Summary: 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.
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?
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
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.
Summary: The Book of Mormon contains quotations from biblical authors with language mirroring much of that of the King James translation. The Book of Mormon also contains word and phrase borrowings from the King James Bible that are not part of quotations from biblical authors. These quotations, word borrowings, and phrase borrowings contain what are now considered by some scholars and critics to be translation errors.
Some critics believe that the errors are evidence of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith in creating the Book of Mormon and specifically from a 1769 edition of the King James Bible. The author of the CES Letter, asks "[w]hat are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"[1]
Other critics focus on a statement from Joseph Smith declaring that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" and ask "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]
There are four questions that must be confronted regarding supposed KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon:
Is the claimed "translation error" actually an error?
Is the error evidence that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing from the KJV? We need to know whether Joseph was plagiarizing from a 1769 edition of the KJV, because that is the edition that Joseph reputedly owned.
Do the translation errors change the meaning of the text so drastically as to mislead the reader in theologically significant ways? Joseph Smith it "the most correct book on earth" not because it contained no translation errors, but because by following what the Book of Mormon teaches a person would get closer to God and his nature than by reading any other book.
If these are errors, why would God allow such an error in the text of the Book of Mormon?
Question #1: Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version to create the Book of Mormon?
First, we deal with the accusation of plagiarism. There are many reasons to reject the notion that Joseph Smith either made use of a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon or had one nearby that he was memorizing prior to or at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. For these and other reasons mentioned below, we can reject a charge of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith:
Plagiarism is implausible #1—Errors not unique to 1769
As a corrective to the CES Letter, the "errors" reported in the King James Bible are not unique to the 1769 version. Five major editions of the KJV were published in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. Many minor editions/revisions have been made since the 1769 edition.
The 1769 text is the standard text of most King James Bibles today including that published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Only the 1611 and 1769 editions can be found online. The "errors" are contained in both editions. Readers can read the 1611 edition online and see for themselves.
The more modern 1769 KJV used in Latter-day Saint scriptures can also be found online and checked. Given that the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "translation errors", it’s likely, though the author hasn’t yet verified it, that the other major editions published between the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "errors" which, in turn, makes it more difficult for us to claim with certainty which edition of the KJV, if any, Joseph Smith plagiarized from.
A slow drift in the argument. Anti-Mormon critics' arguments often undergo a slow evolution as they copy from each other, sometimes distorting the original argument along the way. So it proves in this case.
The authors on whom the CES Letter seems to rely did not claim that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Rather, one of them merely noted translation errors and suggested that the King James Bible was a source for the Book of Mormon’s composition. The other also noted translation errors, but he did not claim that the errors were what singled out the 1769 edition. Rather, he noted the use of italics in the KJV to indicate a word that was not present in the original Greek text of the Bible and that "[t]he Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings."[3]:p.130
This, it was argued, proved the Book of Mormon wasn't ancient. That's an absurd claim since the revision of italics does not necessarily prove a modern origin for the Book of Mormon. At most, it can mean that a 1769 King James Bible or later printing is being used in some way as a base text for the Book of Mormon translation.[4]
KJV as a base text? Stan Spencer writes:
[a]lthough the Bible that was used as a base text for the Book of Mormon was certainly the KJV, it was probably not the 1769 Oxford edition, which most King James Bibles today are based on. The text of that edition was not uniformly used in King James Bibles until after the Book of Mormon was translated. Many distinctive American editions of the KJV were printed in the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries, and these, along with the contemporary King James Bibles out of Cambridge, had many minor differences from the Oxford 1769 edition, some of which served to modernize the language. Some of these editions more closely match the Book of Mormon than does the 1769 edition — the 1828 Phinney Cooperstown Bible and the 1819 American Bible Society octavo edition being among the closest.[5]:49
The King James Bible itself is a very conservative revision of the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible.[5]:47n5 The original, 1568 edition of the Bishop's Bible is available online and may be checked if one is curious as to whether an 'error' in the KJV is a holdover from this earlier translation.
The key point is that the King James translators may not have been the translators that originated many of these errors. Instead, they were likely reproducing prior errors. (If this happened in the case of the Book of Mormon, it would no more prove that Joseph was not translating the Book of Mormon than the presence of such errors in the KJV prove that the KJV translators were not translating.)
Spencer explains why the KJV is used as the Book of Mormon's base text:
The use of the KJV as a base text for biblical passages in the Book of Mormon makes sense since it allows for any important differences to be easily seen. A completely independent retranslation of the Isaiah chapters would have differed more in wording than in meaning. The differences in wording would have invited fruitless criticism of the suitability of word choice in the Book of Mormon. The use of wording from the KJV precludes such a diversion of attention from the intended messages of the Book of Mormon. Even for short biblical interactions, the use of KJV wording makes it more clear that the Bible is indeed being quoted or alluded to. An independent translation of these shorter passages would have differed enough in wording from the KJV that some of these interactions would have been less clear.[5]:47–48
Related article:
Academic use of base texts for new translation Summary: See here for discussion of translators using earlier translations as a base text to showcase only the important differences between their text and well-known versions.
Plagiarism is implausible #2—Announcing a quotation is not plagiarism
Nephi and the Savior generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Regardless of whether a modern or ancient author is responsible for the Book of Mormon text, citing sources directly is not plagiarism. At most, all we can say is that Joseph Smith (or his supposed co-conspirators) are haphazardly using Isaiah to create the Book of Mormon, not plagiarizing it.
As for the Sermon on the Mount, it is not difficult to believe that Christ's message would be the same to all people. For him to repeat himself is not plagiarism. If Joseph is trying to fool us, putting the most well-known sermon in all of Christendom into the mouth of the resurrected Jesus is a foolish way to do it.
John W. Welch has documented important differences between the Sermon on the Mount recorded in the New Testament and what he calls the Sermon at the Temple in 3rd Nephi. Welsh demonstrates that Joseph Smith is not just mindlessly coping the Sermon on the mount.[7]
Plagiarism is implausible #3—The Book of Mormon author clearly has no need to plagiarize to produce large amounts of text
Regarding Exodus, Mark, 1 Corinthians, and 1 John, why would Joseph or his supposed co-conspirators plagiarize the one source most familiar to their audience? Why copy whole chapters haphazardly when that audience was so familiar with the source material? Whoever produced the Book of Mormon is clearly able to write text that has nothing to do with the KJV. Joseph does not need it for filler—he can produce immense amounts of text very quickly in a short period of time.
Plagiarism is implausible #4—Some 'errors' find confirmation in texts unknown to Joseph Smith
A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.[8] 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. It is also contained in the Coverdale 1535 translation of the Bible.[9] John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.[10] BYU Professor Paul Y. Hoskisson has shown that "[t]he 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."[11]
These factors throw a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of KJV Isaiah. Why would Joseph Smith crib the KJV including all of its translation errors but then somehow find the one phrase, "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible? How could he make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah, and make sure that his version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon had authentic Hebraisms made to be part of the text as well? It's obviously possible that he did, but highly unlikely.
Plagiarism is implausible #5—Witnesses all insist no papers or bible was ever consulted
The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.[12]
Related article:
All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process Summary: This page collects all first- and second-hand descriptions of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and groups them by theme (e.g., weight of the plates, use of seer stone, etc.)
Stan Spencer observed,
[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate.[5]:59
Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, to conceive of Joseph either memorizing these passages and phrases (a process for which there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation (likewise) is ludicrous. Someone would have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible, and some are specifically clear that he did not have any book or manuscript to which he referred.[13]
Plagiarism is implausible #6—The original manuscript shows no signs of visual copying of the KJV
Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen, using the Original and Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, has provided a persuasive argument 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 the Book of Mormon quotes, echoes, or alludes to passages in the King James Bible, 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 KJV.[14]
Of course, it's possible that Joseph Smith dictated every portion of the Book of Mormon that quotes Isaiah to Oliver while looking at the Bible and Oliver isn't; but that's less likely given the consistency with which Oliver misspells the words (wouldn't there be at least one time, throughout all the time that Joseph and Oliver were translating, where Joseph Smith hands Oliver the Bible to more efficiently copy the passages and where Oliver then spells the words correctly?)
When considering 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 the 19th century audience. Even if Joseph Smith were using the King James Bible out in the open and on the translating table as a base text, that would hardly be out of line with best practices for translators and hardly considered plagiarism. The available eyewitness and manuscript data is more consistent with the theory that the KJV was used as a base text but through divine revelation from God rather than out in the open on the table.[15]
Skousen and Latter-day Saint linguist Stanford Carmack are adamant that Joseph Smith merely read the words off the seer stone/Urim and Thummim and did not consult a bible during translation of the Book of Mormon. A reason they believe this is that the Book of Mormon contains Early Modern English in its translation. They provide many examples that they believe predate Joseph’s English, the English of the 1769 edition of the King James Bible, and even the 1600s edition of the King James Bible. Skousen and Carmack have produced a massive amount arguing for this stance. Readers are encouraged to read that work and decide for themselves.[16] This information is summarized by Evidence Central at the hotlink to the right.
Plagiarism is implausible #8—A bible was purchased only after the translation was finished
We know that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.[17]
Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.[18] Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the print shop that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon. This bible was later to be used to produce the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST).[19] Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?
Plagiarism is implausible #9—Over half the Isaiah verses have alterations
As the Church has made clear in the 1981 and the 2013 editions of the Book of Mormon in footnote "a" for 2 Nephi 12꞉2: "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".[20] This provides excellent evidence that Joseph Smith is not mindlessly cribbing off the KJV version of Isaiah. A lot of these changes are indeed (around 30% of the Isaiah variants) merely changes to the italicized words of the King James passages.[5]:50n11 But many others aren't. We can actually show that Nephi is engaging with the text and making changes to Isaiah that "liken" Isaiah’s messages to Nephi’s then-current situation and theological understanding (1 Nephi 19꞉23). We can also demonstrate that Nephi is selecting passages of Isaiah with an overriding, coherent theological agenda. Book of Mormon Central's description in the above link is an excellent summary. Thus, rather than mindless copy-paste, there is meaningful engagement with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.
Royal Skousen, with extensive analysis of the Original and Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,[21] has concluded that the original manuscript, including the quoted Bible chapters, was written from dictation rather than copying of another document. One of the reasons he believes this is that Joseph Smith’s dictation consistently includes precise and sometimes unusual spellings of some words not contained in the King James Bible nor any document in his immediate environment, suggesting that exact words including their exact spelling were revealed to him and that he wasn't taking inspiration from other sources. An example of this is the name Coriantumr spelled with mr and not an mer as might be expected if Joseph were just getting ideas in his head of what to say and dictating them to Oliver or another one of his scribes. This suggests that Joseph could see words on the stone/Urim and Thummim and that he could spell them out exactly to his scribes in cases (such as names) where precision was important for meaning.
Plagiarism is implausible #10—The manuscript shows signs of dictation from a text, not improvisation
Skousen also believes the Original Manuscript was dictated because "[t]he manuscripts include consistent phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith was reading from a carefully prepared text rather than composing the English translation based on thoughts or impressions as he dictated."[5]:88
Plagiarism is implausible #11—There's no evidence Joseph knew what the italics meant
I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.[22]
There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was ever seen trying to memorize long passages from the King James Bible at, near, or leading up to the time of translation. Joseph's level of education may suggest that he was not even capable of memorizing such lengthy passages.
Related article:
Plagiarism from King James Bible? Summary: This further discusses the problems with plagiarism theories for the Book of Mormon text.
Question #2 and #3: Are the KJV translation errors really errors? If so, do they lead us into erroneous ethical ideas or theological ideas about God?
The Lexicons of Today May Not Be the Lexicons of Tomorrow
What is a translation error?[23] For example, it is an error to translate the Spanish word "rey" as queen when, it means king. The word for queen in Spanish is "reina". A translation error is when someone misrepresents in a target language what something in a source language refers to.
We use lots of words in different ways. Words do not have inherent meaning (a given sound or word does not need to mean anything in particular). But, words are not completely idiosyncratic—they cannot mean just whatever an individual decides they mean. A language community understands them in roughly similar ways—similar enough to allow reliable communication. That is, after all, the whole point of words. If they can mean anything at all, then they mean nothing.
For instance, the object we now refer to as a "fork" may not have been called a fork a long time ago. At some moment or series of moments in the past, people began to apply the name "fork" to a fork and popularized that label to the English linguistic community. We could have called a fork a "spoon" a long time ago, popularized it, and that label ("spoon") would be what we call a fork today. In essence, words refer to what we've used them to refer to. Spelling of words and pronunciation of words are the products of this same set of arbitrary decisions and subsequent popularization.
Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those that deal with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.
This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we just need to wait for more evidence. Now, lexicons of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to pick out unique objects and concepts so as to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem solving.
We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical text.
We should also note that we do not have any of the original manuscripts of the Bible. Modern translations of the biblical text we have today come from the earliest known copies of the original manuscripts that are available to the translators at the time of their respective translation. Any claim that the Book of Mormon makes use of an "erroneous" translation from the King James Bible is going to be at least mildly suspect for that simple fact. Wouldn't we want the original manuscripts as composed by the original author before making a definitive claim that any particular translation is "in error"? We do have copies of the manuscripts and they may reproduce the text of the originals reliably, but there's no reason to be certain. There's good reason to doubt it including the fact that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith teach that the extant biblical manuscripts don't accurately reproduce the original text.[24]
On the other hand, we do not intend to claim definitively that the Book of Mormon preserves the original, pristine version of the biblical texts it quotes, or alludes to. In some cases, we simply can't know whether it does. If "translate" is being defined as merely "reproducing the text produced in one language in a different language" then perhaps we would declare a given rendering 'in error'. However, translation has the potential to be more broadly and inclusively conceived—and Joseph Smith seems to have understood it in this broader sense.
This broader view of translation includes things like expounding on the text and making amendments to either clarify the intent of the author or make the translation more readable and comprehensible to the translator's audience. For instance, modern individuals in different, highly technical professions have to "translate" the intelligent English of their profession into "layman's terms" or simpler English for those that don't understand the intricacies of the professional's work. The Joseph Smith-era 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary has no less than 7 different definitions of the word 'translate' that include such things as 'conveying' or 'transporting' an object or person from one place to another, 'changing', and 'explaining'.[25]
We often forget that there are typically three layers we must identify to understand a written text:
what's in the author's mind and what he or she intended to write,
what is actually written, and
our own definitions of words which impact how we interpret what an author writes.
