FairMormon Answers Wiki Table of Contents

Response to "Letter to a CES Director: Book of Mormon Concerns & Questions"

Letter to a CES Director, a work by author: Jeremy Runnells A FairMormon Analysis of:, a work by author: Jeremy Runnells Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions

Response to section "Book of Mormon Concerns & Questions"

Jump to Subtopic:

Response to claim: "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Jump to Detail:

Question: If the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation, why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible?

The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God"

: The author asks why italicized text and errors from the King James Bible are present in the Book of Mormon. He also briefly discusses anachronisms, archaeology, and a theory that the Book of Mormon place names actually originated in the area around New York. The "View of the Hebrews" theory of Book of Mormon authorship is discussed.Some of the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages generally match the version of Isaiah found in the Bible of the time, however, not all of them do.

The Book of Mormon incorporates text which seems to be taken from the Bible, including passages which are now considered to be mistranslations in the King James Version. "For instance, there are mistakes in translation, such as 'instead of a girdle, a rent' (Isaiah 3:24, quoted in 2 Nephi 13:24), where rent is an error for rope (thus 'instead of a belt, a rope'). In addition, there are cultural translations (that is, translations that made the reading understandable to Early Modern English speakers), but which were nonetheless wrong, such as 'do men light a candle?' (Matthew 5:15, quoted in 3 Nephi 12:15), which should read 'do men light a lamp?'"[1] Thus the Book of Mormon includes some anachronistic, erroneous elements in its translation. If the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book of any on earth," why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible? [2]

We do not know the specific mechanism by which the biblical passages were included in the translation, therefore we cannot answer this question definitively based upon current historical information. The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God," and that the translation was performed using the "Urim and Thummim." Joseph Smith stated the following in July 1838:

Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon? Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which I translated the plates and thus came the book of Mormon. (Joseph Smith, (July 1838) Elders Journal 1:42-43.)

That said, a well-documented textual history of the Book of Mormon and statements left by witnesses to the translation may provide us a path to some answers.

Manuscipt evidence, as well as several statements from eyewitnesses to the translation, definitively rules out that a Bible was consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Using the Original and Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen has definitively shown that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when quoting, echoing, or alluding to the passages, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJB.[3]

Witnesses to the translation process never reported that a Bible or any other book was present during the translation. Given this evidence, we could assume that the Biblical passages were revealed to Joseph during the translation process in a format almost identical with similar passages in the King James Bible. Joseph performed most of the translation in the open using the stone and the hat. Thus how do we get the language from the King James version of the Bible?

When considering the the data, Skousen proposes that, instead of Joseph or Oliver looking at a Bible, that God was simply able to provide the page of text from the King James Bible to Joseph's mind and then Joseph was free to alter the text as he pleased. In those cases where the Book of Mormon simply alludes to or echoes KJV language, perhaps the Lord allowed these portions of the text to be revealed in such a way that they would be more comprehensible/comfortable to his 19th century, Northeastern, frontier audience. This theology of translation may feel foreign and a bit strange to some Latter-day Saints, but it seems to fit well with the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith. The Lord speaks to his servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). Latter-day Saints should take comfort in fact that the Lord accommodates his perfection to our own weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.





Ensign (Sept. 1977): "If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible"

Richard Lloyd Anderson (Ensign, September 1977):

In fact, the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.” [4] Thus the Old Testament passages from Isaiah display a particular choice of phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith’s general freedom throughout the Book of Mormon for optional wording. [5]

NOTE: Witnesses to the translation process, including Joseph's wife Emma, state that Joseph Smith never consulted a Bible or any other book as he was dictating. If Joseph did indeed quote passages from the Bible word-for-word, as Richard Lloyd Anderson suggests, he did it without the aid of having a physical Bible present during the translation. For details, see Question: Could Joseph have used a Bible during and simply dictated from it during Book of Mormon translation?.





Question: Were the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon simply plagiarized from the King James Bible?

Nephi and Jacob generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah

If a Christian is making an accusation of plagiarism, then they are, by the same logic, indicting the Bible which they share with us. Close examination of the Old Testament reveals many passages which are copied nearly word for word including grammatical errors. Micah, who lived hundreds of years after Isaiah, copies word for word in Micah 4:1-3 from Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 2:2-4 without once giving him credit.[6] We also find the genealogy from Genesis 5:10-11,36 repeated in 1 Chronicles, much of the history in Samuel and Kings is repeated in Chronicles, and Isaiah 36:2 through Isaiah 38:5 is the same as 2 Kings 18:17 through 2 Kings 20:6.

Although Old Testament scripture was often quoted by Old and New Testament writers without giving credit, Nephi and Jacob generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Indeed, much of 2 Nephi may be seen as an Isaiah commentary. Of course, Nephi and Jacob do not specify chapter and verse, because these are modern additions to the text (as Joseph Smith somehow knew). It is ironic that critics of the Book of Mormon find fault with its "plagiarism," even though its authors typically mention their sources, while they do not condemn the Bible's authors when they do not.

Additionally, the Church has made clear in the 1981 and the 2013 editions of the Book of Mormon [7] in footnote "a" for 2 Nephi 12:2 that: "Comparison with the King James Bible in English shows that there are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon, while about 200 verses have the same wording as the KJV"[8] Thus it doesn't appear that the Church is afraid of having its members understand the similarities and differences between the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Finally, it may be that the use of King James language for passages shared by the Bible and the Book of Mormon allows the Book of Mormon to highlight those areas in which the Book of Mormon's original texts were genuinely different from the textual tradition of the Old World's which gave us the Holy Bible of today.

A closer look at these duplicate Isaiah texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity

A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.[9]

The 21 chapters of Isaiah which are quoted (Chapters 2-14, 29, and 48-54) either partially or completely, represent about one-third of the book of Isaiah, but less than two and one-half percent of the total Book of Mormon. We also find that more than half of all verses quoted from Isaiah (234 of 433) differ from the King James version available to Joseph Smith.[10] Perhaps it may be said that the Book of Mormon follows the King James (Masoretic) text when the original meaning is closer to how the King James renders the passages in question.

Additionally, we often find differences in Book of Mormon Isaiah texts where modern renderings of the text disagree.[11] One verse (2 Nephi 12:16), is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. [12] Such a translation was "rare for its time."[13] The textual variants in the two texts have theological import and ancient support. John Tvedtnes has documented many in this study of the Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon. A critic, David Wright, responded to Tvedtnes and Tvedtnes’ review of that critic’s response can be found here.

Accounting for the Rest of the Book of Mormon

If Joseph or anyone else actually tried to plagiarize the Book of Mormon, critics have failed to show the source of the remaining 93% (when all similar texts are removed). A 100% non-biblical book of scripture wouldn't have been much more difficult to produce.

The brass plates version of Isaiah 2:2, as contained in 2 Nephi 12:2, contains a small difference, not attested in any other pre-1830 Isaiah witness, that not only helps clarify the meaning but also ties the verse to events of the Restoration. The change does so by introducing a Hebraism that would have been impossible for Joseph Smith, the Prophet, to have produced on his own.

Paul Y. Hoskisson,, (2016)





Question: Why does Isaiah in the Book of Mormon not match the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The English Book of Mormon text of Isaiah does not purport to be the original Isaiah text

Mistranslations of the King James version of Isaiah have been corrected using the Isaiah version found with the Dead Sea scrolls. Why is it that the quotes from Isaiah contained in the Book of Mormon have the same translation errors contained in the King James version instead of matching the original ancient text?

