical Divine name of G-d which was written on a piece of parchment and inserted into a flap of the garment. The presence of the name facilitated the reception of Divine guidance through the shining of specific letters on the stones…

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the kohen's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the kohen was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

https://templeinstitute.org/priestly-garments-3/

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Bernard Gui