Word meaning can sometimes be culturally separated from the original author such that we misinterpret what the author wrote. Sometimes the author doesn't write what he or she intended to communicate.
With a translated text there is a fourth layer to identify and untangle from the other three:
4. the translation itself and its relation to its source text—here again we must determine what the translator thought and intended to write, what he or she actually wrote, and the definition of the words they used and how we understand them.
Sometimes a translator has his or her own objectives, quirks, and other philosophies about translation that can either clarify or obscure the meaning and content of the source text. There's a sense in which we can never uncover the author's intentions because the mind is by its nature a private, subjective experience. We have to rely on the text that authors produce to accurately convey what is in their mind, but sometimes it doesn't do that because the translator wasn't careful enough. We know that peoples of any culture are going to have culturally-conditioned definitions of words and sometimes we aren't able to learn enough about that culture to uncover definitions as the original author of the text understood them.
Thus there may be errors and we wouldn't know it—and supposed errors may not be errors at all and we wouldn't know it either. All of these factors demand some humility on our part.
The most that we can say is that based on current manuscript evidence and scholarship, some of the King James translation of the Bible paralleled in the Book of Mormon is considered erroneous by some scholars and critics based on several questionable and unverifiable assumptions. We can go no further.
With these cautions in mind, we will now proceed to specifics. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the biblical manuscripts that we translate from today accurately reproduce the text of the Bible as written by its original authors, and that these texts actually reflect the authors' intent. We will also assume that the lexicons of today accurately reflect how words were used anciently to refer to different objects. But remember—these are assumptions, not proven facts.
Royal Skousen has given us a representative list of what can be considered translation errors. Skousen did "not intend to list every possible error. Rather, [he] simply recognize[d] that the Book of Mormon translation will reflect errors because of its dependence on the King James Bible."[26]:220
Skousen also has given us a list of cultural translations "where the original meaning is obscured by providing a translation that speakers from the Early Modern English period would have readily understood."[26]:214 Some of these might be considered "errors" by our critics and so we will discuss specifics below.
Along with these cultural translations and alleged translation errors, emerging scholarship is demonstrating that the Book of Mormon also holds significant intertextual relationships with the New Testament. That is, the Book of Mormon echoes, alludes to, and sometimes quotes New Testament language at length as a means of communicating the Book of Mormon’s message.
Critics have alleged that this demonstrates that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing the King James rendering of the New Testament in order to create the Book of Mormon.
In written correspondence with those who study New Testament intertextuality with the Book of Mormon, the author has found out that there are three items that may currently be considered "translation errors" by scholars. There may be more. However, none of these that immediately came to mind for them seem to threaten the Book of Mormon's authenticity in any significant way. Those are also discussed below.
Skousen says that "[n]one of these scholarly objections matter much since the Book of Mormon is a creative, cultural translation. In other words, the use of the King James text, warts and all, is not only unsurprising, but it is in fact expected."[26]:214 The table below, along with the "errors" identified by Skousen and other Book of Mormon scholars, will also include close to 50 other claims of translation errors by seven critics of the Book of Mormon.[3][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
This table catalogues, as far as we can ascertain, every potential error that has been pointed to by critics and other scholars of the Book of Mormon to date.[34] These lists include exactly 88 items.[35]
As a reminder, these tables contain links to the passages from both the 1611 and 1769 editions of the King James Bible as well as to lists of translations at biblehub.com in order to refute the contention of the CES Letter that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV.
We start with the basic translation "errors", then catalogue the cultural translations, and finish off with the New Testament "errors". The tables below include the errors' location in the Bible and Book of Mormon, the supposed erroneous translation, the passage in question, and commentary on the alleged error. They are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon. Those troubled by other "errors" they may find in the Book of Mormon might seriously consider using a similar approach taken by the author of this article to resolve concerns. If someone finds an "error" that they'd like FAIR to comment on, or that person has already done that work and would like to submit it to FAIR to be included in this article, they are strongly encouraged to send that work/ask those questions to FAIR volunteers at this link.
Summary of conclusions
For those who do not wish to examine each case in detail, we provide our conclusions:
Some cases aren't errors.
Some aren't translation errors but rather correct translations of younger biblical manuscripts. Biblical scholars typically like the older manuscripts as they often contain a version of the text more likely to be closer to what the original author wanted to be in the text. Sometimes, this intuition is incorrect.
In four cases pointed to as an "error", the "error" wasn't an error at all but a good example of the diachronic nature of language—that is, language changes and evolves over time. What the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) meant to refer to when they said "virtue", for instance, is not the same thing we mean to refer to when we say "virtue". They meant to refer to something like power and we mean to refer to something like strength in doing moral good or sometimes chastity.
In two cases below, the "errors" weren't errors, but instead a case of modern translators using the conventions of their language. This is the case with Isaiah 6꞉2 and 6꞉6 (and corresponding passages in 2 Nephi 16꞉2 and 16꞉6 in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon) with their use of the word "seraphims" to refer to multiple seraph(s). The problem is that the suffix -im in Hebrew already pluralizes the word seraph. But the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) are also referring to multiple seraph(s) but just using the conventions of English by adding an "s" to the end of the word. This is the sort of error an academic translator would avoid, but it means little in this context.
In some cases, the errors are merely translation variants (rather than errors) where one variant is not necessarily superior to another. This is because the meaning of the underlying Hebrew or Greek is uncertain.
In some cases, the meaning of the verses has been changed from the original text but it hasn't changed so drastically as to not include the more specific meaning of the passage captured in other translations. In these cases, the translation can only be said to be too broad or general rather than necessarily erroneous. It’s like saying that "king" refers to royalty. Technically correct, but it could be more specific ("a particular male royal") for more clarity.
In some cases, the translation errors are legitimately errors. These errors thus change the meaning of one or more words in the respective passages; but they don't always lead us away from the original and overall intent of the passages.
In some cases, the errors actually do lead us away from the original and overall intent, but this isn’t a bad thing since the changed intent does not necessarily reflect an inaccurate doctrinal understanding.
In some cases, the "errors" are not errors and are better explained as a translator's gloss where the translation is not necessarily accurate as to what a word from the target language referred to but do help make explicit what ancient readers would have understood implicitly from use of a particular word.
In many cases, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to determine with a reliable degree of certainty in which of the above 9 categories the translation falls. We can make a reasonable case for fitting them into multiple categories.
In no case, however, is there a translation variant, broadening of meaning, change in meaning, change in intent, etc. that teaches incorrect doctrine or otherwise compels a reader into believing something false.
Click "expand" below to view the entire table.
Location in Canon
Erroneous Translation
Passage
Commentary
Commentary on Alleged KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon
This one isn't a quotation of a biblical passage per se but the use of a particular biblical name. The Book of Mormon and King James Bible consistently call the sea that Moses and the children of Israel crossed when fleeing from the Egyptians the "Red Sea". (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critics contend that this is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew yam sûp. Instead of "Red Sea", critics contend that it should read "Reed sea". We have responded to this theory elsewhere on the wiki.
"Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critic David P. Wright asserts that the better translation would be "reward" instead of "work".[28]:219n48. The verses concern either Israel's, the Messiah's,[36] or Isaiah's response to God who in verse 3 calls one of them His servant in whom He will be glorified. One of them responds that, in their own judgement, they are weak and frail as a servant but that nonetheless, God will judge and reward them. The intent of the passage can be argued as correct no matter the translation, however.
If the passage is translated as "reward", the Book of Mormon already teaches that God rewards us despite our frailties both moral and vocational. The Book of Mormon already teaches that God is our reward. Nephi teaches us that beautifully in his psalm recorded in 2 Nephi 4.[37]
If the passage is translated as "work", one could interpret it in a few ways. One could say that God works through his servants to do good things despite their frailties. In that case, Paul tells the Phillipians that "it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."[38] In the previous chapter, Isaiah 8, God tells Israel "I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."[39]
One could alternatively interpret it as saying that the work of Isaiah, the Messiah, or Israel is chosen or ordained by God to do a work on their own: without God's intervening power. Isaiah recounts how God called him in Isaiah 6. God indicates that Israel is his chosen, covenant people throughout the Old Testament text. The Messiah is the anointed one and is prophesied of throughout Isaiah's record and in other Old Testament prophecies.
It seems that no matter the translation and interpretation, there is nothing that isn't clearly taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.
"And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critics assert that the better translation would be "to restore Jacob to him, and that Israel be gathered to him."[28]:172[29] Neither the Book of Mormon rendering nor the critics' change the meaning significantly.
"Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation would be "I answer/have answered you."[28]:172 Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, hearing and doing something or responding to them were functionally the same thing. You didn't hear someone if you didn't respond to them. Something similar may be going on here. The passage means that the Lord heard the cries of Israel and helped them, which is already affirmed with "in a day of salvation have I helped thee".
"Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive delivered?" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation would be "Can...captives (be) retrieved from a victor?"[28]:219n48.Popular English biblical translations vary between saying captives of the "mighty", "tyrant", "righteous", "victor", or "conqueror". The verse can only be considered a translation variant rather than an error. "The rhetorical questions function here as assertions of divine power insofar as the LORD can make these things happen".[40]:1047n24–26 God is asserting that he can free the Israelites taken captive by those that oppress them. Thus, regardless of the translation options, the intent of the verse is not changed substantively.
"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critic David P. Wright laughably asserts that "the underlying Hebrew is unintelligible" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV is likely wrong." This passage, according to Wright, "is apparently taking the word läcût to mean 'to speak/do in season.'" Yet again, Wright tells us that "[h]ow it is to be understood is not clear." Then he tells us that "[s]ome modern scholars, with hesitation, take the verb to mean 'to aid/help/succor.'"[28]:172–73. Even this is part of Wright's essay discussing KJV translation errorsperpetuated in the Book of Mormon. As such, it can only be considered a translation variant. Even with the wording as is, it clearly teaches that Isaiah's gift is to speak to him that is weary. That can only mean a form of succoring/aiding.
"Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critics think that the metaphor "make my judgment to rest/repose for a light" is merely "odd." "Many modern versions take the verb (which the KJV translates 'make rest') with the beginning of the next verse (sometimes with emendation)."[28]:173 The sentence construction is a bit odd but it doesn't substantively change the meaning of the verse, which is that God's judgement (sometimes translated "justice") will be a light for the people. Where exactly would the judgement "rest"? This is not certain. Perhaps on the wicked? Regardless, the rhetorical goals of the verse are accomplished. Some might think that the verse is communicating that God will cease to judge and that this will be a light to the people, which would indeed be incorrect teaching; but that interpretation is inconsistent with the first clause ("for a law shall proceed from me").
"And he shall judge among the nations and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The Hebrew verb here lacks the negative sense of rebuke—that is, it means 'to judge' rather than 'to reprove'; note the preceding parallel line: 'and he shall judge among the nations'."[26]:217 The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that God actually will rebuke peoples that come down on the negative side of God's judgements. In any dispute, there will be rebukes that God sends forth—implicitly or otherwise—for the wrongdoer. The Lord tells us that he chastens us and scourges us because he loves us in Proverbs 3꞉11-12, Hebrews 12꞉5-6, and Helaman 15꞉3.
"Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is closer to things like "they strike hands with foreigners," "make bargain/covenant with foreigners," or "are crowded with foreigners."[28]:169 The verse concerns the idolatry of Israel. "Pleasing themselves" is ambiguous because it could certainly be used (though, admittedly, awkwardly) to refer to making deals with the people of idolatrous nations. It could refer to any type of positive activity with foreigners/strangers. Regardless of the positive activity, it is clear that doing it with foreigners symbolizes the kind of idolatry and apostasy the Lord/Isaiah mean to refer to in this verse. Thus it's unclear that there's a substantive change of meaning and, even if there were, the passage would still accomplish what it sets out to do.
"And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive them not" (Book of Mormon, 1830 Edition) (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Runnells asserts that the correct translation is "and the mean man boweth down not, and the great man humbleth himself [not]: therefore forgive them not."[29] Interestingly, the current edition of the Book of Mormon contains just this translation. "And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not." The only difference between Runnells' proposal and the current edition of the Book of Mormon is that the Book of Mormon replaces them in "forgive them not" to him and omits the second not that the critic has in brackets. The essential message of the evils of idolatry is not affected.
But both the critic and Latter-day Saints still have errors to account for here. nearly every single popular, English biblical translation of these verses rejects using "not" after "boweth down". The correct translation is actually how it is rendered in the King James Bible! The critic claims to have been working from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and making comparisons to the an online version of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (the first edition) has this verse rendered as "and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive him not." Skousen in his earliest reconstruction of the Book of Mormon text renders it as "and the mean man boweth down and the great man humbleth himself; therefore forgive them not."[41]:108 This is the correct translation of the text. Skousen notes a rather complex textual history of this verse in his Analysis of Textual Variants.[42]:656–60 Thus the Book of Mormon actually originally had the correct translation of this passage and it was changed, likely by the first printer and typesetter of the Book of Mormon, John Gilbert. This is at most an error perpetuated by modern editors.
But now what about modern editions of the Book of Mormon that don't have the correct translation? Are they in true error? In context, Isaiah is condemning the house of Jacob for idolatry and bowing themselves down to idols mentioned in verse 8. Thus that's why the correct translation refers to people being humbled and bowing because they're being humbled and bowing to the idols. The modern editions of the Book of Mormon would be in error if whoever composes the text today meant to refer to the idols. But the modern editions could be referring to God. If the mean man and great man don't bow to God, then they're committing idolatry and God shouldn't forgive them. In the 1830s edition, it's saying that the mean man bows down and the great man doesn't bow down. This could be read to mean that the mean man bows down to the idols and the great man doesn't bow down to God.
No matter which edition we're consulting here, we are not compelled to read the essential intent of the verse wrongly and, indeed, with careful reading, it seems that the essential intent of the verse will be captured by careful, studious readers no matter which translation/edition is consulted. It seems implausible to believe the author (ancient or modern) meant to endorse or encourage idolatry.