The question makes some inaccurate assumptions:

It is not the case that the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa[a]) is the original text of Isaiah. It is an earlier witness to the text than we previously had before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), but it itself is centuries removed from the original(s).

The English Book of Mormon text of Isaiah does not purport to be the original text either; that is an assumption that many LDS have brought to the text, but is not necessarily true.

These are basic issues of what is called "textual criticism," which is the science/art of trying to recover to the extent possible the text in its original form. Critical text scholars do not believe that the Great Isaiah Scroll matches exactly the original text of Isaiah. It is true that the masoretic scribal tradition has tried valiantly to copy texts as perfectly as possible. Various approaches have been used, such as counting the letters in a chapter and testing a copy against that, in order to ensure a high degree of accuracy in their work. However, the masoretic scribes did their work in the second half of the first millennium A.D. Prior to that time, many errors had already crept in the text.

The term "redaction" refers to a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined together in order to make it appear that they comprise a single text. The standard scholarly theory of the development of Isaiah is that it was redacted from two or three different texts. Yet none of this is reflected in the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is close to the canonical form of the text we have today. So if the scholars are correct there was substantial redaction of the text long before the scribes ever had a chance to practice their efforts at copying on the text.

The Book of Mormon text would have been far removed from Isaiah: The brass plates version would have been at least a century after the fact

Even the Book of Mormon text would have been far removed from Isaiah. The brass plates version would have been at least a century after the fact (with many copies intervening), and that was copied and recopied into Book of Mormon records, which was translated not in a scholarly fashion but instead by the gift and power of God through Joseph Smith. Therefore, it is a fallacy to assume that the Book of Mormon text ought to be the exact equivalent to the original text.





Question: Why are many of the quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon identical to those in the King James Bible?

Witnesses to the translation process are unanimous that Joseph did not have any books, manuscripts, or notes to which he referred while translating

There are several problems with the idea that Joseph simply copied passages from the Holy Bible.

1) Witnesses to the translation process are unanimous that Joseph did not have any books, manuscripts, or notes to which he referred while translating. Recalled Emma, in a later interview:

I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for [Joseph] I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat , with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Q. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you? A. He had neither manuscript or book to read from.

Q. Could he not have had, and you not know it? A. If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.[14]

Martin Harris also noted that Joseph would translate with his face buried in his hat in order to use the seer stone/urim and thummim. This would make referring to a Bible or notes virtually impossible:

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine...[15]

2) It is not clear that Joseph even owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation. He and Oliver Cowdery later purchased a Bible, which suggests (given Joseph's straitened financial situation) that he did not already own one.[16]

3) It is not clear that Joseph's Biblical knowledge was at all broad during the Book of Mormon translation. It seems unlikely that he would have recognized, say, Isaiah, had he encountered it on the plates. Recalled Emma Smith:

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.[17]

Emma also noted that

Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and wellworded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, . . . it is marvelous to me, “a marvel and a wonder,” as much so as to any one else.[18]

And, if Joseph was merely inventing the Book of Mormon story, he picked some of the more obscure and difficult Bible passages to include.

4) If Joseph was forging the Book of Mormon, why include Biblical passages at all? Clearly, Joseph was able to rapidly produce a vast and complex text that made no reference to Biblical citations at all. If Joseph was trying to perpetrate a fraud, why did he include near-verbatim quotations from the one book (the Holy Bible KJV) with which his target audience was sure to be familiar?

The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text

See also: Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon

Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.

Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from already known Hebrew manuscripts.[19]

Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this.

This is not to argue that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time improving on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the King James (or any other) translation represented a true difference in the DSS text, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to improve existing translations.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous. For example, it is possible that most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in later Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference.

Since there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation, this allows the reader to easily identify genuine differences between the Isaiah texts of the Old World and the Nephites.

Bible text itself quotes extensively from past scripture

When considering the presence of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, it is also interesting to note that one Bible scholar has found that the four gospels attest to the fact that Jesus Christ and the apostles consistently quoted scripture. He calculated that over "ten percent of the daily conversation of Jesus consisted of Old Testament words quoted literally" and nearly 50% of the Lord's words as quoted by John were quotations from the Old Testament.[20]

When we consider the fact that Isaiah is the most quoted of all prophets, being more frequently quoted by Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John (in his Revelation) than any other Old Testament prophet, it should not surprise us that both the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants also quote Isaiah more than any other prophet.[21] The Lord told the Nephites that "great are the words of Isaiah," and the prophet Nephi confessed, "my soul delighteth in his words... for he verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him" (2 Nephi 11:2).

New Testament writers literally quoted hundreds of Old Testament scriptures including 76 verses from Isaiah

It is clear that the writings of Isaiah held special significance for Jesus Christ and Nephi (see 2 Nephi 11:8, 2 Nephi 25:5; 3 Nephi 20:11; 3 Nephi 23:1-3). Isaiah's prophecies might also have been quoted frequently because they were largely concerned with latter-day events. The Saints understand Isaiah to have foretold the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith (see Isaiah 49:), the gathering of Israel in the last days (Isaiah 18:), the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (Isaiah 29:), wickedness in the last days (Isa. 33), and the Savior's second coming, and the millennium (Isaiah 13:, Isaiah 26:, Isaiah 27:). While he also wrote about the Savior's first coming (Isaiah 32:1-4) and events in his own time (Isaiah 20,23:), most of what he wrote about is yet to be fulfilled.[22]

When one considers that New Testament writers literally quoted hundreds of Old Testament scriptures including 76 verses from Isaiah[23] it should not surprise us that Book of Mormon writers did likewise. After all, these writings were part of the old world scriptures brought with them to the new world 1 Nephi 19:22-23). If the prophets of the Book of Mormon had not quoted Isaiah we might have questioned the authenticity of their words. That they did quote him extensively shows that they understood his writings as did Jesus and other apostles and prophets.

Paul has been cited as the most original of all New Testament writers but investigations of his epistles show that Paul often quoted from classical writers, orators, dramas, law courts, sports commentaries, and ancient religious rites. Even the well-known Pauline formula of "faith, hope, and charity," which appears also in the Book of Mormon, has been traced to Babylonian writings.[24]

Analysis of Specific Passages

2 Nephi 14:5

Walter Martin claims that Isaiah 4:5 is followed (mistakenly) by (2 Nephi 14:5). The phrase "For upon all the glory shall be a defense" should actually be "For over all the glory there will be a canopy."

Martin ignores that as translation literature, the Book of Mormon may well follow the KJV when the documents upon which the KJV is based match those of the Nephite text. Book of Mormon variants likely reflect only theologically significant changes not available in the Old World textual tradition.





2 Nephi 22:2

Some have questioned the use of the name JEHOVAH in 2 Nephi 22:2 and the use of some italicized King James Version words in the Book of Mormon. It seems clear that Joseph Smith was led to translate many passages as they appear in the King James Bible and made changes specifically by exception. Use of the proper name "Jehovah" which is an anglicized form of the Hebrew Yahweh, was common in the Bible[25] and was also in common use in Joseph Smith's day.[26] Although the name Jehovah is of more recent origin than the original Book of Mormon plates, it does not mean this name could not properly be used in translating a more ancient Hebrew title denoting the eternal I AM. Why should Joseph Smith be criticized for using the same name that King James scholars used?





Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?

In some translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, approximately 90% is simply copied from the King James Bible

Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.

Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from already known Hebrew manuscripts.[27]

The purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access

Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this. Here, for example, is how the first verses of Genesis are treated:

Dead Sea Scrolls Translation: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2 And] the earth [was] formless and void; and darkness was upon the fac[e of the dee]p: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," [and there was light. 4 And] God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light [from the darkness.] 5 And God called the light daytime, and the darkness he cal[led ni]ght. And there was evening [and there was morning,] one day.

KJV: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

We can see that it generally follows that same King James language. In places, it has variant readings, and it footnotes what ancient texts caused these different readings. You can also see from the various punctuation marks that there is a system in place to help us understand what part of the text comes from which source. Why would a translation made in 1999 (170 years after the Book of Mormon gets published) generally follow the King James Version? It isn't because the King James Version is the best, or the easiest to understand. In 1830, it was the only mass produced translation (the next major translation wouldn't be published for another half century). And it remains today one of the most common translations of the Bible. You don't have to be a specialist to compare the two texts and see what the differences are. In this way, we can (as non-specialists) get a better feel for the various ancient versions of the biblical texts. The same is true for the Book of Mormon except perhaps in reverse. By using the KJV language, we are probably being clued in to the fact that the potential differences aren't the important parts of the Book of Mormon. Rather than focusing on how this or that word was changed, we can focus on what the passages are trying to teach us.

This is not to argue that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time improving on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the KJV translation represented a true difference in the DSS, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to improve the KJV.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous. For example, most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference.

Furthermore, using a KJV "base text" also helps us to identify the source of some scriptural citations that might be otherwise unclear. Consider this bit from Jacob 1:7:

Wherefore we labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ, and partake of the goodness of God, that they might enter into his rest, lest by any means he should swear in his wrath they should not enter in, as in the provocation in the days of temptation while the children of Israel were in the wilderness.

This sounds nice, but its real impact on our reading Jacob occurs when we recognize that Jacob is alluding to Psalm 95:8-11:

8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. 10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: 11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

Jacob wants us to understand what follows in the context of Israel being led in the wilderness by Moses. Drawing that connection is hard enough for people who don't have a lot of familiarity with the Old Testament. But had it followed language not found in the Bible they had (the KJV)—even if conceptually it was the same—it would have been far more difficult for readers to connect the two to understand the point Jacob was trying to make.

In this way, it makes a lot of sense for a translation—even a divinely inspired translation which is being read through revelation (from a seer stone) - to follow a conventional text where it duplicates the same original source material. It isn't just about trying to duplicate the source material, it is also about getting the reader who then reads the text to understand it.





Response to claim: "That the witnesses never reported Joseph looking at a 1769 KJV Bible during the translation process actually enhances the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a fraud"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

That the witnesses never reported Joseph looking at a 1769 KJV Bible during the translation process actually enhances the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. Ignoring the possibility that God himself revealed the errors, at best Joseph was reciting from memory passages from the 1769 KJV Bible, rather than “dictating,” as FairMormon phrases it.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Jump to Detail:

Question: What did contemporary witnesses have to say about the Book of Mormon translation process?

Hostile news account 11 August 1829

and after penetrating “mother earth” a short distance, the [Golden] Bible was found, together with a huge pair of spectacles! He had been directed, however, not to let any mortal being examine them, “under no less penalty” than instant death! They were therefore nicely wrapped up and excluded from the “vulgar gaze of poor wicked mortals!” It was said that the leaves of the bible were plates of gold, about 8 inches long, 6 wide, and one eighth of an inch thick, on which were engraved characters or hyeroglyphics. By placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least,) interpret these characters.[28]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: "Spectacles" (i.e., Nephite interpreters)

Method: Spectacles in hat

Martin Harris (eyewitness), paraphrased in the The Gem 5 September 1829

“In the autumn of 1827 a man named Joseph Smith of Manchester, in Ontario County, said that he had been visited by the spirit of the Almighty in a dream, and informed that in a certain hill in that town was deposited a Golden Bible, containing an ancient record of divine origin. He states that after the third visit from the same spirit in a dream he proceeded to the spot, removed earth, and there found the bible, together with a large pair of spectacles. He had also been directed to let no mortal see them under the penalty of immediate death, which injunction he steadfastly adheres to. The treasure consisted of a number of gold plates, about 8 inches long, 6 wide, and one eighth of an inch thick, on which were engraved hieroglyphics. By placing the spectacles in a hat and looking into it, Smith interprets the characters into the English language.[”][29]

Scribe: Martin Harris

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: "Spectacles"

Method: Spectacles in hat

Martin Harris (eyewitness), paraphrased and reprinted in New-York Telescope 20 Feb 1830

...he proceeded to the spot, and found the bible, with a huge pair of spectacles....He is said to have shown some of these characters to Professor Samuel L. Mitchell, of this city, who could not translate them. Martin Harris returned, and set Joseph Smith to the business of translating them: who, “by placing the spectacles in a hat and looking into them, Joseph Smith said he could interpret these characters.”[30]

Scribe: Martin Harris

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: "Spectacles"

Method: Spectacles in hat

Hostile news account 27 Feb 1830

The inspired man who wrote the “Gold Bible” on “plates of brass,” in the “reformed Egyptian” language, on account of its brevity, as we are informed, through the medium of one of these psuedo prophets, never had half the trouble that we experience in deciphering the unseemly scrolls of this dark representative of old Pluto’s dominions. His letters and communications are all written in heathen Greek, and the characters so fine and imperfect, that notwithstanding the great power of our editorial spectacles, we have in one instance burnt the scrawl in despair![31]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: "Spectacles"?

Method: Not specified

Hostile news account circa May 1830

A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in dedicating as he says, by inspiration, a new bible. He pretended that he had been entrusted by God with a golden bible which had been always hidden from the world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a white stone, and pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed.[32]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Stone

Method: In a hat

Hostile news account 2 June 1830

Now the rest of the acts of the magician [Walters], how his mantle fell upon the prophet Jo. Smith Jun. and how Jo. made a league with the spirit, who afterwards turned out to be an angel, and how he obtained the “Gold Bible,” Spectacles, and breast plate–will they not be faithfully recorded in the book of Pukei?”[33]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles and breast plate [Walters the magician is said to have had a " magic stone" which he took with him.]

stone" which he took with him.] Method: Not specified

See also: The magician Walters as purported mentor to Joseph Smith

Hostile news account 7 July 1830

BOOK OF PUKEI.—Chap. 2. Contents.—....8 spectacles-breastplate-Oliver, &c....[Joseph] art chosen to interpret the book, which Mormon has written, to wit, the gold Bible? 8. “And lo! I answered the spirit of the money diggers saying, how can these things be, as I can neither read nor write? And he said unto me” ‘I will give thee a breast plate, to keep thee from evil, and I will send thee an assistant, even Oliver, the pedagogue.’[34]

Scribe: Oliver Cowdery

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles and breast plate

Method: Not specified

Hostile news account 2 August 1830

the vices and follies of others, if rightly appreciated are full of instruction, & we only require JO SMITH’S Magic Spectacles, or some other powerful optical instrument to turn them to our own advantage.[35]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: "Spectacles" (i.e., Nephite interpreters)

Method: Not specified

Hostile news account 16 November 1830

...which is said to be translated from Egyptian Hieroglyphics, on metal plates, by one Smith, who was enabled to read the characters by instruction from Angels....[36]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: Taught by angels

Oliver Cowdery in hostile news account 18 November 1830

According to the narrative given by one of these disciples—Oliver Cowdery—at their late exhibition in Kirtland, this pretended Revelation was written on golden plates, or something resembling golden plates, of the thickness of tin—7 inches in length, 6 inches in breadth, and a pile about 6 inches deep. None among the most learned in the United States could read, and interpret the hand-writing, (save one, and he could decipher but a few lines correctly,) excepting this ignoramus, Joseph Smith, Jr. To him, they say, was given the spirit of interpretation; but he was ignorant of the art of writing, he employed this Oliver Cowdery and others to write, while he read, interpreted, and translated this mighty Revelation.[37]

Scribe: Oliver Cowdery

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: Spirit of inspiration

Hostile news account 20 November 1830

You have probably heard of the Gold Bible taken from the earth by Joseph Smith, the money-digger. This he has translated from the Egyptian reformed language to English, by a pair of stone spectacles (provided by an angel) and a dark hat before his eyes.[38]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Stone spectacles

Method: Hat before eyes

Hostile news account 4 December 1830

In the Fall of 1827, a man named Joseph Smith of Manchester, Ontario county, N.Y. reported that he had three times been visited in a dream, by the spirit of the Almighty, and informed that in a certain hill in that town, was a Golden Bible, containing an ancient record of a divine nature and origin. On going to the spot he found buried the Bible with a huge pair of spectacles: The leaves (he said, tho' he was not permitted to shew them) were plates of gold, about 8 inches long, 6 wide, and 1-8th of an inch thick, on which were engraved characters or hieroglyphicks, which with the spectacles he could interpret. Martin Harris an industrious farmer, caught the contagion, took some of the characters to different learned men to translate, but without success. He returned, set Smith to work at translating it, and has had it printed.[39]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles

Method: Not specified

Hostile news account 8 December 1830

Some year or two since the crdulous [incredulous?] were amused with the tale that, guided by inspiration, some one had found many golden plates buried in the earth near Palmyra, Wayne county, in this state, upon which were revealed,in an unknown tongue, (an odd sort of revelation one would think) the whole duty of man. This the finder and comrade were enabled, by supernatural agency, to translate since which the book has been printed and travelling preachers have gone forth with it, to enlighten the world.[40]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: Supernatural agency

Hostile news account 14 December 1830

This new Gospel they say was found in Ontario co. N.Y. and was discovered by an Angel of light, appearing in a dream to a man by the name of Smith, who, as directed, went to a certain place and dug from the earth a stone box, containing plates of gold, on which this gospel was engraved in characters unknown. The said Smith though a man so illiterate that he cannot write, was, by divine inspiration, enabled to give the true interpretation, and the man who wrote from the mouth of Smith, is one of the four mentioned above.[41]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: By divine inspiration

Hostile news account 18 December 1830

At a recent period, an angel appeared to a poor ignorant man residing in, or near Palmyra, in Ontario county, in the State of New-York, and directed him to open the earth at a place designated, where he would find the new revelation engraved on plates of metal. In obedience to the celestial messenger, Smith repaired to the spot, and on opening the ground, discovered an oblong stone box, tightly closed with cement. He opened the sacred depository, and found enclosed a bundle of plates resembling gold, carefully united at one edge with three silver wires, so that they opened like a book. The plates were about seven inches long and six broad, and the whole pile was about seven inches long and six broad, and was about six inches deep; each plate about the thickness of tin. They were engraved in a character unintelligible to the learned men of the United States, to many of whom it is said they have been presented. The angel afterwards appeared to the three individuals, and showed them the plates. To Smith was given to transcribe the character which he was enabled to do by looking through two semitransparent stones, but as he was ignorant of the writing, Cowdry and others wrote as Smith interpreted. They say, that part of the plates escaped from them in a supernatural manner, and are again to be revealed when the events of time shall require them.[42]

Scribe: Oliver Cowdery and others

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Two semitransparent stones [the Nephite interpreters?]

Method: "by looking through two semitransparent stones"; not otherwise characterized

Hostile news account 7 February 1831

He that touched these stones appeared unto the brother of Jared, and said: “Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.” Two of these stones were sealed up with the plates, and became the spectacles of Joseph Smith, according to a prediction uttered before Abraham was born....This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years....[it] is, without exaggeration, the meanest book in the English language: but it is a translation made through stone spectacles, in a dark room, and in the hat of the prophet Smith, from the reformed Egyptian!!![43]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles (two stones); "stone spectacles."

Method: In a dark room, in the hat

Hostile news account 7 March 1831

the surface of which was covered with hieroglyphic characters, unintelligible to Smith, the finder, who could [218] not read English. However the angel (ghost!) that discovered the plates to him, likewise informed him that he would be inspired to translate the inscriptions without looking at the plates, while an amanuensis would record his infallible reading....[44]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: Inspired; results would be "infallible"

Plates: not necessary to look at while translating

Martin Harris (eyewitness), paraphrased in the Palmyra Reflector 19 March 1831

Harris declares, that when he acted as amanuenses, and wrote the translation, as Smith dictated, such was his fear of the Divine displeasure, that a screen (sheet) was suspended between the prophet and himself.... [45]

Scribe: Martin Harris

Curtain: Present

Instrument: Not specified

Method: Not specified

Oliver Cowdery (eyewitness), paraphrased in hostile press 9 April 1831

During the trial it was shown that the Book of Mormon was brought to light by the same magic power by which he pretended to tell fortunes, discover hidden treasures, &c. Oliver Cowdry, one of the three witnesses to the book, testified under oath, that said Smith found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the formed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates. So much for the gift and power of God. by which Smith says he translate his book. Two transparent stones, undoubtedly of the same properties, and the gift of the same spirit as the one in which he looked to find his neighbor’s goods.[46]

Scribe: Oliver Cowdery

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Two transparent stones with plates; distinguished from the seer stone or "peep" stone.

Method: Looking through the stones

Hostile press account circa May 1831

He [Joseph] has 10 year’s translating to do; he looks in a small stone he has, and there reads the will of the Lord and writes it for the good of his fellow men.[47]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: A stone; not clear if this is translation of Book of Mormon or other revelation

Method: Not specified

Ezra Booth (non-eyewitness) 27 Oct 1831

So also in translating.—The subject stands before his eyes in print, but it matters not whether his eyes are open or shut; he can see as well one way as the other.... These treasures were discovered several years since, by means of the dark glass, the same with which Smith says he translated most of the Book of Mormon.[48]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: "dark glass" (? "peep stone" variant)

Method: Eyes open or closed

Hostile news account 18 November 1831

The preacher said he [Joseph] found in the same place two stones, with which he was enabled by placing them over his eyes and putting his head in a dark corner, to decypher the hieroglyphics on the plates![49]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Two stones (Nephite interpreters)

Method: Place over eyes, in the dark

Nancy Towle - visiting critic 1832

He accordingly went; and was directed by the angel to a certain spot of ground, where was deposited a “Box”— [138] and in that box contained “Plates,” which resembled gold; also, a pair of “interpreters,” (as he called them,) that resembled spectacles; by looking into which, he could read a writing engraven upon the plates, though to himself, in a tongue unknown.[50]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Pair of interpreters/spectacles

Method: Able to read the writing engraven on plates

News report 7 Mar 1832

Smith with divine aid, was able to translate the plates...[51]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: Divine aid

News report of LDS missionary [Lyman Johnson and Arson (Orson?) Pratt] teachings 14 April 1832

God by his goodness inspired Smith himself to translate the whole.—Smith, however, not being qualified to write, employed an amanuensis, who wrote for him....[52]

Scribe: Mentioned, but no individual

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: Divine inspiration

Hostile news report 10 October 1832

A slight excavation of the earth, enabled him to arrive at this new revelation, written in mysterious characters, upon gold plates. A pair of spectacles, of strange and peculiar construction were found with the plates, to aid the optics of the prophet....[53]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles

Method: Divine inspiration

Hostile book report 1833

he found a book with golden clasps and cover, and a pair of elegantly mounted spectacles, somewhat old-fashioned to be sure, but astonishing magnifiers, and possessing qualities which it might puzzle Sir David Brewster to explain on optical principles. Smith had some difficulty in undoing the clasps of this precious volume, but on opening it, though his eyes were good, it appeared to contain nothing but blank paper. It then occurred to him to fit on his spectacles, when, lo! the whole volume was filled with certain figures and pothooks to him unintelligible. Delighted with his good fortune, Smith trudged home with the volume in his pocket and the spectacles on his nose, happy as bibliomaniac who has been lucky enough to purchase some rare Editio Princeps [first edition] “dog cheap” from the ignorant proprietor of an obscure book-stall. On reaching his own house, his first care was to secure his miraculous treasures from profane observation; his second, to copy out a page or two of the characters, and look about for an interpreter. His search was long fruitless, but, at length, he hit on precisely the two individuals who were qualified conjointly for the office. One of these gentlemen possessed the faculty of reading the hieroglyphics, and the other of interpreting....[54]

Scribe: Not specified—note that Joseph is not even said to be the translator

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles

Method: "Translation" by others

The claim is nonsense. There is not one shred of evidence or witness statement indicating that Joseph had an eidetic memory. There, however, observers to the process that state that he sat in the open, head in hat, dictating for hours in the presence of his scribe and other witnesses. Resorting to the "Joseph must have simply memorized passages from the Bible" argument is apparently the only way the author can rationalize the unexplainable, and one of his more egregious "failures to debunk."





W.W. Phelps (1833): "through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)"

W.W. Phelps wrote the following in the January 1833 edition of The Evening and The Morning Star:

The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.-It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim) and while it unfolds the history of the first inhabitants that settled this continent, it, at the same time, brings a oneness to scripture, like the days of the apostles; and opens and explains the prophecies, that a child may understand the meaning of many of them; and shows how the Lord will gather his saints, even the children of Israel, that have been scattered over the face of the earth, more than two thousand years, in these last days, to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the mount Zion. [55]

It appears that the seer stone was also referred to as the "Urim and Thummim" after 1833, indicating that the name could be assigned to any device that was used for the purpose of translation.[56]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles/Interpreters—"perhaps" the teraphim or urim and thummim [first association of the Nephite stones with the urim and thummim ?]

or [first association of the Nephite stones with the ?] Method: By the gift and power of God

Joseph Smith (eyewitness) in American Revivalist and Rochester Observer - 2 Feb 1833

having been found through the ministration of an holy Angel, translated into our own language by the gift and power of God....[57]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: By the gift and power of God

Hostile press report 7 March 1833

the golden plates were said to be engraved in a language that none but Smith could read—and that an angel gave him a pair of spectacles which he put in a hat and thus read and translated, while one of the witnesses wrote it down from his mouth....[58]

Scribe: Multiple; later identifies "Oliver Powdery" [sic] as "the scribe."

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles

Method: In the hat

Hostile press report May 1833

They have a revelation of their own, which, they affirm, was given to the people of this continent, (the Indians,) on plates, and deposited in the earth, and kept concealed in the earth of the Lord, till the fulfilment of its time, which has now been accomplished: and to prove that Joseph Smith is that wonderful prophet, to whom these marvellous plates and their profound mysteries [263] should be revealed, they recite the 29th chapter of Isaiah, saying that the prophet Smith is that unlearned man, to whom the book was given to read, and he said I cannot, for I am not learned! But this difficulty was soon removed by the spirit which came upon him, and blest him with the gift of tongues. The book then was clearly opened to his understanding, and he translated it to one of the witnesses, who wrote it in our language. [ check spelling ][59]

Scribe: "one of the witnesses"

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: "spirit...blest him with the gift of tongues"

Eber D. Howe (non-eyewitness), paraphrasing Martin Harris (eyewitness) in Mormonism Unvailed

[Martin Harris] says he wrote a considerable part of the book, as Smith dictated, and at one time the presence of the Lord was so great, that a screen was hung up between him and the Prophet; at other times the Prophet would sit in a different room, or up stairs, while the Lord was communicating to him the contents of the plates. He does not pretend that he ever saw the wonderful plates but once, although he and Smith were engaged for months in deciphering their contents.[60]:14 [61]

Scribe: Martin Harris

Curtain: present

Instrument: Not specified

Method: not specified

Locations: Different room; Stairs

Plates: Not present

Charles Anthon (non-eyewitness), in Mormonism Unvailed

This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered "by the gift of God:' Every thing, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles.[60]:270 [62]

Scribe: Martin Harris

Curtain: present

Instrument: Nephite interpreters ("spectacles"; "large pair of spectacles")

Method: "looked through one of the glasses"

Isaac Hale (eyewitness), Mormonism Unvailed

I told them, that I considered the whole of it a delusion, and advised them to abandon it. The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods![60]:265

Scribe: Not identified

Curtain: Not mentioned

Instrument: stone

Method: placed stone in hat

Charles Anthon paraphrasing Martin Harris (eyewitness), Mormonism Unvailed

A “gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles” ! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at that time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm [270] house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered “by the gift of God.” Every thing, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles.[60]:269 [63]

Scribe: Joseph Smith

Curtain: Present

Instrument: Spectacles

Method: Looking through spectacles, not a divine process

[Note that this comment would have derived from prior to the formal translation process, and likely reflects only Joseph's act of copying the characters so they could be taken to Harris accompanied by his interpretation.]

Mormonism Unvailed - 1834

They at the same time gave out that, along with the plates, was found a huge pair of silver spectacles, altogether too large for the present race of men, but which were to be used, nevertheless, in translating the plates. [17] The translation finally commenced. They were found to contain a language not now known upon the earth, which they termed “reformed Egyptian characters.” The plates, therefore, which had been so much talked of, were found to be of no manner of use. After all, the Lord showed and communicated to him every word and letter of the Book. Instead of looking at the characters inscribed upon the plates, the prophet was obliged to resort to the old “peep stone,” which he formerly used in money-digging. This he placed in a hat, or box, into which he also thrust his face. Through the stone he could then discover a single word at a time, which he repeated aloud to his amanuensis, who committed it to paper, when another word would immediately appear, and thus the performance continued to the end of the book.[60]:16-17

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Seer stone

Method: Placed in hat or box

Plates: Not looked at directly

Another account they give of the transaction, is, that it was performed with the big spectacles before mentioned, and which were in fact, the identical Urim and Thumim mentioned in Exodus 28–30, and were brought away from Jerusalem by the heroes of the book, handed down from one generation to another, and finally buried up in Ontario county, some fifteen centuries since, to enable Smith to translate the plates without looking at them ![60]:17

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles

Method: Not specified

But Don Quixote told his squire Sancho, that great fortune was often very near when we least expected it ; thus it was with Smith in diging after hidden treasures—the famous brass plates, the gold spectacles and the interpreting stone were found, perhaps, when he least expected it[60]:54

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles and stone

Method: Not specified

We are informed that Smith used a stone in a hat, for the purpose of translating the plates. The spectacles and plates were found together, but were taken from him and hid up again before he had translated one word, and he has never seen them since—this is Smith’s own story. Let us ask, what use have the plates been or the spectacles, so long as they have in no sense been used ? or what does the testimony of Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer amount to?