"and upon all the ships of Tarshish and upon all the pleasant pictures" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The better translation according to Skousen is "and upon all the pleasant ships".[26]:217 Critic Jeremy Runnells thinks it should be either "image", "ships," or "crafts".[29] Yes, he includes "image" as somehow a potentially more correct translation than "pictures". Critic David P. Wright thinks it should be either "grand ships" or "precious things".[28]:169 Though there are at least four modern, popular, English biblical translations that render this verse similar to how it is rendered in the Book of Mormon. Popular English translations vary between referring to ships/crafts or pleasant imagery/pictures. It's not entirely certain, but the more likely correct translation is ships. Isaiah intends to use the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be brought down and taken away so as to eliminate pride. Either ships, crafts, or pleasant imagery/pictures can do/be a part of that. Thus the intent hasn't changed at all and no doctrinal error occurs.[43]
"The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"In the phrase 'the prudent and the ancient', the adjectival noun prudent is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for divining. This phrase is translated, for instance, as 'the diviner and the elder' in the English Standard Version."[26]:217 Critic David P. Wright agrees.[28]:170 The verse concerns the Assyrians' coming invasion of Israel and carrying them away into captivity. The New Oxford Annotated Bible notes that "[t]he Assyrians were well known for deporting the leading figures and skilled craftspeople of a conquered society in order to exploit their talents elsewhere in the empire and to destabilize the conquered society to prevent further revolt."[40]:984n3.1–12. Thus, the intent of the verse is to use accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that the most talented and wisest of Israelite society were going to be taken away captive by the Assyrians. That can include the prudent. Also, diviners may be described as prudent.
In any case, this does not alter the verses' meaning—men of importance or value are being subject to capture and deportation.
"The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"Here in the Hebrew the sense of orator is 'enchanter.' The English word derives from the Latin verb meaning 'to pray' (see definition 1 under orator in the [Oxford English Dictionary])."[26]:217 Critic David P. Wright derives the same analysis as Skousen.[28]:170 Same commentary here as made for the preceding entry for 2 Nephi 13꞉2.
"For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critic David Wright asserts that the better translation is "Rebel against/defy/insult his glorious presence/glance/gaze."[28]:170 The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse from the KJV. In the Book of Mormon it is rendered "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongues and their doings have been against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory." 4-5 other modern, popular, English biblical translations render it with "provoke". This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language since one of the definitions of the word provoke is "to challenge" which is clearly in agreement with modern translations of the Bible.[44]:170 The Oxford English Dictionary similarly provides examples of writers near the time of the King James translation using "provoke" to mean "[t]o call out or summon to a fight; to challenge, to defy" and "[t]o incite (a person or animal) to anger; to annoy, vex, irritate, or exasperate, esp. deliberately."[45] This fits in with Wright's suggestions of insult and defiance.
"the Lord will take away the bravery of tinkling ornaments and cauls" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The Oxford English Dictionary defines caul as 'a netted cap or head-dress, often richly ornamented'. The Hebrew today is usually translated today as a headband."[26]:214 Isaiah's intent is to communicate that the Lord will take away the most prized possessions of the women of Jerusalem because those possessions cause arrogance. Whether headbands or cauls being taken away, it doesn't change the essential message of Isaiah—and both are worn on the head.
"In the Hebrew, the word tire refers to something round, either a crescent or perhaps a round pendant for the neck. The use of tire here in Isaiah 3꞉18 originated in the 1560 Geneva Bible: 'in that day shall the Lord take away the ornament of the slipper and the cauls and the round tires', where tire is a shortening from attire and refers to an ornament for a woman's head. The 1568 Bishop's Bible expanded on this by placing an internal note in square brackets after round tires: 'and the cauls and the round tires [after the fashion of the moon]'. This interpretative remark was apparently derived from the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, where the word used for 'crescent ornament' or 'little crescent' was a diminutive of the word for moon. The 1611 King James translators decided to embed this remark within the text itself by omitting the brackets, thus 'and round tires like the moon'. Since this interpretative prepositional phrase was not in the original Hebrew, it should have been placed in italics in the King James text."[26]:215 This doesn't appear to be a translation error, but just a variant.
"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings," (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament states that the best translation would be something like the Latin Vulgate's "scent-bottles". It states that the translation rendered literally is "'little houses [containers] of vital energy [life],' made use of by breathing."[46] The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states that the translation is better rendered as something like "tomb" or "grave".[47] This is most likely a translation variant, given the disagreement among scholars. It may not be an error at all. The verse is using the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a scent-bottle, a tomb, or a grave, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. (Given the poetic nature of Isaiah, all of these resonances may be intended--their scent bottles of life are ironically death which they pack around with them.)
"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings," (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states that the translation is best rendered as "amulets".[47] The verse is using the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether amulets or earrings, it doesn't change the intent of the verse.
"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles and the wimples, and the crisping pins" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The Hebrew word refers to a wide or flowing cloak. The English word used by the King James translators, wimple, is quite different: 'a garment of linen or silk formerly worn by women, so folded as to envelop the head, chin, sides of the face, and neck; now retained in the dress of nuns' (the first definition under the noun wimple in the Oxford English Dictionary)."[26]:219 The verse is using the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a cloak or a wimple, (both items of clothing to cover and protect) it doesn't change the intent of the verse, which implies that the soon-to-be captive will be stripped naked literally by the Assyrians, and spiritually by their vulnerability to the pagan invaders.
"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The modern-day equivalent of crisping pin would be curling iron. The Hebrew is generally interpreted here as referring to purses or handbags."[26]:216 Similar considerations apply as for "wimples" above. Whether they are seen as losing their fancy, well-coiffed hair or their purses containing cosmetics or riches, the ironic fall of the daughters of Zion is graphically illustrated.
"The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states that the translation is best rendered as "papyrus garments" or "mirrors".[47] The verse is using the rhetorical device of accumulatio to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether glasses, papyrus garments, or mirrors, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. The irony is again thick in either case--if mirrors, then those who cannot see their spiritual state clearly will lose the mirrors in which they admire themselves in pride. If papyrus garments, these are delicate and easily stripped away by the Assyrians who will lead them into slavery--again, a dramatic type of shameful exposure to those so concerned about externals.
"And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle, a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"There are two Hebrew verbs, both with identical consonants, but with different meanings: one means 'to tear' and the other means 'to go around or to surround'. The noun rent derives from the first verb, but the noun rope or cord (meaning to go around the body) derives from the second. Here the word girdle takes the archaic meaning 'belt'. Modern translators have typically rendered this line in Isaiah 3꞉24 as 'and instead of a belt, a rope.'"[26]:217 The intent of Isaiah is to contrast the former dignity and pride of the daughters of Zion with their current shame. Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, uncovering someone's nakedness was a way to make them feel shame (see, for example, Isaiah 47꞉3 which reflects this attitude) so keeping "rent" (i.e. cut/gap) where perhaps a person's belt line was would uncover someone's buttocks and genitals and is an appropriate way to make the contrast between current dignity and subsequent shame or lower social status. The intent of the passage is unaltered and correct.
"and instead of a stomacher, a girding of sackcloth" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The Hebrew word here, patigil, is otherwise unattested. The Greek Septuagint translated it as 'a tunic of mixed purple', which has led to the general translation of this article of clothing as 'a fine garment' or 'a rich robe'. Miles Coverdale, in his 5 Bible, translated it more specifically as stomacher, 'an ornamental covering for the chest (often covered with jewels) worn by women under the lacing of the bodice'."[26]:215 As the Hebrew remains uncertain, this can only be seen as a translation variant rather than error. The essential message of Isaiah in contrasting fine, luxurious things with things of lower social status and shame that await the future Assyrian captives remains unaffected.
"And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critics allege that word translated here as "defence" is better rendered as "canopy".[32]: 322. Ture, "canopy" is in most popular English biblical translations. However, nearly all of these popular English biblical translations see a canopy as a defending structure, and the King James translation as well as the Book of Mormon see it precisely that way. Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he offending word here is חֻפָּה. The term means a 'chamber' (as a covering or enclosing), per BDB, or a 'shelter' (per Holladay's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament). As the word 'defense' in KJV English refers to any kind of shelter, including a canopy and other terms that this Hebrew word can be translated as, there is no issue."[48]
Similarly, Daniel C. Peterson, responded to this claim as follows in a 1993 review of an anti-Mormon book:
In 2 Nephi 14꞉5, the Book of Mormon follows KJV Isaiah 4꞉5 in rendering the Hebrew chuppah as "defence": "For upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence." But the proper reading, say Ankerberg and Weldon, should have been not "defence," but "canopy" (p. 322). Therefore, they contend, the Book of Mormon is fraudulent.
Their reading of chuppah is, it must be admitted, correct. It has the support of the majority of modern translations. But does the Book of Mormon's "defence" represent so serious a distortion of Isaiah's meaning, so serious an error, as to call into question its own antiquity? I think not. The ancient Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate seems to have interpreted Isaiah 4꞉5 in the same way as did the King James translators, rendering the last phrase of the verse as super omnem enim gloriam protectio. The ancient Greek Septuagint, on the other hand, has pase te doxe skepaslllcsetai, in which the final verb is clearly related to the nouns skepas and skepc, both of which mean "covering" or "shelter." The Jewish Publication Society's translation, Tanakh, says that the "canopy ... shall serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection against drenching rain." The New Jerusalem Bible says that it will give "refuge and shelter from the storm and the rain," using much the same language as does the New English Bible. The Evangelical Protestant New International Version says that the "canopy ... will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain." Is "defence" really so very out of place in such a context?[49]
Thus, at best, there is no translation error here at all. At worst, it is a bit too broad of a translation.
"And he fenced it and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The Hebrew verb for fenced in Isaiah 5꞉2 is now translated as 'to dig about' or 'to hoe or weed'; in other words, "he dug about it and cleared it of its stones."[26]:216 Critic David P. Wright derives basically the same analysis as Skousen.[28]:170 This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The verse here is a part of verses 1–7 that describe Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard. The New Oxford Annotated Bible notes that it "allegorically portrays the Lord as Isaiah's friend ... who worked so hard to ensure a productive vineyard only to be disappointed when it yielded sour grapes. The allegory, which is explained only at the end, draws in the audience, as many in ancient Judah would have had extensive experience in vineyards. Its conclusion makes puns to make its point, viz., the Lord expects justice (Heb "mishpat") but sees only bloodshed (Heb "mispah") and hopes for righteousness (Heb "tsedaqah") only to hear a cry (Heb "tse'aqah)."[40]:986n1–7 "The 1828 Webster[50] notes that the word fence means 'a wall, hedge, ditch,' the third example fitting well with the modern renderings."[44]
The KJV translators may have meant to say that the Lord allegorically protected the vineyard by fencing it with a ditch. (Or earth/stones dug from the ditch are then piled as a barrier on the edge of the ditch, combining the images.) The Oxford English Dictionary notes that, at its broadest, "to fence" meant simply to put up a type of barrier at the time of the King James Version's translation. Thus there are examples of writers from the 17th century saying, for instance, "The lands of [private] men..were fenced with ditches." This usage fits into the Book of Mormon's and KJV's usage. Other examples of writings from the 17th century say that you can fence with a battlement, walls, iron armor, shells, and so forth. To fence was to simply put up a type of barrier.
"Then shall the lambs feed after their manner, and the waste places of the fat ones shall strangers eat." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is "then lambs shall feed as at their pasture/meadow" or "in their old pastures."[28]:170 The passage is contrasting the type of success one can have with the Lord and the grave misfortune one can have when one does not follow the Lord. The previous verse to this (v.16) begins that contrast. The intent of the passage is to say that lambs shall return to their normal feeding. Thus saying that they return to their old pasture to feed and saying that they'll feed "after their manner" is really not a substantive change in meaning. The author judges this as a translation variant rather than an error. Even if the image shifts slightly, it is inconsequential.
"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is "their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets."[28]:170 This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the word "carcass" could refer to either animal or human remains at the time that the King James Bible was translated. After about the year 1750, it came to be used as a form of contempt for human remains.[51] These usages fit perfectly within the context of Isaiah. This appears an attempt to find fault where there is none—a carcass and a corpse are the same thing.
"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is "their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets."[28]:170 To say that the corpses "were torn" in the midst of the streets does leave ambiguity since "were torn" could refer to people or perhaps animals actively tearing up dead human remains in the streets or, alternatively, it could refer to the dead bodies already being torn up in the streets. "Refuse" refers to trash. To say that their corpses were torn in the streets is functionally the same thing as saying that they're refuse. Regarding "torn", Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he Hebrew term in question here is כַּסּוּחָה. Again, this is not a KJV error that made its way into the Book of Mormon...if the Hebrew is read as a verb, as in the KJV, it means 'cut of' or 'torn off'; only by reading it as a noun prefixed preposition it would mean 'as offal.'"[48] In either case, the sense of horror to an Israelite audience would be profound, who would be troubled both by the desecration of a body if it were torn by scavengers and by the fact that the dead lay in the street, unburied. A proper burial was vital in the ancient world, and not receiving it was regarded as a terrible fate.
"And in that day they shall roar against them like the roaring of the sea: and if one look unto the land, behold darkness and sorrow, and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is "the light is darkened by/in its clouds."[28]:170 Whether the light is darkened in the sky or by clouds, the intent of the verse isn't changed. (And what in the sky, one wonders, would darken light if not clouds?)
"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is "above him" (referring to the Lord in v. 1) instead of "above it" (which would be referring to the train of his garment in v. 1).[28]:170 Though it's uncertain if saying that the angel standing above the garment train is a denial that the angel stood above God.
"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The current edition of the Book of Mormon just has seraphim without the s. Skousen's earliest reconstruction of the verses as well as the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon have "seraphims".[41]:114 Under a certain perspective, a more correct translation of these verses would indeed render it as only "seraphim" and not "seraphims" with an s. That is because the suffix -im in Hebrew already indicates that the object is pluralized. Though one could argue that there really is no error in translation given that the KJV translators were just using English conventions in order to assure readers that the object was pluralized. Consider the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, for instance, that said that the plural of seraph could be seraphs.[52]
"Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The same analysis as applies to the "error" in 2 Nephi 16꞉2 in the previous entry. One anti-Latter-day Saint used a similar argument in claiming that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon was in error by using the word "cherubims" from the KJV.[53] The same reasoning applies against his claim. Consider the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, for instance, that said that the plural of cherub could be cherubs.[54]
Whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves, so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.