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Stone; "spectacles" not used at all

Method: Stone in hat

Plates: Not present

Hostile news account Jan 1834

But, by the special power of the Spirit, Smith was enabled to translate them.[64]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Not specified

Method: "Special power of the Spirit"

Plates: Not specified

Hostile news account 4 June 1834

In the year 1828, one Joseph Smith, an illiterate young man, unable to read his own name, of Palmyra, Wayne County, New York, was reported to have found several golden plates, together with a pair of spectacles, relics of high antiquity. The spectacles were designed to aid mental vision, under rather peculiar circumstances. They were to be adjusted, and the visage thrust into a close hat. This done Smith could interpret the sacred mysteries of the plates, in which lay, by the hypothesis, in the top of the hat![65]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Spectacles

Method: Spectacles in the hat

Plates: Not specified

Oliver Cowdery (eyewitness) 7 September 1834

These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites whould have said, “Interpreters,” the history, or record, called “The book of Mormon.”[66]

Scribe: Not specified

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Urim and thummim ("interpreters")

Method: Not specified

Plates: Not specified

Hostile press account - 1834/35

This famous book, which its misguided followers regard as a second Bible, or more properly as the Mohammedans do the Koran, is said to be a translation from certain brass plates, found by one Joseph Smith, in the town of Palmyra, (N. Y.) in 1826. They were enclosed in a box, which had to all appearance been used for common sized window glass. Smith pretended to interpret them, with a stone in his hat, and this hat over his face, while one Martin Harris was employed to write down the contents at his dictation.[67]

Scribe: Martin Harris (later mentions Cowdery)

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Stone

Method: Stone in the hat

Plates: Presence not specified; plates' box implied to be of modern origin; plates said to be "brass"—this source is clearly garbling at least some of the story.

W.W. Phelps to Oliver Cowdery - Feb 1835

The first one is where you sat day after day and wrote the history of the second race that inhabited this continent, as the words were repeated to you by the Lord’s prophet, through the aid of the “Urim and Thumim,” “Nephite Interpreters,” or Divine Spectacles. I mean when you wrote the book of Mormon, containing the fulness of the gospel to the world, and the covenant to gather Israel, for the last time, as well as the history of the Indians, who, till then, had neither origin among men, not records amid the light and knowledge of the great 19th century.[68]

Scribe: Oliver Cowdery

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Interpreters/Spectacles/Urim and Thummim

Method: Not specified

Plates: Not specified

Hostile press account March 1835

Smith pretended that he had found some golden or brass plates, like the leaves of a book, hid in a box in the earth, to which he was directed by an Angel, in 1827,—that the writing on them was in the “Reformed Egyptian language,”—that he was inspired to interpret the writing, or engraving, by putting a plate in his hat, putting two smooth flat stones, which he found in the box, in the hat, and putting his face therein—that he could not write, but as he translated, one Oliver Cowdry wrote it down.[69]

Scribe: Oliver Cowdery

Curtain: Not specified

Instrument: Two stones found with plates (interpreters?)

Method: Stones in the hat with a plate

Plates: In the hat





Response to claim: "At worst, Joseph waited until the witnesses weren't around to consult and copy from the 1769 KJV Bible"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

At worst, Joseph waited until the witnesses weren’t around to consult and copy from the 1769 KJV Bible

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Logical Fallacy: Argument from Silence—The author has formed a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than on their actual presence.

Response to claim: "What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon?

The author copied his information from the anti-Mormon site "Mormon Handbook" Author's sources:

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Jump to Detail:

Question: What do the italicized words in the Bible represent, and why is it relevant to the Book of Mormon?

Italicized text is used in some Bible translations to indicate when a word has been "added" because of necessity of English grammar

The spin: The author is speculating without any supporting data in an attempt to salvage his position.The facts: So, where was his scribe when Joseph was supposedly consulting and copying (or did the author mean "memorizing") from the KJV Bible? Is the author suggesting that Joseph was copying passages from the Bible, and then later, during the "public" translation, sticking them in the bottom of his hat one at a time, while reading them off to the scribe that was sitting in plain view of Joseph? Howone read text in a hat which is used, as David Whitmer described, for the purpose of blocking out the ambient light?None of the witnesses to the translation process ever reported Joseph consulting a Bible, or any other book.The spin: The author implies that all of the Biblical passages quoted in the Book of Mormon are identical, including the italicized words. This is not the case.The facts: One author notes that, regarding the Isaiah passages, "46 percent are identical to those in the Bible, while 54 percent are modified to some extent."When Joseph encountered an Isaiah passage whose structure closely matched the corresponding passage in the Bible, he appears to have simply used the Biblical translation. Whether it was revealed to him by God, or whether he somehow consulted a Bible, isn't really relevant. In other cases, however, he translated modified versions of the Biblical passages.

Often, the italicized word is a word which is implied in the original Greek or Hebrew text, but must be explicitly used in English. It is claimed by some that Joseph Smith was aware of this, and while copying the KJV passages, tended to alter the italicized words to make it look more like a translation.

Some members accept the possibility that the italicized words are often altered "intentionally," but disagree with what this means about the translation. They do not see it as threatening Joseph's inspiration, the divine nature of the translation, or the reality of an ancient text on the plates. Others hold that there is no evidence that Joseph even had access to a Bible, nor that he was aware of the italics' meaning. (It should be noted that the Bible that Joseph had access to at age 14 in which he read James 1:5 prior to the First Vision belonged to his parents. At the time of the translation, Joseph did not have access to that Bible).

Either option is a viable response, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully more data will be forthcoming to help resolve the issue, that we might better understand the translation process of the Book of Mormon.





Question: Did Joseph know what the italics in the Bible meant?

Joseph didn't even know that Jerusalem had walls around it. His basic knowledge of the Bible was limited

Just as there is no evidence that Joseph owned a Bible, there is even less that he had any knowledge of what the italicized words in the translation meant. Emma made Joseph's early ignorance crystal clear:

When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [I didn’t know.] I was afraid I had been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.[71]

If Joseph didn't know this, how do the critics expect that he knew what the italics in a Bible (which he likely did not own) meant? This is something which many modern Bible readers do not know. However, one cannot conclude with certainty that Joseph did not understand what the italicized words meant. Some LDS scholars believe that he did.

Furthermore, italicization patterns varied between Bibles, and an analysis of Joseph's Book of Mormon "changes" to the KJV concluded that changes to the italics were not a determining factor.[72]





Barney: "three types of evidence favoring the conclusion that Joseph understood the meaning of the italicized words"

Some LDS scholars do believe that Joseph may have understood the meaning italicized words. Kevin Barney: [73]

I think there are basically three types of evidence favoring the conclusion that Joseph understood the meaning of the italicized words. First, and most importantly, is the distribution of the variants in Joseph’s inspired translations, which show a clear (though by no means absolute) tendency to revolve around the italicized words. Skousen and Wright agree roughly on this distribution, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%, give or take, but they draw different conclusions from it. My experience spending a fair amount of time examining variants is that the italics were a significant factor. Second is the practice of often crossing out italicized words in the “marked Bible” used as an aid in preparing the JST. Anyone with access to the critical text can see this phenomenon for herself, since they have actual pictures of the marked Bible text. Third are near-contemporary statements from Joseph’s milieu evincing a familiarity with the purpose of the italics. A prominent example is this from a W.W. Phelps editorial in the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833): The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.—It was translated by the gift and power of God.[74]





Response to claim: "Contrary to FairMormon’s assertion above that God himself revealed the 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, FairMormon is conceding here that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Contrary to FairMormon’s assertion above that God himself revealed the 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, FairMormon is conceding here that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: FairMormon does not make an assertion that God revealed 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, nor does FairMormon "concede" that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon.The facts: What FairMormon does do is acknowledge that there is scholarship that supports either position. There is a difference of opinion among LDS scholars on the issue of "tight" versus "loose" translation, and the question is not settled. Some LDS scholars believe that Joseph copied Biblical passages over to the Book of Mormon, despite the lack of evidence that Joseph ever consulted any books during the translation process. Other scholars take the position that when Joseph reached a Biblical passage in the translation, that God, in most cases, simply gave him the ability to quote the verse as it existed in the currently available Bible. In addition, not all of the Biblical passages quoted in the Book of Mormon are identical to the versions quoted in the King James Bible - 54 percent of them were modified.