"But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is "whose stock/stump remains when they are felled (or: their leaves fall): its stock/stump is the holy seed."[28]:219n48. Though the verse retains the substance of meaning proposed by the critic. The verse means to communicate that "[a] part of Israel would return, and like the oak and terebinth, which though they are eaten or consumed right to their substance or stumps, yet they possess a seed in them that can regenerate."[55]:367 "Despite the horrific imagery of a mere ten-percent survival rate (tenth part), the account concludes with a hopeful image of new growth from the ravaged stump that will constitute the holy seed of restoration (see Ezra 9꞉2)."[40]:989n11–13 Is saying that the "substance" of the tree remains really a denial of the stump/stock being that substance? Are the rhetorical goals of the verse not accomplished by changing "stock/stump" to "substance"? It could be seen as the tree's "vital force" or "substance" hidden within and life apparently gone, but awaiting the chance to burst forth anew.
"Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The verses have been crucial for Christians who want to support Matthew's use of the passage in his Gospel to theologically support the notion that the Savior would be born of Mary, who was a virgin. Jews and the majority of biblical scholars contend, and not without merit, that the proper translation of the verse is to have merely "young woman" instead of "virgin". What's more, Christians have needed to contend that prophecies can have more than one fulfillment since the verses could be referring to a son of Ahaz that would be named Immanuel in context.
The issue of translation has been explored elsewhere by non-Latter-day Saint Christian scholars as well as Latter-day Saint scholars.[56]
Perhaps the best commentary was offered by the editors of netbible.org who observed that the Hebrew term translated as "virgin" (ʿalmah), in the vast majority of cases, refers to just a young woman who has reached sexual maturity, but that it can be and has been used in select instances to refer to a virgin (e.g. Gen 24꞉43). Thus, one's view of the doctrine of virgin birth may be entirely unaffected by disputes over translation.[57] There are other issues to deal with if wanting the verse to work as a reference to Christ, but as far as a translation of the verse, we've explicated all the most relevant issues.
"Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the logical relation of the second clause to the first is not clear. It is as if eating butter and honey leads to moral knowledge. Clarification is needed. Compare the New Jerusalem Bible: "On curds and honey will he feed until he knows how to refuse the bad and choose the good."[28]:170 Certainly clarification of the logic is preferable here, but the rhetorical goals of the verse are still accomplished given this translation, and there are no grave errors as constructed.
"where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The Hebrew here literally reads 'a thousand of silver', where the presumed measure of weight is the shekel. The Greek Septuagint translated this phrase as 'a thousand shekels'. The use of silverlings in the English translation originated with Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible. The English word silvering was chosen because it was morphologically analyzed as a silver + ling, but its value was not the same as a shekel's."[26]:215 The intent of the scripture appears to remain unharmed.
"and all the hills that shall be digged with the mattock" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"This is a tool that in the Hebrew is based on the verb meaning 'to pick' or 'to hoe'. The English mattock refers to a tool that is more specific than simply a pick or a hoe."[26]:215 The intent of the passage seems to remain unchanged.
"Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts the better translation is "common/ordinary letters" or "common/ordinary stylus."[28]:219n48. The concern here is over "man" and what the significance of saying "a man's pen" is. It's certainly not clear enough to communicate that Isaiah means that the pen is common or average. But it's also not erroneous.
"Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son;" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation "may be" "but melt (with fear) before Rezin and Remaliah's son."[28]:170 Experts affirm that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.[40]:991nCMost modern, popular, English biblical translations have "rejoice" instead of "melt in fear". Either translation works and makes enough sense in historical context. The Lord merely means to express his "dissatisfaction with Ahaz's refusal to accept the divine offer of protection."[40]:991n5-8 The Lord does not want Judah to associate with with Rezin and Pekah. Those that do associate themselves reject the offer and "rejoice" in Rezin and Pekah by gladly joining them in their quest to defend against the incoming invasion of the Assyrians. The Contemporary English Version (2000) translates this verse as "These people have refused the gentle waters of Shiloah and have gladly gone over to the side of King Rezin and King Pekah." This captures the spirit of what is meant to be "rejoicing" in Rezin and Pekah. Though one could also translate it as "melt in fear" and say that the people join Rezin and Pekah because of fear of them. At worst, "rejoice" is merely a translation variant; and at best, it's an entirely correct translation and "melt in fear" is in error.
"Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts the better translation is "...to all that this people calls a confederacy/conspiracy."[28]:171 The Book of Mormon omits the "them" from Isaiah 8꞉12 and just has "say ye not a confederacy to all to whom this people shall say a confederacy". The Book of Mormon's sentence construction doesn't change substantively from Wright' proposal.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them
"And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they shall speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub v. 18 | Bible Hub v. 20)
Wright asserts that the Hebrew is obscure and that the KJV/ Book of Mormon translation is also obscure. He asks us to compare the following modern translation "And should people say to you, 'Go and consult ghosts and wizards that whisper and mutter'–a people should certainly consult its gods and the dead on behalf of the living! As regards instruction and testimony, without doubt this is how they will talk, and hence there will be no dawn for them" (New Jerusalem Bible).[28]:171 The current edition of the Book of Mormon reads as follows (differences from KJV bolded): "And when they shall say unto you: Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and mutter—should not a people seek unto their God for the living to hear from the dead? To the law and to the testimony;and if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." So the only real difference to which Wright draws our eye is the KJV/BoM's bad (?) translation of "to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them". This can only be considered a translation variant and not an error on Wright's theory (if indeed the Hebrew is obscure). But the Book of Mormon and KJV likely capture the better sense of the verse.
"And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critic David P. Wright curiously asserts that "[t]he Hebrew here is ... obscure" and then, in the same sentence, states that "the KJV offers an unlikely translation, especially of the last phrase." This in part of an essay dedicated to KJV errors in the Book of Mormon. He asks us to compare the KJV to the following translations: "or he may look below, but behold, distress and darkness, with no daybreak, straitness and gloom, with no dawn" (Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society) and "then (he will look) down to the earth, there will be only anguish, gloom, the confusion of night, swirling darkness" (New Jerusalem Bible).[28]:171Most modern, popular, English biblical translations render this verse as "driven" or "thrust" into thick darkness. The meaning of the underlying Hebrew is confirmed uncertain by scholar Marvin Sweeney.[40]:991nC Thus this can only be considered a translation variant. The intent and overall meaning of the passage is not affected. The passage concerns Isaiah warning people to not practice necromancy as was often practiced (and condemned) in ancient Israel (Isaiah 19꞉3; Leviticus 19꞉31; Deuteronomy 18꞉10-11). With the practice of necromancy, Israel will only see greater and greater darkness and distress as they call upon the dead thought to inhabit the shadow lands of the underworld. Whether they are "thrust" into darkness, "driven" into darkness, or that they look and see utter darkness with no break of day, makes little difference. This again looks like straining to find fault.
Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation
"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." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is "For if there were to be any break of day for that [land] which is in straits" (Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society); "But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish" (Revised Standard Version); and "For is not everything dark as night for a country in distress" (New Jerusalem Bible).[28]:219n48. It seems that the substantive meaning of the verse is not changed from Wright's proposals. The verse simply means that the dimness or gloom will not be like it was when these nations mentioned were distressed or vexed.
"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 afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The better translation is "but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan".[26]:216
The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse quite a bit from the original one in Isaiah 9꞉1. It reads: "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." 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 her by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." Thus, the Book of Mormon makes the verse refer to the Red Sea. Critics have made fun of the Book of Mormon for this and leveled other criticisms. See here and [[Question: Why does 2 Nephi 19꞉1 change the word "sea" in Isaiah 9 to "Red Sea"?|here]] for commentary on the criticisms that have arisen.
We now must ask—could the translation of "grievously afflicting" actually be some sort of modification by Nephi that provides commentary on his own situation or experience? We know that there were modifications done by Nephi to affect the meaning and intent of Isaiah's scripture as a sort of commentary on his own situation that Nephi calls "likening" (1 Nephi 19꞉23). Could there be something similar going on here? As a guess, this may have something to do with the difficult journey that Lehi, Nephi, and their family faced by the borders of the Red Sea as they traveled down the Arabian Peninsula.
Skousen actually tells us that he believes that "Red Sea" was not an accident by scribes of the Book of Mormon translation. He believes that "Red Sea" was actually on the plates that Joseph Smith translated from. He deduces this from the fact that there is no manuscript evidence that scribes of the Book of Mormon translation text inserted "Red" next to "sea" even in the original manuscript of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Also, there are four uses in the Bible of the phrase "by the way of the Red Sea" (Numbers 14꞉25; Numbers 21꞉4; Deuteronomy 1꞉40; 2꞉1). Familiarity with the phrase, Skousen argues, perhaps led Nephi to add the word "Red" to sea in his copying of Isaiah. Either that or "Red" was actually a part of the text and Nephi didn't add anything to it. Furthermore, out of 82 occurrences of the word "sea" in the Book of Mormon, there is no manuscript evidence that scribes added "Red" to the word "sea", even as a mistake that was then corrected.[42]:732–33 Skousen retained "Red Sea" in his reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon: the text as it came from the mouth of Joseph Smith (or at least his best reconstruction of it).[41]:119
This may thus be an intentional emendation by Nephi to creatively liken the scriptures Isaiah wrote to his present situation that was then correctly translated by Joseph Smith from the plates to the English language. The intent of the verse is changed and does actually lead us into an incorrect understanding of what Isaiah's original text meant. But it isn’t an error regarding what Nephi meant to communicate about God. If Nephi is likening this passage to himself and his then-current situation and understanding, then there is no error.
"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." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the Hebrew term almäwet which this verse translates should be simply "darkness." It is not connected with the term mäwet "death."[28]:171More than a few modern, popular, English biblical translations render this verse with "the land of the shadow of death". The verse merely "symbolizes the mortal world where there is darkness, and death."[55]:374 Whether saying "the land of darkness", "the land of the shadow of death", or something close to it, the meaning or referent is still the same: the mortal, fallen world/earth.
For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise
"For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is "For every boot that tramps with noise/in battle."[28]:171 Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon changes this verse to read "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise and garments rolled in blood—but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire."[41]:119 The verse concerns imminent military oppression. "Military oppression is symbolized by the yoke (10.27; 14.25), the bar (10.24), the rod (10.24; 14.4; Gen 49꞉10), and trampling boots."[40]:993n4–5 The "confused noise" of the battle could be correctly interpreted as the trampling boots. Regardless, Isaiah means to say that the military oppressors will be overthrown and that the oppression will be fuel for fire. The reader can still come to the accurate conclusion that all of it—the battles with confused noise and the garments rolled in blood—will be burned. The details are different; the message is the same.
"Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the KJV's translation is "doubtful". The better translation is supposedly "so that they do not cower among the prisoners" (Revised English Bible); "Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners" (Revised Standard Version).[28]:171 The verse is meant to merge with the rhetorical question of the previous verse which reads (New Revised Standard Version) "To whom will you flee for help and where will you leave your wealth, so as not to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain?" The verse can still make sense as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon, since the verse simply means to say that "[d]uring the day of visitation the wicked will fall in the destruction or become prisoners with other captives."[55]:376–37 The without me can then function as the Lord saying "without my intervention and aid, these people will have to crouch among prisoners or die". Meaning has changed but not significantly.
As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood
"Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the Hebrew should be translated "as if a rod raised the one who lifted it, as if a staff lifted the one who is not wood."[28]:171 The verses concern the Lord declaring his superior power against the Assyrians. The Lord uses the imagery of an axe and saw and essentially says that they can't declare their superiority over the one who wields them. The verses still accomplish their rhetorical goals. The detail has changed, the intent has not.
"And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critics assert that the better translation is something like "and it will be as when a sick man wastes away," "and it will be as when a weak person despairs," or "and it will be as when someone falls in a fit."[28]:219n48.[29] Most translations have something like the first suggestion. Though at least three modern, popular, English biblical translations carry something like "as when a standard-bearer faints". The superior translation clearly seems to be "when a sick man wastes away" since the verse is trying to describe how the Lord "destroys both soul and body as well as that man's 'forest and fruitful field'." The verse may still work with "standard-bearer faints", however. Ellicot's Commentary for English Readersnotes that "[t]he 'standard-bearer' was chosen for his heroic strength and stature. When he 'fainted' and gave way, what hope was there that others would survive? A more correct rendering, however, gives ‘As a sick man pineth away.’" Similarly, Pulpit Commentarynotes that "[u]tter prostration and exhaustion is indicated, whichever way the passage is translated."
And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is something like "the yoke shall be destroyed because of fatness." He asserts that some emend the text of the masoretic text of Isaiah (the earliest manuscript of Isaiah we have) since it doesn't make clear sense.[28]:172Most modern, popular, English biblical translations agree with the critic though some retain a reference to an anointing with oil. The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "because of oil".[55]:378 The best way to translate that Hebrew and expand it into a more coherent idea is still uncertain. Thus this can only be considered a translation variant.
The essential message of this passage is that the yoke of Assyria's oppression against Israel will be taken off. Different translations use different imagery that are compatible with that essential message. With fatness, the yoke will be taken off or fall off of Israel because they have become fat and the yoke is too small. The Douay-Rheims translation of this verse makes the imagery mean that the oil will rot off the yoke. Anointing is typically associated with ordaining someone to success. Thus, with the translation as it stands in the KJV and Book of Mormon, perhaps the imagery can be that God has ordained or anointed Israel to be successful before her enemies and thus the yoke will be destroyed because of God's protection of Israel. Thus, given different translations, the detail certainly changes, but the essential meaning does not.
"And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critics assert that the underlying Hebrew translated as "make him of quick understanding" is "unclear" but "probably" doesn't mean "make him of quick understanding". The better translation is "probably" something like "He shall sense the truth by his reverence for the Lord" (Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society); "And his delight shall be the fear of the Lord" (New American Bible).[28]:172[29] The chapter speaks about a coming Messiah. The majority of popular, English biblical translations render this passage as the second suggestion from the critic. The gist of the verse as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon is that the Messiah will be filled with great knowledge—though arguably in context one would only be said to be genuinely of quick understanding if one feared God and obeyed him. Thus "reverence for the Lord" is the best evidence of "quick understanding." The true wisdom and genius, we might say, is in knowing to obey God, and not simply because one quickly masters man's learning or priorities.
"The past participial phrase dry-shod is equivalent to the adverbial phrase 'with dry shoes'. Here the Hebrew as well as the Greek and the Latin translations simply use the phrase 'in sandals', without any reference to getting one's sandals wet."[26]:215 The adverbial phrase still makes sense in context, however. The whole verse in Isaiah 11꞉15 reads as follows: "And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry-shod." Scholars recognize that this is an allusion to the Exodus when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea with dry feet.[40]:997n15 This is at best a variant, and it may make explicit what the ancient readers would have understood implicitly.
"I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The better translation is "more precious. . .than the gold of Ophir".[26]:218 Regardless of the translation, the essence is that a man is being made more precious than a piece of gold from Ophir. No significant alteration in meaning.
"In English, a roe is a species of small deer. The word in the Hebrew refers to a gazelle. The word gazelle entered English in the late 1500s and early 1600s and would not have been readily available to the King James translators. All the earlier English translations, dating back to Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible, had the phrase chased doe rather than chased roe."[26]:215 Both the gazelle and roe—speedy hooved herbivores often hunted—work as illustrations of the imagery of fleeing to one's own people and lands. Thus the intent of the passage is not changed.
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation is "who are caught/captured".[28]:172 The verse intends to create a type of parallelism between the first and second clauses. It doesn't seem to be a substantive shift in meaning to say that all who are caught will be killed and all who are joined to the people who are caught will be killed. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon changes "found" in Isaiah 13꞉15 to read "proud" and substitutes "the wicked" for "them" such that the verse reads "[e]very one that is proud shall be thrust through; yea, and every one that is joined to the wicked shall fall by the sword."
"But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The Hebrew word here in the singular is sa'ir, which in the Hebrew refers to hairy demons or monsters that inhabit the deserts. This word has been incorrectly translated into its phonetically similar Greek word satyr, which refers to a woodland god that is half-human and half-beast."[26]:218 No significant change in meaning. The vast majority of popular English biblical translations render this as wild goats, goat-demons, or satyrs (mythical half-human, half-goat creatures). The intent of the verse is to communicate that Babylon will be made desolate and no man shall live there. Instead, animals will infest their lands and inhabit them. No significant change in intent.
"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Jeremy Runnells asserts that the better translation would be something like either "howling beast", "jackal", or "hyena".[29] The word איים (aym) refers to a howling desert animal and most translators seem to take that as a reference to either jackals or hyenas.[58] There is no evidence that jackals or hyenas were domesticated in ancient Israel. They have remained wild in most cultures. Thus "wild" isn't truly an inaccurate translation here either. Even critic David Wright thinks that the passage is translated accurately as either "wild beasts" or "desert beasts".[28]:172 The passage in the KJV already says that the wild beasts "shall cry" in desolate houses, so why "howling beast" needs to be added on top of "cry" is at least mildly uncertain. This is a case where the translation is at best not erroneous at all and at worst just too broad. Certainly there is no shift away from the intent of the passage. This too looks like straining to find fault.
"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright asserts that the better translation would be to omit "of the islands" and render it simply "wild/desert beasts" or specifically "jackals" or "hyenas."[28]:172 The verse concerns the Lord's/Isaiah's prediction that Babylon will revert to its primitive condition when it is overthrown. Whether "hyenas" or "wild beasts of the islands" crying in the towers of Babylon does not matter or change the intent of the verse.
"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Runnells asserts that the better translation would be to replace "dragons" with "jackals".[29]The majority of popular English biblical translations render this verse with "jackals" instead of dragons though at least one modern, popular translation keep dragons. "Dragon" could refer to merely a snake at the time of the King James translation, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.[59] One places "hedgehogs" here and another "wild dogs". We can make similar commentary here as we did for the "of the islands" error. The verses concern a reversion of Babylon to a primitive, uncivilized, even dangerous condition when the Lord desolates it. Whether jackals or dragons in the palaces, it doesn't really matter. The verses are meant to depict the desolated and grim condition of Babylon after the Lord ravages it. Details have changed, the underlying imagery and intent has not.
"And the people shall take them and bring them to their place; yea, from far unto the ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise. And the house of Israel shall possess them, and the land of the Lord shall be for servants and handmaids; and they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives; and they shall rule over their oppressors." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Skousen says that "[i]n this verse the sense of handmaid is 'a female slave', especially since the paired noun servant means 'a male slave'. In biblical contexts, handmaid usually means 'a female personal servant', but not here."[26]:216 But a handmaid in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary understands a handmaid to be a "maid that waits at hand; a female servant or attendant." Similarly, the Oxford English Dictionary notes that the main usage of handmaid is to refer to "[a] female personal attendant or servant."[60] Thus it's not certain why Skousen considers this to be an error. Popular biblical translations more contemporary to the 1800s as well as two more modern translations render it as "handmaids".
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: How hath the oppressor ceased, the golden city ceased!" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Skousen claims that the better translation is "how hath the oppressor ceased, the assaulting ceased".[26]:216 Critic David P. Wright asserts that the KJV translation is "doubtful" and that the translation should "probably" be "boisterous behavior, frenzy, [or] arrogance".[28]:172
This is Isaiah's taunt song against Babylon. Calling Babylon "the golden city" that is laid down and humbled is a great way to taunt Babylon given that Isaiah would then be contrasting their former glory with their current misery. Five other biblical translations (two of which are modern and three much older) render it as "golden city". Scholar Seth Erlandson makes a compelling case for translating this passage as "golden city".[61] Given that "golden city", "assaulting", and "boisterous behavior, frenzy, or arrogance" would all be referring to Babylon ceasing or Babylon's action ceasing, this isn't a translation error at all. The meaning or referent does not change no matter which way the verse is translated! At best we have no error. At worst we have a translation variant.
"The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of the rulers." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Skousen proposes that the better translation is "the Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the rod of the rulers".[26]:218 But the vast majority of popular, English biblical translations render this verse with "scepter" or "sceptre" instead of rod. Either way, it does not seem that the essential object being referred to nor the ethical message change. In Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon (the best reconstruction of the original words dictated by Joseph Smith), the text reads "scepters" in the plural.[41]:127 This also doesn't seem to significantly change the essential meaning of the text—a sceptre represents the rod of force or correction used by a sovereign to rule. This is a distinction without a difference, though KJV translators would have been more familiar with the more fancy and elaborate sceptre compared to the simple rod.
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground which did weaken the nations!" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"There are two meanings for this verb in the Hebrew: one means 'to weaken', the other 'to defeat or to lay prostrate'. In this context, the second of these works better and is the one adopted in modern translations, such as the English Standard Version: 'How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!'"[26]:218 The essential message of bringing the nations down and humbling them is not altered given this variation. Eight other popular English biblical translations (six of which are modern) render this verse as "weaken".
"for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The cockatrice is a mythical serpent with a deadly glance that is hatched by a reptile from a cock's egg. However, the Hebrew word here is based on a verb meaning 'to hiss' and simply refers to a viper or adder."[26]:215 This verse provides "imagery explaining that while an oppressor of the Philistines may perish, another, more severe will follow." It's "a metaphor suggesting that Philistia's next oppressor (the cockatrice or deadly viper) will somehow be related to its first (the serpent or snake), perhaps a descendant."[55]:388 Either a cockatrice or viper/adder can accomplish the rhetorical goals of the verse. Some might think that a cockatrice is somehow more powerful than a fiery flying serpent. That may be the case. Who exactly knows the power differentials that Philistia's next oppressors would have? The prophecy may refer to Babylon since they were part of the Assyrian empire and yet overcame the Assyrian empire and destroyed Jerusalem, which the Assyrians never managed to do. around 587 BC. "Philistia attempted to revolt against Assyria" in 715 BCE and "Sargon put down the Philistine revolt in 713 BCE" just two years later.[40]:p.1001n14.28–32 Or, alternatively, the Philistines may have considered themselves oppressed by the Assyrians, and so revolted. But, whatever they thought of the oppression that led to their revolt, it was nothing compared to the brutal treatment they would receive from Sargon II when he arrived to besiege their land to reassert his control.
"Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken; for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The correct rendition of the Hebrew for Isaiah 14꞉29 should be 'a flying fiery serpent'. The compound fiery serpent is represented in the Hebrew by a single word saraf, which comes from the verb saraf 'to burn'; here we have a flying serpent whose sting burns (in other words, 'a flying poisonous serpent')."[26]:216 Regardless, we have a mythical serpent creature on the attack. No significant alteration in meaning. Five other popular, English biblical translations (two of which are modern) render it as the Book of Mormon does here.
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay
"And wo unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord! And their works are in the dark; and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us? And they also say: Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay. But behold, I will show unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding?" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critic David P. Wright claims that a better translation would be: "How perverse of you! Can the potter be considered as the clay? Can a work say of its maker, 'He did not make me,' and can what is formed say to the one that formed it, 'He has no creative intelligence?'"[28]:172 Wright is correct that this verse's translation changes the meaning of the original text significantly. Isaiah means to use a metaphor that "shows the foolishness of mortals who pretend to be mightier than their Creator (cf. D&C 10꞉5-34)."[55]:391
As currently rendered in the Book of Mormon, the verse means that the wicked who hide their works in darkness are telling God that His "turning of things upside down" will be esteemed as the potter's clay. The "turning of things upside down" might refer to God threatening to humble the mighty and powerful by sending them into slavery. (Compare the daughters of Zion verses which are full of ironic contrasts between the glamorous, worldly daughters before and after their captivity.) Here the wicked are so arrogant that they dismiss God's ability to cause a revolution in their comfortable lives. But this is as foolish, says the Book of Mormon's rendition, as a clay pot thinking that the potter cannot throw it back into the clay for destruction and remixing into something new if he decides to.
The Book of Mormon, in line with the translation outlined by Wright, already teaches us that God is all-searching and all-wise.[62]
"And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The verb reprove is used four times in the Book of Mormon, all in biblical quotes. The King James use of reprove adds a negative sense that is not in the Hebrew original. In all cases, the neutral verb 'judge' would be a more appropriate translation."[26]:217Twelve other popular, English biblical translations (only two of which are modern) render this verse similar to how the Book of Mormon and King James Version do. The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that the judge at the city gates actually will reprove those who receive the negative side of his judgements. To be found guilty or liable in a court is always an implicit reproof of behavior. The intent of the passage is to point to the judge at the gate and the judge can both arbitrate and reprove—indeed, one cannot do one without the other. One arbitrates by finding who is in the right and who in the wrong, and arranging a settlement of disparate interests. If one side gets everything they want, the other is reproved. If neither side gets everything they want, there is an implicit reproof of some aspect of both their conduct, and their inability to resolve the matter themselves.
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1611 |1769 | Bible Hub)
This one is considered a stretch even by the scholar with whom the author corresponded. The passages from 1 John 5꞉7 and 2 Nephi 31꞉21 just don't line up like the critics might want them to.
Some have said that the Book of Mormon's inclusion of the word "kill" here is incorrect and that one should have "murder" instead. There's a complex discussion to be had regarding proper translation that can be found, in part, here. Nevertheless, these debates would have been of little moment to the Book of Mormon's audience, who understood that the command against killing referred to murder, and not to some other forms of death dealing (e.g., self defense, judicial punishment, or lawful warfare).
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?
"He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Wright thinks that the first phrase might be rendered as the KJV has it though many moderns translate it as "by oppression and judgment he was taken away" (New International Version).[28]:219n48. The second phrase, the critic tells us, is obscure in the Hebrew. It has been rendered variously: "who could consider his stock/descendants," "who could consider his fate," "who could describe his abode," or "who could plead his cause." This can only be considered a translation variant. It is not ideal since "declaring a generation" isn't very clear in meaning, though it can plausibly be interpreted to include Wright's suggestions and especially the last one.
"And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The CES Letter asserts that this is a translation error.[29] The author believes that it should be rendered "chicks". This isn't an error, but a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines "chicken" as "[t]he young of fowls, particularly of the domestic hen, or gallinaceous fowls."[63] The Oxford English Dictionary has examples from the 10th to the 16th centuries of "chicken" being used to designate "[t]he young of the domestic fowl [and] its flesh" as well as "the young of any bird".[64] This looks like seeking to find fault.
"do men light a candle and put it under bushel?" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The corresponding Greek means simply 'a lamp', in fact, 'a small oil lamp."[26]:214 The intent of the passage is to use the metaphor of hiding a light when needed to guide towards goodness and truth. Both a candle and lamp can do that; the source of light is simply a question of culture. Even a translation as far from the original as "no one turns on their flashlight and then hides it under the bedclothes" would convey the same message.
"The corresponding Greek word means 'a lamp stand' (that is, a specific stand for placing a lamp)."[26]:214 The intent of the passage is to say that a person shouldn't hide their spiritual light but show it to others. Both a lamp/lampstand and candle/candlestick are effective imagery for communicating that message. See above discussion.
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Newer translations of the Bible, based on the earliest extant manuscripts, omit the phrase "by them of old time". But there is no significant change of meaning nor intent in the verse, and Jesus is quoting Exodus 20꞉14 and Deuteronomy 5꞉18. Those are certainly references to prophets "of old time" relevant to Jesus. Further, as Robert S. Boylan has observed, "While the earliest Greek texts do lack the phrase [translated as "by them of old time"] τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, the meaning of the phrase is implicit in the Greek whether or not the phrase is original. This is because the parallel sayings in Matt 5꞉21 and 5:33 contain the phrase τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, so these words are understood in v.27 (via subtext), just as they are understood in vv. 38 and 43 where no Greek manuscript evidenced a need to repeat the obvious either."[65] This cannot be considered an error. Only an evidence that the Book of Mormon has the King James Bible as its "base text" for translation.
One critic takes this further and says that "by them of old time" is a mistranslation of the Greek tois archaiois. It is more properly rendered as "to them of old time" suggesting that God is the one that told the prophets "thou shalt not commit adultery".[3]:121 This is correct,[66] but that doesn't negate the Book of Mormon's historicity, nor does it mean that the Book of Mormon can't retain its status as the "most correct book". The ethical message is the same: don't commit adultery and don't look on someone to lust after them. Whether it was said by the prophets of old (which is still correct) or to the prophets of old doesn't matter at all! If prophets speak the word of the Lord, anything they say to the people has alrady been said to them by God.
"And if they right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Stan Larson asserts that this should read "that thy whole body should go into hell" instead of "be cast into hell". Larson asserts that the earliest manuscripts of Matthew support this reading.[3]:122 The differences, however, seem to be trivial, and "cast into hell" can be the translated phrase from the earliest manuscripts. Many popular English biblical translations (including a few modern translations) render this verse as "cast into hell" though the rest vary between saying "go into hell", "thrown into hell", "depart into hell", and "fall into hell" so, again, the essential intent of the verse is retained no matter the translation.