Response to claim: "2 Nephi 19:1...Joseph qualified the sea as the Red Sea"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

2 Nephi 19:1...Joseph qualified the sea as the Red Sea

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Jump to Detail:

Question: Why does 2 Nephi 19:1 change the word "sea" in Isaiah 9 to "Red Sea"?

Joseph deleted the word "her" and added the word "Red" to the quote of Isaiah 9 in the Book of Mormon

The mistake: Although the addition of the word "red" may be attributed to possible human error, there is no mention by the author of the fact that the word "her" was omitted, making Joseph's translation actually match the original source text more closely.

Although the King James Version of the bible contains the word "her" in Isaiah 9, the standard Masoretic Hebrew (MT) text from which the KJV derived does not contain this word. Therefore, this particular change by Joseph matches the original text more precisely than the KJV does. John Tvedtnes explains:

9:1 (MT 8:23) = 2 Ne. 19:1 KJV: "afflict her by the way of the sea" BM: "afflict by the way of the Red Sea" The deletion of italicized "her" is understandable, since it is not in MT. (I) However, BM [Book of Mormon] must be wrong in speaking of the "RED Sea", which is certainly not "beyond Jordan, in Galilee", nor near the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali. This appears to be a case of scribal over-correction, due to prior mention of the Red Sea in the BM text.[76]

In other words, Tvedtnes suggests that the addition of the word "red" is an example of Oliver Cowdery "over-hearing" (hearing "sea" and adding "red" in error).

Jeff Lindsay: "there are a couple of reasonable possibilities consistent with the concept of the Book of Mormon being an authentic ancient text translated by divine aid (but still going through fallible human hands in the process)"

The following response is provided by Jeff Lindsay,

In the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 19:1 reads: Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations. [emphasis added] This verse is a quotation of Isaiah 9:1, which reads in the KJV as follows: Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The Book of Mormon deletes "her" from the KJV and changes "sea" to "Red Sea." Based on verse 1 in light of verse 2 from Isaiah, many people conclude that the sea is the Sea of Galilee, not the Red Sea. The KJV for Isaiah 9:2 is: The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. So yes, these verses do appear to be a prophecy of the ministry of Christ, and the Sea of Galilee would make sense. So why does the Book of Mormon have the puzzling reference to the Red Sea? Here is a possible explanation offered by D. Charles Pyle in e-mail received June 2004: There are those who say that this is an error. It is possible that it is a scribal error on the part of Oliver Cowdery in copying the printer's manuscript from the original manuscript. The problem is that this cannot be proven or disproven because this portion of the original manuscript no longer is extant. It also is possible that the Egyptian textual translation of the Hebrew is in error and that Joseph Smith translated it, error and all. On the other hand, it also is possible that it is not an error at all. The King's Highway also was part of what was known in ancient times as the Way of the Red Sea, which led out of Egypt along the shores of the Red Sea, passed through Edom and changed direction after meeting with the Way of the Sea, in Galilee, to go into Mesopotamia. It is possible that Joseph journeyed this way, or at least part of this way, to avoid going through Judaea when he took Jesus into Nazareth as a young child. If so, it would be quite correct in that the light would pass into the region of Naphtali via the Way of the Red Sea. Joseph sought to avoid contact with Archelaus and a back route would be one of the best ways to avoid contact. We also know that Jesus went into the wilderness for his temptation after being baptized in a region on the other side of the Jordan. The English Book of Mormon has Bethabara as do several versions of the Bible while [several other translations have] Bethany beyond Jordan. He would then have come down from Galilee to be baptized on the other side of the Jordan (east of the river; 'beyond Jordan' meant to the east of the Jordan River), and come down around the Way of the Red Sea and around the Dead Sea to the Wilderness of Judaea. Remember, Jesus' wandered the wilderness for forty days, plenty of time to travel around the Dead Sea in that manner, that region being one the most inhospitable in the main. There are possible hints that Jesus came through Edom or Idumea. One way that he could have done so is to travel the Way of the Red Sea, which passes through Edom. The records of Jesus' life and travels are scanty at best and it is impossible to know for certainty at this time. In any case, I am not willing to state without good evidence that this passage is in error with any degree of certainty, for in my opinion there is no certainty either way. I have sifted through much contradictory 'evidence' and have formed no solid conclusion on this textual matter. Bottom line: we're not really sure, but there are a couple of reasonable possibilities consistent with the concept of the Book of Mormon being an authentic ancient text translated by divine aid (but still going through fallible human hands in the process). There is a plausible basis from the ancient world for referring to the sea as the Red Sea. On the other hand, if Joseph were relying on his knowledge of the Bible and fabricating the text, changing "sea" to "Red Sea" would make no sense. What would motivate a Bible literate fabricator to make such a change?[77]





Response to claim: "The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the bible"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the bible.

....

Joseph Smith corrected the Bible. In doing so, he also corrected the same identical Sermon on the Mount passage in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is “the most correct book” and was translated a mere decade before the JST.Author's source: MormonThink.com page "JST Bible Translation".

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Jump to Detail:

Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?

Joseph did not go back and alter the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages when he performed his "inspired translation" of the Bible.

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is not a translation in the traditional sense. Joseph did not consider himself a "translator" in the academic sense. The JST is better thought of as a kind of "inspired commentary". The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader. As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on lds.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible". Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.

The JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding.

Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"

It is important to remember that Joseph did not consider one 'translation' of anything to be perfect or 'the final word.' Joseph had indicated that Moroni quoted Malachi to him using different wording than the KJV (See Joseph Smith History 1:36–39). However, when Joseph quoted the same passage years later in a discussion about vicarious baptism for the dead, he said:

I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other-and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism. for the dead (DC 128:18). (emphasis added)

Thus, to Joseph, the adequacy of a translation depended upon the uses to which a given text will be employed. For one discussion, the KJV was adequate; for others, not. A key element of LDS theology is that living prophets are the primary instrument through which God continues to give knowledge and understanding to his children. Scriptures are neither inerrant, nor somehow "perfect," but are instead produced by fallible mortals. Despite this, because of current prophets and the revelation granted each individual, the writings of past prophets are sufficient to teach the principles essential for salvation. Additional revelation is sought and received as required.

Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a 'translation' as only the conversion of text in one language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization. The JST is probably best understood in this light.

An Example: The Lord's Prayer

There is a great example of this kind of difference in the Lord's prayer. Compare the following:

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Book of Mormon). And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (KJV Bible). And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil (JST Bible).