"if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"The Greek word for coat is chiton 'tunic', which actually refers to an inner garment worn under the coat, next to the skin, whereas the Greek word for cloak is himation, a more general word used to refer to an outer garment (such as a coat or a cloak)."[26]:214 "Jesus is saying that, if we are sued even for a trifling amount, rather than countersuing and ratcheting up the hostility, we should be willing to give up what is rightfully ours to defuse the situation."[67]
Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and ... which despitefully use you
"But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;" (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Newer translations based on earlier manuscripts do render things differently. The newer translations are more simple, something along the lines of "But I say to you that you shall love those who hate you and pray for those who persecute you."[68] The verses meaning nor intent seem to change in any significant ways. Obviously there's no doctrinal error.
"That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee openly." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The word "openly" in this verse is omitted in most modern, popular, English biblical translations. That the Lord will reward us openly is repeated in verses 6 and 18 of Matthew 6 and verses 6 and 18 of 3 Nephi 3. "Openly" is omitted in most biblical translations of those verses as well. Some believe that "openly" is implied in the original Greek word αποδιδωμι (ah-poh-dih-doh-mee) while others don't.[69] Regardless of the correct translation of the Matthean verses, it remains correct doctrine. Proverbs 10꞉22 says that "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." 2 Corinthians 9꞉8 says that "God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work". In other words, God is able to bless us abundantly with riches and provisions so that we can continue to do good to others at home and abroad. Is that not blessing us "openly"? Thus this is either a case where there is no translation error at all or there is an intelligible type change in intent.
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
One critic claims that "temptation" should be rendered as "the time of trial".[33]The majority of popular, academic, modern, English biblical translations, however, disagree with the author. Further, "the time of trial" is "temptation". To "tempt" someone is "to put them to the test," or to have a "trial" of their strength or character.
Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "tempt" as "In Scripture', to try; to prove; to put to trial for proof."[70] Webster also regards "temptation" as meaning "trial," and even includes this precise phrase ("Lead us not into temptation") as an illustration.[71]
The critic is simply ignorant of the meaning of the word, and sees fault where there is none.
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
One critic claims that "evil" should be rendered as "the evil one".[33] Evil is personified in "the evil one." Satan was seen as the ultimate source of all evil; to be delivered from him was to be delivered from evil, and vice-versa. At most this is a variant.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Critics believe that this verse, known as the doxology, was not original to Jesus; that Jesus didn't actually say this. The earliest manuscripts of the Bible do not contain these phrases. The inclusion of the doxology in 3 Nephi 13꞉13 is not a problem for the Book of Mormon. See: here. The doxology is obviously not a doctrinal error about God. The doxology is probably based on a reading of 1 Chronicles 29꞉10-11 which reads "Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, Lord God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all." Robert S. Boylan, citing John W. Welch, offered other important considerations that provide plausibility for the utterance of the doxology by Jesus.[72] Swiss theologian Ulrich Luz observed that "[t]he three-member doxology, which is usual in our services, is missing in the best manuscripts." He then argued that 2 Timothy 4꞉18 and Didache 8:2 "show that the Lord’s Prayer was prayed in the Greek church from the beginning with a doxology."[73]
"Here the Greek word krinon, modified as being 'in the field', most likely refers to a colorful wild flower."[26]:215 The verses are meant to suggest that the birds of the air, flowers of the field, and other things do not worry about the span of their lives nor worry about what they're going to eat to survive and yet the Lord provides for them. The intent of the verse is unchanged.:215
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
Stan Larson asserts that the "again" at the end of 3 Nephi 14꞉2 is erroneous.[3]:123John W. Welch responded as follows in the FARMS Review: "Example 3 concerns the difference between 'measured to you' (which appears in older Matthean texts) and "measured to you again" (which appears in KJV Matthew 7꞉2 and 3 Nephi 14꞉2). Larson says that I 'downplay the difference among the variants at Matthew 7꞉2' (p. 123). He does not say, however, why I find the difference to be negligible. The difference is over the presence or absence of the Greek prefix anti- (English again). I believe that 'with or without this prefix on the verb, the sentence means exactly the same thing.'[74] Indeed, the similarity is such that 'this variant was not considered significant enough to be noted in the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.'[74] Larson tries to salvage his point by arguing that 'it can usually (but not always) be shown what Greek text the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions were based upon' and 'it is often such fine distinctions that are clues in textual criticism' (p. 123). But if one were to imagine a world in which no Greek manuscripts of the New Testament existed, scholars would not stake their reputations on claiming to know for sure (given the clear sense of the passage) whether antimetrethesetai or metrethesetai stood behind an English translation that renders Matthew 7꞉2 as 'measured again.' Similarly, one cannot be sure what Aramaic verb originally was used here or what version of a Nephite verb stood on the plates of Mormon behind the translation 'measured again.' In light of the fact that Luke 6꞉38 contains the word antimetrethesetai ('measured again'), is there any reason not to believe that early Christians used the words antimetrethesetai and metrethesetai interchangeably? Larson has not shown that this is one of those cases where one can determine from the translation what the underlying text was, or that this is one of those 'fine distinctions' of textual analysis (because there is virtually no distinction in meaning here). If no difference exists, Larson has not proved that 3 Nephi 14꞉2 is in error."[75] John Gee and Royal Skousen also address these issues for those who want to learn more.[76]
"So he shall sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
The Hebrew verb for sprinkle doesn't make much sense in context here. Other translations have made this verse something like "the nations shall marvel upon him". Joseph Smith in his "New Translation" of the Bible replaced sprinkle with gather, showing the difficulty of rendering this verse.[26]:218 Some translations render it as nations gathering to God, standing in wonder of him, or being startled by him. The majority of popular, English biblical translations render it as "sprinkle". Scholars today are still not certain about the meaning of the Hebrew.[40]:1051nB If that's the case, then this can't be considered a translation error. At worst, it can only be a translation variant. The question really becomes, if the verse is translated as "sprinkle", sprinkle with what? And how will that sprinkling be part of what causes kings to shut their mouths in the Lord's presence?
"And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub)
"Here the noun grove is used to refer to a sacred grove used for cultic rites. However, the original Hebrew in these passages refers to Asherim, that is, wooden images of the Canaanite goddess Asherah."[26]:217 Given that "groves" refers to areas where cultic, idolatrous rites were practiced, the Book of Mormon does not alter the essential message of Isaiah: that idolatry is wrong (Mosiah 13꞉12-13) and that God was going to take action to remove idolatrous practices from the Israelites. Four other popular, English biblical translations (only one modern) render this verse as "groves".
It's difficult to see this even as a mistranslation, since the wooden images were conceptually trees or groves anyway. Some scholars believe that they actually were trees sometimes:
These poles represent living trees, with which the goddess is associated. Some scholars believe that asherim [the wooden images] were not poles, but living trees (like the one depicted on the Tanaach Cult Stand). The poles were either carved to look like trees or to resemble the goddess (this could also be reflected in the numerous pillar figurines found throughout Israel).[77]
"Grove" may in fact give more nuance and depth to the ideas being conveyed. It is certainly not a mistranslation or misleading rendering.
"O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones." (1611 | 1769 | Bible Hub v. 11 | Bible Hub v. 12)
Critic David P. Wright curiously claims that "the meaning of several of the terms in this passage is unclear" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV cannot be considered accurate." He asks us to compare the Revised English Bible: "Storm-battered city, distressed and desolate, now I shall set your stones in the finest mortar and lay your foundations with sapphires; I shall make your battlements of red jasper and your gates of garnet; all your boundary stones will be precious jewels."[28]:173 So the main differences are to substitute "finest mortar" for "fair colours", "battlements" for "windows", "red jasper" for "agates", and "garnet" for "carbuncle". Carbuncleisgarnet so that complaint doesn't make much sense. A battlement is a type of window so it likewise doesn't make much sense to fuss over it. Agate is similar to jasper. The overall intent of the passage is to state that "[t]he new Jerusalem is adorned with precious stones and gems by builders supernaturally instructed; cf. Ezekiel 28꞉13-19. Christian apocalyptic literature draws on this imagery to describe the new Jerusalem (Rev 21꞉18-21)."[40]:1053n11–17
Longer ending of Mark in the books of Mormon and Ether
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" (1611 |1769 | Bible Hub v. 15 | Bible Hub v. 16 | Bible Hub v. 17 | Bible Hub v. 18)
The use of "charity" in Moroni 7, relying upon the KJV rendering of "agape". Apparently it should just be rendered "love".
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." (1611 |1769 | Bible Hub)
It's difficult to know exactly how passages like Moroni 7꞉47 would be translated. There we learn that "charity is the pure love of Christ". Should we translate that passage as "love is the pure love of Christ"? Or "agape is the pure love of Christ"? Maybe the latter, but it doesn't seem to be a substantive improvement on just retaining "charity" in the verse, especially for a Christianized 19th century audience.
Question #4: Why did God allow the KJV errors to exist in the Book of Mormon?
All the tabulated data above supports the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?
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."[78]
We have some of 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" according to the Doctrine & Covenants (Doctrine & Covenants 1꞉24). That same idea is confirmed in 2 Nephi 31꞉3. He can even use error for his own holy, higher purposes. The formal name for this idea in theology is "accomodation". The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to u—the Lord accommodates his perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.
Joseph Smith quoted from Malachi 4꞉5-6 in Doctrine and Covenants 128꞉17-18. At the top of verse 18: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."[79] Joseph here is content with a translation that is functionally sufficient. It doesn’t need to be 100% exact in order to be divine and achieve divine purposes.
The Lord can start with the plates, use Joseph's culturally-saturated mind as a springboard and filter for further modification of the text as well as decide which changes absolutely need to be made to the text in order to communicate the right message (the one that leads to salvation and exaltation), and then provide that "accommodated", functionally-sufficient translation, word-for-word, on the seer stone and Urim and Thummim. (Part of this discussion depends upon whether one understands the Book of Mormon to have been a loose translation versus tight translation.)
The data above confirms what scripture and other revelation teaches about the nature of revelation. Here is something interesting that Brigham Young taught:
Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.[80]
Brigham recognized that the Book of Mormon's translation could take different shapes. Latter-day Saints have never been scriptural inerrantists. It is the message and the messenger that matter, not the precise words.
Notes
↑Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14 (emphasis added).
↑ 3.03.13.23.33.4Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in Brent Lee Metcalfe (editor), New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Book, 1993), 15-63.
↑Runnells originally relied on sources that are not cited nor linked to in the first few editions of the CES Letter. In editions past 2013, he links to an old version of a Wikipedia page (accessed 2 December 2022) to make his argument. The editor of the Wikipedia page arguing that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition may have been relying on either Runnells or Runnells' unknown sources, and very likely misunderstood and thus misrepresented the argument as originally made by Wright and Larson.
A similar argument to Runnells' is made in Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 10. ( Index of claims ). Palmer relies on David P. Wright, "Joseph Smith's Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," 181–206 and Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon," 115–63. Those two, and more especially Larson, seem to be the original source of this criticism. Palmer doesn't seem to make the argument that the translation errors in the Book of Mormon are unique to the 1769 version, but rather that scholars (Larson and Wright) have dated the Book of Mormon's composition to the 1830s because of the Book of Mormon's seeming use of the 1769 KJV, including its errors. That is a correct reading of the argument that Larson and Wright make. They argued that the Book of Mormon includes KJV translation errors and, separately, that the Book of Mormon's use of KJV italics is what pinned the Book of Mormon to the 1769 edition.
Runnells, however, including his sources, has certainly misunderstood the argument that Palmer, Larson, and Wright were making because he relied on the mistaken Wikipedia page. As of this writing, the newest iteration of the Wikipedia page (accessed December 2, 2022) seems to correct this error, but it also seems to partially retain the argument that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Significantly, it says that there are translation variations (instead of errors) that are contained in the 1769 edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon. But it seems to suggest that the variations are unique to the 1769 edition because it opens by saying that "The KJV of 1769 contains translation variations which also occur in the Book of Mormon." That's technically a correct statement, but why specify that the variations come from the 1769 edition unless wanting to hold on at least partially to the original argument of the 1769 version's unique errors?
Moving along in that section and reading the table of that section, it gives examples of how the 1611 (and not the 1769) edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon share translation variants. It's an odd page to be sure, but it makes important points that hint at the errors in Runnells' claims. Runnells now relies on the Larson and Wright articles that Palmer used, the new Wikipedia page, an old anti-Mormon webpage called 2Think.org, the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, as well as an online edition of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha to make his case. Though he has neglected correcting for the fact that the translation errors he identifies exist in other editions of the KJV. This is either evidence of ignorance, laziness, or duplicity. Runnells is known for moving the goalposts and claiming that opponents strawman his arguments in order to make it appear like his CES Letter hasn't made any significant, lazy mistakes in research. Why take pains to state "1769" and "unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV that Joseph Smith owned" in the quote from the CES Letter at the top of this article? Elsewhere, Runnells pointedly underscores as fact that "[t]here are 1769 KJV Bible edition errors unique to only that edition present in the Book of Mormon." See Jeremy Runnells, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?" CES Letter, accessed 22 December 2022, https://cesletter.org/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#2
↑ 5.05.15.25.35.45.5Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38/5 (10 July 2020). [45–106] link
↑For the most thorough coverage of the Micah material in the Book of Mormon, see Dana M. Pike, "Passages from the Book of Micah in the Book of Mormon," in They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon, ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 393–443.
↑See Michael Hickenbotham, Answering Challenging Mormon Questions: Replies to 130 Queries by Friends and Critics of the LDS Church (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort Publisher, 2004),193-196. (Key source)
↑The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link. For earlier discussions, see Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth about ‘The God Makers’ (Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1989; republished by Bookcraft, 1994), 172. Full text FAIR link ISBN 088494963X.; see also Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon (Kolob Book Company, 1964),100–102.; Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988),129–143. ISBN 0875791395.; Royal Skousen, "Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations of the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 376.
↑John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984), 165-78. David Wright responded to John Tvedtnes' chapter therin. Tvedtnes responds to Wright in John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon," The FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 161–72.John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link
↑Paul Y. Hoskisson, "Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student? Finding a Restoration-Significant Hebraism in Book of Mormon Isaiah," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17/7 (23 October 2015). [151–158] link
↑John W. Welch, "Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon," in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.
↑Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52.
↑Earlier LDS scholarship sometimes did argue that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation process. They did not, however, have the benefit of the subsequent half a century of investigation. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God=," Ensign 7/9 (September 1977). off-site.
↑Royal Skousen, "The Original Text of the Book of Mormon and its Publication by Yale University Press," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 7/3 (27 September 2013). [57–96] link; Stanford Carmack, "A Look at Some 'Nonstandard' Book of Mormon Grammar," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11/6 (15 August 2014). [209–262] link; Stanford Carmack, "What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13/9 (26 December 2014). [175–218] link; Stanford Carmack, "The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14/8 (27 February 2015). [119–186] link; Stanford Carmack, "Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster's 1828)," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/7 (1 May 2015). [65–78] link; Stanford Carmack, "The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18/6 (1 January 2016). [41–64] link; Stanford Carmack, "Joseph Smith Read the Words," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18/5 (1 January 2016). [33–40] link; Stanford Carmack, "The Case of the -th Plural in the Earliest Text," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18/1 (2016). [79–108] link; Stanford Carmack, "How Joseph Smith's Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25/11 (9 June 2017). [239–260] link; Stanford Carmack, "Barlow on Book of Mormon Language: An Examination of Some Strained Grammar," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27/11 (17 November 2017). [185–196] link; Stanford Carmack, "Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text?," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28/11 (16 March 2018). [177–232] link; Stanford Carmack, "Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36/1 (7 February 2020). [1–28] link; Stanford Carmack, "Personal Relative Pronoun Usage in the Book of Mormon: An Important Authorship Diagnostic," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49/2 (12 November 2021). [5–36] link; Stanford Carmack, "The Book of Mormon's Complex Finite Cause Syntax," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49/5 (26 November 2021). [113–136] link; Stanford Carmack, "A Comparison of the Book of Mormon's Subordinate That Usage," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50/1 (7 January 2022). [1–32] link; "The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2018): 81-110; Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, The Nature of the Original Language, Parts 3-4 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Volume 3 of The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018).
↑John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality? (Review of Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [326–372] link
↑Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press; Reprint edition, 1987), 95–100. ISBN 0252060121.
↑Robert J. Matthews, A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of John Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 51–120. off-site
↑See page 81 of either edition of the Book of Mormon
↑Royal Skousen, "How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998). [22–31] link
↑Preston Nibley, editor, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1954), 82-83.
↑The CES Letter, for example, wants to broaden the meaning "translation error" to include "an error that can occur during translation" and/or "something that looks like an error to me after someone has translated a text".
↑"History of Joseph Smith by his Mother Lucy," 592; 1 Nephi 13꞉28; see 23-29. Cited in Kent P. Jackson, Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 34–35.
↑Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "translate."
↑ 33.033.133.2Al Case, "Questions related to the Book of Mormon and other items on Mormonism and Joseph Smith," About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon): Perspective on all things LDS/Mormon/Latter-day Saint, accessed May 5, 2023, https://www.lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml/#BOM8.
↑Depending on how one divides the translation errors, one may be able to divide these into more items. The author chose to keep them as follows for convenience or clarity. Thus this claim shouldn't be taken to mean that there are exactly 88 translation errors made by the King James Bible translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) perpetuated in the Book of Mormon.
↑Recall that the textual history of this verse is seen as quite complex. For detailed discussion, see Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link.
↑ 44.044.1John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link
↑Horst Seebass, "נֶפֶשׁ," in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 9:505.
↑Daniel C. Peterson, "'Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness (Review of Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon)'," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5/1 (1993): 50-51. [1–86] link
↑See Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "fence."
↑Thomas A. Wayment, The New Testament, A Translation for Latter-day Saints: A Study Bible (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2019), 14.
↑Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1꞉7: A Continental Commentary, trans. William C. Linss (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1985), 385; as cited in Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 438n118.
↑ 74.074.1John W. Welch, The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 155.
↑John W. Welch, "Approaching New Approaches (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 159-160. [145–186] link
↑John Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 67–71, 99–101.. [51–120] link, Royal Skousen, "Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 121–29. [121–144] link
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.
FAIR's 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
The claim is nonsense. There is no evidence including any witness statement indicating that Joseph had an eidetic memory such as would be required for Runnells theory to work. There are, 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. If we're dealing in probabilities, and that is what we're dealing with here (we can't make definitive statements lest we make an argument from silence), the fact that witnesses to the translation never reported a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon only works in favor of the proposition that Joseph did not have a Bible.
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
FAIR's 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
The spin: The author is speculating without any supporting data in an attempt to save 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? How does one read text in a hat which is used, as David Whitmer described, for the purpose of blocking out the ambient light?
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.
None of the witnesses to the translation process ever reported Joseph consulting a Bible, or any other book.
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?
Author's sources:
The author copied his information from the anti-Mormon site "Mormon Handbook"
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
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
The spin: The author claims that the presence of the KJV's italicized words in the Book of Mormon indicates that Joseph Smith plagiarized the King James Bible.The facts: If the italicized words in the King James Bible are meant to clarify the original text and make the translation more readable. Why wouldn't God and Joseph Smith just keep those same italicized words so that the Book of Mormon can also be comprehensible and readable? The author wants to spin this as nefarious, when it isn't nefarious at all.
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.
FAIR's 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. 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. Scholars who take this position might simply affirm that this is how God exalts humanness to achieve his ends. Joseph's model of revelation seems to affirm this (D&C 1:24). Finally, as already noted, not all of the Biblical passages quoted in the Book of Mormon are identical to the versions quoted in the King James Bible. Stephen Gibson notes that among Isaiah passages included in the Book of Mormon, 54 percent of them were modified. [1]
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
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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.
Why does the Book of Mormon's translation of Isaiah material match the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible so closely?
Some have presumed that Joseph simply opened a Bible and copied those chapters when he came to material on the gold plates that he recognized as being from the Bible
Some passages from the Bible (parts of Isaiah, for example) were included in the Book of Mormon text. Some people have long adopted the position that Joseph Smith simply copied the King James Version (KJV) Bible text for the relevant portions of, for example, Isaiah. Even some Church members have presumed that the close match between the texts indicates that Joseph simply opened a Bible and copied those chapters when he came to material on the gold plates that he recognized as being from the Bible.
The Saints do not believe in one fixed, inviolate, "perfect" rendering of a scripture or doctrinal concept. The Book of Mormon likely reflects differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the commonly known Biblical manuscripts.
Joseph did not believe that there was "one and only one" true translation of a given passage or text. The Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" in the sense that it those who read and obey its precepts will draw nearer to God than in reading any other book. This is not a claim about textual perfection. The book itself even insists that some errors will still be present—title page, Mormon 9꞉31). In fact, Brigham Young taught that the Book of Mormon text would have been different if it were redone later:
Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. [2]
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 thus several problems with the idea that Joseph simply copied the 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.[3]
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...[4]
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.[5]
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.[6]
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.[7]
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 no biblical content at all. If Joseph was trying to perpetrate a fraud, why did he include near-verbatim quotations from the one book (the KJV Bible) with which his target audience was sure to be familiar?
So, what else ought we to consider regarding the Isaiah passages?
Consideration #1—Adaptation of Isaiah
There are also areas in which Nephi seems to adapt Isaiah as he "likens it unto himself." Ancient scribes and authors did not have the same preoccupation with literal, precise citation that we do. They would adapt texts to make their point, which Nephi explicitly tells us he is doing.
Some differences, then, may not reflect a textual difference at all, but instead represent Nephi's novel adaptation of the text.
Consideration #2—Bible text itself quotes extensively from past scripture
When considering the presence of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, we 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.[8]
When we learn 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.[9] 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 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, 25꞉5; 3 Nephi 20꞉11; 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 49), the gathering of Israel in the last days (18), the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (29), wickedness in the last days (33), and the Savior's second coming, and the millennium (13, 26, 27). While he also wrote about the Savior's first coming (32꞉1-4) and events in his own time (20,23), most of what he wrote about is yet to be fulfilled.[10]
When one considers that New Testament writers quoted hundreds of Old Testament scriptures including 76 verses from Isaiah[11] 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 cause to question the text's authenticity.
Paul has been called 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.[12]
Consideration #3—Analogy with the Dead Sea Scrolls
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 of 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.
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.[13]
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 produced via revelation—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.
Consideration #4—Accounting for the rest of the Book of Mormon
Even if we insist that Joseph plagiarized 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—so why tip his hand by quoting the Bible? This is the one text his readers would be sure to know!
Paul Y. Hoskisson, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (2016)
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.
So, were the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon simply plagiarized from the KJV?
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, copied word for word in Micah 4꞉1-3 from Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 2꞉2-4 without ogiving him credit.[14] That would be inappropriate today, but that's simply how ancient writers used other texts. They were far less concerned with originality, or on tracing an idea's source. In fact, if an idea was new, they tended to view it with suspicion. Besides, Micah may have relied on his literate audience knowing Isaiah without being told.
Ancient readers lived and breathed the biblical texts. Even the citation of a few words was enough to bring a whole series of associations, stories, and texts to mind. Modern readers experience something similar if someone says, "May the Force be with you." Without being told, they know that this is a quote from the movie Star Wars, and it brings a host of concepts about dangerous missions, seemingly impossible tasks, and heroism. Ancient readers had at least this rich an association with their holy writings.
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. 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 [15] 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"[16] 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 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.[17]
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.[18] 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.[19] 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. [20] Such a translation was "rare for its time."[21] 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.[22]
Main articles:
Plagiarism of errors in the KJV? Summary: There are many reasons to reject the notion that Joseph Smith either made use of a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon or had one nearby that he was memorizing prior to or at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. There are also reasons to question the charge of plagiarism.
Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?
Here are the changes to the Isaiah text in the Book of Mormon that may make a significant change to the meaning of the text. These changes are taken from Book of Mormon Reference Companion (2003) edited by Dennis L. Largey.[23]
Significant changes to Isaiah material in the Book of Mormon
The vast majority of Book of Mormon changes to Isaiah are on places where italicized text was placed in the King James Bible.[24]:106 Some of these changes do not reflect a better translation of the earliest extant Isaiah source we have today.
The Book of Mormon’s rendering of Isaiah does not purport to be the original text of Isaiah
It should first be mentioned that the Book of Mormon does not purport to be the original text of Isaiah as composed by Isaiah himself. That is an assumption that readers of the Book of Mormon have brought to the text.
We do not know what the original text of Isaiah was
It should next be noted that we do not know what the original text of Isaiah as composed by Isaiah was like. We have early textual witnesses such as the Great Isaiah Scroll (1Qlsa[a]) recovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this is not the original text as composed by Isaiah. We don’t know what the original was like and will likely never know. Thus anyone claiming to know how to judge the Book of Mormon’s rendering of Isaiah based on its fidelity to "the original Hebrew" is acting foolishly and likely tendentiously.
Nephi likely changed wording to comment on Isaiah
The changes in Isaiah can be thought of to be commentary by Book of Mormon authors. Joseph Spencer at BYU has most persuasively argued that Nephi’s selection and edits of Isaiah are deliberate and that they reflect a coherent theological vision of the scattering and gathering of Israel.[25]
Nephi may have been adding these changes in order to clarify Isaiah’s words, clarify the Lord’s words if Isaiah didn’t communicate them clearly enough, or as Nephi’s independent revelatory (or even non-revelatory) adding to Isaiah based in his then-current theological understanding.
Some of the changes do reflect a better translation of the Hebrew
John Tvedtnes has shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.[26]
This throws a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of the King James Isaiah.
Some "Problematic" Variants Explained
Critics of the Book of Mormon have pointed to various passages in which the Book of Mormon derives much of its text from KJV Isaiah. These derivations also include some changes from the KJV that vary in their degree of significance. In some cases of these changes, critics allege that the Book of Mormon also changes the wording of the text from the KJV to such an extent that the changes cannot be considered an accurate reflection of the underlying Hebrew. These changes, in turn, become evidence against the notion that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text. Discussion of these supposed problematic changes has been limited to the Book of Mormon's variants with the KJV Isaiah.
Given the evidence of Nephi's "likening above", much of these variants can actually be considered Nephi's changes and Joseph Smith's accurate translation of Nephi's and not Isaiah's Hebrew. Thus the critics have evidently not considered a theory that could change their assessment of the Book of Mormon's Isaiah and ancient authenticity.
We can explore some of these "problematic variants" pointed to by critics in order to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon variants may fit in with a larger theological project undertaken by Nephi in the Book of Mormon.
Location in Canon
Erroneous Translation
Passage
Commentary
"Problematic" Book of Mormon Variants from Hebrew Underlying KJV Isaiah
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.
See below in section following this table for a full analysis.
"Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also has become my salvation."
Some have criticized the use of the name JEHOVAH in 2 Nephi 22꞉2 because it is a later term. Use of the proper name "Jehovah"—which is an anglicized form of the Hebrew Yahweh—was common in the KJV Bible.[27] and was also in common use in Joseph Smith's day.[28]
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 translators used?
This criticism is the equivalent of complaining that Joseph used the word "God" in his translation. The English word "God" certainly did not exist when Isaiah was written! But this is a translation—and so of course terms that did not exist when the original was written will sometimes be used.
"Wherefore when I came, there was no man; when I called, yea there was none to answer. O house of Israel, is my hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea. I make the rivers a wilderness and their fish to stink because the waters are dried up and they dieth because of thirst." (Book of Mormon)
David P. Wright states: "The [Book of Mormon] inverts the italicized words and reads as a statement rather than a "Wherefore, when I came there was no man; when I called, yea, there was none to answer." The [Book of Mormon] reading depends on the ambiguity or polysemy of the English "wherefore." In English this word can be an interrogative ("why?") or a conjunction ("therefore"). It is an interrogative in the KJV verse here, translating the Hebrew word maddûac "why?" The BM reading uses "wherefore" as a conjunction, which is not possible for Hebrew maddûac. This reveals the BM's dependence on the English text."
Wright cites Tvedtnes (The Isaiah Variants, 35, 80, 116-117), and states that Tvedtnes "thinks that this variant is due to a misunderstanding by Smith or the scribe (apparently the English copiest). The variant must be intentional and from Smith: not only does it involve italicized words ... the adverb 'yea' also appears in the BM reading. This well fits a change from interrogation to declaration. The variant also appears twice in the passage."
"These two sons are come unto thee. Who shall be sorry for thee, thy desolation and destruction and the famine and the sword? And by whom shall I comfort thee." (Book of Mormon)
John A. Tvedtnes writes: "KJV's 'two things' read 'two sons' in [Book of Mormon]. MT has simply štym, the feminine numeral 'two'. It is hence not possible to admit that the original read 'sons'. Moreover, the two 'things' are then listed in the same verse as 'desolation and destruction', then reworded as the parallels 'the famine and the sword'.