The JST changes the statement to passive voice whereas the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon are in active voice. According to E. W. Bullinger, this particular scripture contains a Hebraism, namely, "active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said do." Consequently, Bullinger interprets the passage this way: "Lead us not (i.e., suffer us not to be led) into temptation."[78]

Adam Clarke agrees with Bullinger. He wrote this scripture means "'Bring not in,' or 'lead us not into.' (This is a mere Hebraism. God is said to do a thing which He only permits or suffers to be done)."[79]

In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament we read the same interpretation. "This phrase then must be used in the sense of permitting. Do not suffer us or permit us, to be tempted to sin. In this it is implied that God 'has such control over us and the tempter, as to save us from it if we call on him."[80]

When properly considered, this passage is an example of where the JST reading and the KJV/Book of Mormon are both correct. The KJV and Book of Mormon are literal interpretations while the JST is an interpretive translation that is also correct. Given Joseph's relative inexperience in prophetic interpretation in 1829, he would be far more likely to render a verse literally than engage in interpretation.





Matthews: "To regard the New Translation...as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text"

In describing the nature of the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), the leading expert, Robert J. Matthews, said:

To regard the New Translation [i.e. JST] as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text. It seems probable that the New Translation could be many things. For example, the nature of the work may fall into at least four categories: Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible. Portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by "Likening" the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance. (See 1 Nephi 19:23-24; 2 Nephi 11:8). Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate. The most fundamental question seems to be whether or not one is disposed to accept the New Translation as a divinely inspired document.[81]

The same author later observed:

It would be informative to consider various meanings of the word translate. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives these definitions: "To turn from one language into another retaining the sense"; also, "To express in other words, to paraphrase." It gives another meaning as, "To interpret, explain, expound the significance of." Other dictionaries give approximately the same definitions as the OED. Although we generally think of translation as having to do with changing a word text from one language to another, that is not the only usage of the word. Translate equally means to express an idea or statement in other words, even in the same language. If people are unfamiliar with certain terminology in their own tongue, they will need an explanation. The explanation may be longer than the original, yet the original had all the meaning, either stated or implied. In common everyday discourse, when we hear something stated ambiguously or in highly technical terms, we ask the speaker to translate it for us. It is not expected that the response must come in another language, but only that the first statement be made clear. The speaker's new statement is a form of translation because it follows the basic purpose and intent of the word translation, which is to render something in understandable form…Every translation is an interpretation—a version. The translation of language cannot be a mechanical operation … Translation is a cognitive and functional process because there is not one word in every language to match with exact words in every other language. Gender, case, tense, terminology, idiom, word order, obsolete and archaic words, and shades of meaning—all make translation an interpretive process.[82]





Question: How is the Joseph Smith Translation best understood?

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is probably better understood similarly to a Jewish Targum

Much of the JST is probably better understood similar to the way we understand a Jewish Targum where parts of the text are restorative, parts are commentary, and other parts contain harmonization of doctrinal concepts.

The JST for the opening of the Gospel of John is as follows:

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.

It seems more likely that the point of this revision is to avoid directly equating the Word (Greek: Logos) with Jesus Christ. This equation was based on Greek philosophical usage, in which the concept of a Logos as an intermediary agency between God and man was first articulated. So equating the Logos with the gospel and not Jesus directly seems to be a way of rejecting too great a reliance on Greek philosophy in articulating the premortal nature of Jesus Christ. This is likely not a return to some primitive purity of the text, but a helpful explanation or commentary provided by the Lord through Joseph Smith to prevent us from going too far down a theological "blind alley."





Response to claim: "If Joseph was trying to make the Bible more correct, he would not change something that was correct according to Isaiah"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

If the Bible verses were good enough for the "most correct book," there is no reason to change them in the JST of the Bible (other than to obfuscate the plagiarism). If Joseph was trying to make the Bible more correct, he would not change something that was correct according to Isaiah.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The author does not understand what "plagiarism" is. The Book of Mormon clearly acknowledges that it is quoting Isaiah. Plagiarists, on the other hand, attempt to pass of the work of someone else as their own, without acknowledging the source. According to Webster: "the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person."The facts: We are also not dealing here with "something that was correct according to Isaiah." We are dealing with a Englishof something that was correct according to Isaiah. There is always latitude available in making a translation clearer. Joseph Smith acknowledged that he could have sometimes "rendered a plainer translation" to certain concepts.

The nature of the Joseph Smith Translation often represents an exposition of the underlying significance of a Bible text in a manner similar to the way that New Testament authors used the Old Testament. (e.g., Hebrews 1:8 [Psalms 45:6-7]; Matthew 2:14-15 [Hosea 11:1]).

Jump to Detail:

Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"

Joseph Smith noted that his own translations can be improved,

I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other-and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. (DC 128:18).





Response to claim: "DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but rather from Asia.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

To our knowledge, the DNA data has never been disputed by the Church or anyone else.





Jump to Subtopic:





Response to claim: "Why did the Church change the following section of the introduction page in the 2006 edition Book of Mormon shortly after the DNA results were released?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but rather from Asia. Why did the Church change the following section of the introduction page in the 2006 edition Book of Mormon shortly after the DNA results were released?

“…the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians”

“…the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians. ...

(From "Conclusion") Lamanites aren’t really the principal ancestors of the Native American Indians.

FairMormon Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Jump to Detail:

Question: Why did the Church modify the introduction to the Book of Mormon from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors?"

The Church changed the wording to remove the assumption (inserted into the Book of Mormon in the 1920's) that all of the inhabitants of the Americas were exclusive descendants of Lehi

The implication by the author is that the Church retreated from the definition of "Lamanite" by altering the introduction to the Book of Mormon that was added in the 1920's. This is incorrect. If Lehi's people intermarried withfrom the existing New World population, then by definition they are certainly among the ancestors of every native American currently living, and thus qualify under the Church's definition of "Lamanite." The only way critics can make the DNA data to be a weapon against the Book of Mormon is toa hemispheric interpretation of an empty North and South American continent at the time of arrival of the Book of Mormon people. This is why critics of Mormonismat all costs negate the Limited Geography of the Book of Mormon.

The Church made the change in wording to the introduction to the Book of Mormon to remove the assumption, which inserted into the Book of Mormon introduction in the 1920's and not part of the original text, that all of the inhabitants of the Americas were exclusive descendants of Lehi. This had been the generally held belief from the time that the Church was restored.

This change makes the Book of Mormon introduction compatible with current DNA evidence and acknowledges the fact that Lehi's group likely intermingled with the native inhabitants of the American continents based upon current knowledge of the DNA composition of the inhabitants of the New World. There is substantial scientific evidence of habitation in the Americas for thousands of years prior to Lehi's arrival.

If Lehi had any descendants among Amerindians, then after 2600 years all Amerindians would share Lehi as an ancestor. Even if (as is probable) the Lehite group was a small drop in a larger population 'ocean' of pre-Columbian inhabitants, Lehi would have been an ancestor of virtually all the modern-day Amerindians if any of his descendants married into the existing New World population.





Olson (2004): "People may like to think that they're descended from some ancient group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn't work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few millenniums ago"

Non LDS-writer Steve Olson (an expert in population genetics[83]) wrote:

If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet. That absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the strange and marvelous workings of human ancestry...Say you go back 120 generations, to about the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our Nature paper, your ancestors then included everyone in the world who has descendants living today... If Jesus had children (a big if, of course) and if those children had children so that Jesus' lineage survived, then Jesus is today the ancestor of almost everyone living on Earth. True, Jesus lived two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person's descendants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world like the Middle East...In addition to Jesus...we're also all descended from Julius Caesar, from Nefertiti, from Confucius...and from any other historical figure who left behind lines of descendants and lived earlier than a few thousand years ago. Genetic tests can't prove this, partly because current tests look at just a small fraction of our D