On the surface, the substitution of another word for the one italicized in KJV looks like normal procedure for Joseph Smith, but it could also be a scribal error. The [Book of Mormon]change was probably prompted by the fact that vs. 18 ends by speaking 'of all the sons she hath brought up', while vs. 20 begins by speaking of 'thy sons'."[29]
David P. Wright writes: "In one case where the [Book of Mormon] has another word for an italicized word, the meaning is significantly changed, but not in accordance with the Hebrew original. The phrase 'These two things are come unto thee' becomes 'These two sons are come unto thee' (Isa 51꞉19//2 Ne 8꞉19). This is an extremely unlikely reading for any ancient text since the phrase in Hebrew is formulated in the feminine ($etayim hënnâ qör'ötayik) whereas 'sons' (bänîm) is masculine. The variant in the BM is oblivious to the requirements of Hebrew, and it is doubtful that the Hebrew developed from a masculine to feminine formulation. Smith apparently replaced the italicized word, picking up 'sons' from the context of vv. 18 and 20 which speak of 'sons.'"
Interestingly, Joseph Smith, in Old Testament Manuscript 2 (of the Joseph Smith Translation), replaced 'things' with 'sons'.
This change was noted by Orson Hyde in a letter dated July 7, 1840:
Jews are gathering; and have issued orders, or a circular, and universal proclamation for their brethren, in all the world, to return to Palestine, for the land is ready for their reception. "But there is none to guide her among all the sons whom she hath brought up, but these two things are come unto thee."—See Isaiah 51꞉18,19. Things, you know, in English means any kind of fish, beast, or birds. But the book of Mormon says, "These two sons are come unto thee" this is better sense, and more to the point. As Jerusalem has no sons to take her by the hand and lead her among all thy number whom she hath brought forth, Bro. Page and myself feel that we ought to hurry along and take her by the hand; for are her sons but the Gentiles have brought us up. (Times and Seasons, 1, no. 10 [August 1840]: 156-57)
1 Nephi 20꞉16 deletes the italicized am in Isaiah 48꞉16's "from the time that it was, there am I". 1 Nephi 20꞉16 adds the word "declared" after "from the time that it was", deletes the italicized "am" from "there am I", and changes the phrase "there am I" to the phrase "have I spoken".
Critics charge that the addition of "declared" requires another underlying Hebrew term that would give us that translation in English rather than merely the current term that is rendered as "that it was". Though here, just as with the addition of "have I spoken", the addition clarifies the underlying message of Isaiah and makes smoother the English translation of it. Scholar Brant Gardner proposed that the addition of "have I spoken" was done by Joseph Smith himself.[30] Though one could see the "declared" and "have I spoken" changes as Nephi's edits of Isaiah to clarify Isaiah.
One could also presume that perhaps there is a lost version of Isaiah that was on the brass plates that Joseph Smith eventually translated. Gardner cautions that "from a literary standpoint, ['have I spoken'] removes an important scriptural allusion. The declaration 'there am I' is not just an indication that Yahweh has spoken, as it becomes in the Book of Mormon rendition, but a declaration of the person, power, and reality of the Lord, related thematically to the appellation 'I AM,' since the Lord and the Spirit appear as separate entities (Blenkinsopp, 'Isaiah 40–55, 295)."[30] Though that allusion is made elsewhere in scripture, and the inclusion of such an allusion in 1 Nephi 20꞉16 is not necessary. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a huge problem here.
And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence.
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.
The King James Bible reads as follows (italics from KJV included for convenience):
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.
2 Nephi 19꞉1, a quotation of Isaiah by the prophet Nephi, 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.
The Book of Mormon deletes the word "her" from 9꞉1 and then inserts "Red" before "sea" making the verse read "afflict by way of the Red Sea". "The problem with this", describes one critic "is that (a) Christ quoted Isaiah in Matt. 4꞉14-15 and did not mention the Red Sea [true], (b) 'Red' sea is not found in any source manuscripts [from which one could translate Isaiah. [Also true.], and (c) the Red Sea [he likely is referring more specifically to the Gulf of Aqaba] 25 miles away [from the sea of Galilee, which the Isaiah prophecy refers to in context. Also True]."[31]
Despite having all these facts correct, the critic's conclusion is still overly hasty.
In context, Isaiah is prophetically anticipating "a period of gloom and darkness until a new Davidic monarch arises to replace Ahaz."[32]Several interpreters take this chapter to be speaking about the coming Messiah.
Hypothesis #1: Nephi's "likening" of Isaiah to his contemporary historical and theological context
In another article, we've discussed how this verse in the Book of Mormon actually perpetuates a translation error of Isaiah made by the King James translators of the Bible.
Instead of saying "and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the sea", the text should say "but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan".[33] A question now arises: could the translation of "grievously afflicting" actually be some sort of modification by Nephi that provides commentary on Nephi? We know that there were modifications done by Nephi to affect the meaning and intent of Isaiah's scripture as a sort of commentary on Nephi's present situation that Nephi calls "likening" (1 Nephi 19꞉23). Could there be something similar going on here?
Suffering in the wilderness
As a guess, this may have something to do with the difficult journey that Lehi, Nephi, and their family faced by the borders of the Red Sea as they traveled down the Arabian Peninsula. In 1 Nephi 6, 7, 8, 2 Nephi 1, 2_short Nephi 2, 2_short Nephi 3, _short2 Nephi 4, and 5 Nephi mentions that he and his family experienced afflictions and that they began to murmur against God—perhaps presupposing that God was the source of those afflictions given their wickedness. Nephi says that the afflictions that he and his family faced in 1 Nephi 6 when he lost his bow came at a time when they were traveling in "the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea" (16꞉14, (emphasis added)).
Evidence from the original manuscript
Latter-day Saint linguist and scholar of the textual history of the Book of Mormon Skousen believes that "Red Sea" was not an accident by scribes of the Book of Mormon translation. Instead, "Red Sea" was actually on the plates that Joseph Smith translated from. He deduces this from the fact that there is no manuscript evidence that scribes of the Book of Mormon translation text inserted "Red" next to "sea" even in the original manuscript of the translation of the Book of Mormon.
Furthermore, there are four uses in the Bible of the phrase "by the way of the Red Sea" (Numbers 14꞉25; Numbers 21꞉4; Deuteronomy 1꞉40; Deuteronomy 2꞉1). Familiarity with the phrase, Skousen argues, perhaps led Nephi to add the word "Red" to sea in his copying of Isaiah. Either that or "Red" was actually a part of the text and Nephi didn't add anything to it. Furthermore, out of 82 occurrences of the word "sea" in the Book of Mormon, there is no manuscript evidence that scribes added "Red" to the word "sea", even as a mistake that was then corrected.[34] Skousen retained "Red Sea" in his reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon: the text as it came from the mouth of Joseph Smith (or at least the best reconstruction of it).[35]
Nephi is explicitly "likening" Isaiah to his current situation (1 Nephi 19꞉23). It's likely that something similar is going on here. Thus, it's not an error, but (on this theory at least) an intentional emendation by Nephi to creatively "liken" the scriptures Isaiah wrote to his present situation which Joseph translated correctly. Thus, the intent of the verse is changed and does actually lead us into an incorrect understanding of what Isaiah meant to communicate about God’s nature. But it isn’t an error of what Nephi meant to communicate about God with his likening of Isaiah.
The deletion of italicized "her" is understandable, since it is not in [the Masoretic Text: the source for most current translations of Isaiah]. (I) However, [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 overcorrection, due to prior mention of the Red Sea in the BM text.[36]
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).
Hypothesis #3: An error while copying the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript
D. Charles Pyle suggested that the error may be the result of Oliver miscopying the original manuscript to the Printer's manuscript, presumably following similar logic to that of John Tvedtnes.[37]
Hypothesis #4: Egyptian translator's error
Pyle also suggested that it's possible to understand this as an error of an Egyptian translator into Hebrew and that Joseph Smith translated this passage, error and all, into English.[37]
Hypothesis #5: Joseph inserting a word where it was missing
Author Stan Spencer wrote a long article for Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship in which he discussed the italics in the King James Bible as used in the Book of Mormon. When translating passages in the Book of Mormon that are quotations of the King James Bible, scholars of the Book of Mormon note that a large amount of differences between the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon's quotations of it center around the italics. The italics are sometimes omitted and sometimes revised in the Book of Mormon. Spencer outlined three possibilities to account for the differences between the King James Bible text and the Book of Mormon quotations of it:
Stan Spencer laid out three hypotheses for the italicized words of the KJV in the Book of Mormon including how and why they were revised or omitted:
Elder B.H. Roberts hypothesized that the italics interaction represents what was on the actual Book of Mormon plates. In Spencer's words: "Roberts attributes the differences in the Book of Mormon to ancient variants in the Nephite plates, presumably reflecting the record on the brass plates, at least in the chapters Nephi and Jacob say they are reading." According to Roberts, the version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is consistently "superior [in] sense and clearness."[38]:56 Spencer calls this the Ancient Variants Hypothesis.
Spencer calls the second the Italics Revision Hypothesis. Advocates include Stan Larson, David P. Wright, and believing Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner. It holds that Joseph Smith was intentionally targeting italics in the King James Bible, knew what they meant, and intentionally revised them.[38]:56-58
Spencer's own theory he names the Missing Words Hypothesis. This theory holds that Joseph was given a vision of a biblical passage in his mind with missing KJV italics and that part of the work of translation for Joseph Smith was to decide whether to supply words to the passage and, if so, what words to supply.[38]
Thus, in Spencer's thinking, Joseph Smith could have seen the passage from Isaiah 9꞉1 in the Book of Mormon and inserted "red" before sea—perhaps thinking that the text in Isaiah was somehow in error.[39]
To learn more:
KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon Summary: Many changes in the Book of Mormon occur in the KJV italicized text. What is that text for? Did Joseph focus on it during the translation?
Hypothesis #6: The way of the Red Sea
The following response is provided by Jeff Lindsay,
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. ... 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?[37]
Solution #7: Joseph Smith "restoring" Isaiah intent JST-Style
A seventh solution was offered by Brant Gardner:
Joseph Smith appears to have understood that the italicized words were added by the KJV translators to make sense of the Hebrew. Combined with the addition of the "Red Sea," these changes appear to suggest a modern interaction with the KJV text that intends to both "restore" by removing the italicized words that were not originally present, and by attempting to clarify which sea. Such changes warn us that we should be very cautious about suggesting a literal translation of the plates. The evidence suggests that Joseph's intellect participated in the project (also suggested by D&C 9꞉7–10).[40]
How do we explain multiple "Isaiahs" and the Book of Mormon?
The challenge to the Book of Mormon is that Nephi quotes several chapters from Second Isaiah, who allegedly had not yet written his material in time for Nephi to quote from it
Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship:
Daniel T. Ellsworth, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (15 September 2017)
For Latter-day Saints, the critical scholarly consensus that most of the book of Isaiah was not authored by Isaiah often presents a problem, particularly since many Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon are assigned post-exilic dating by critical scholars. The critical position is based on an entirely different set of assumptions than most believers are accustomed to bring to scripture. This article surveys some of the reasons for the critical scholarly position, also providing an alternative set of assumptions that Latter-day Saints can use to understand the features of the text.
As part of the record Nephi creates for his people, he quotes heavily from the prophet Isaiah. The source for Nephi's text are the brass plates that he and his brothers obtained from Laban before leaving Jerusalem. Traditionally, the Book of Isaiah has been understood to be the composition of a single author living before Nephi, and before the Babylonian exile. However, modern scholars have found evidence in the Book of Isaiah that it was written by multiple authors spanning periods of time before and during the Babylonian exile, including before and after Nephi and his brothers obtained the brass plates. Nephi quotes from some of the passages of Isaiah that scholars believe were written after Nephi and his family left Jerusalem, creating a conundrum for students of the Book of Mormon.
The general division of Isaiah chapters according to this view looks like this:
Ch. 2-39, First Isaiah (Proto-Isaiah), written about 100 years before Lehi left Jerusalem, and so available to Nephi on Laban's brass plates.
Ch. 40-55, Second Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah), written, at the earliest 20-30 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, and so allegedly not available to Nephi on Laban's brass plates.
Ch. 56-66, Third Isaiah (Trito-Isaiah), written at least 60-70 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, and so not available to Nephi on Laban's brass plates.
The challenge to the Book of Mormon is that Nephi quotes several chapters from Second Isaiah, who allegedly had not yet written his material in time for Nephi to quote from it. The key question is, "Were those passages available to Nephi on the plates of brass?". If some parts of Isaiah were not written until after Nephi obtained the brass plates then they obviously would not be available for Nephi to quote from. This criticism/question is not new to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For instance, the semi-official encyclopedic work Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992, 2007) broached it in their entry on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.[41] Among the Latter-day Saints who are familiar with this issue there is more than one approach taken. Some argue for single authorship of Isaiah, while others agree that the Book of Isaiah was authored by more than one person and look for ways to resolve that with the Book of Mormon.
We will look at both approaches now.
Option #1—Accepting multiple authorship
Many Latter-day Saint scholars and students have come to agree with mainstream biblical scholars who suggest that parts of the Book of Isaiah were written by multiple authors and at different times. There is no official position from the Church that requires Latter-day Saints to see Isaiah as having been written by one author. Therefore, Latter-day Saints are free to form their own opinions of this issue.
Hugh Nibley summarizes the main reasons why many believe Isaiah was written by multiple authors:
"The dating of Deutero-Isaiah rests on three things: (1) the mention of Cyrus (Isa. 44꞉28), who lived 200 years after Isaiah and long after Lehi; (2) the threats against Babylon (Isa. 47꞉1, 48꞉14), which became the oppressor of Judah after the days of Isaiah and (3) the general language and setting of the text, which suggests a historical background commonly associated with a later period than that of Isaiah."[42]
Latter-day Saints who agree with this view do not do so because they don't believe that Isaiah could not prophecy of future events. Certainly it is within God's power to have Isaiah predict the name of Cyrus, or for Isaiah to write as if he were experiencing the Israelite exile to Babylon which would not happen for a couple hundred years. However, it would be very unusual for these things to happen. Those who accept the multiple authorship of Isaiah ask questions like, "Why would God have Isaiah predict the name of Cyrus, which would have been meaningless to his audience, and not predict the name of the Jesus?" Why would God have Isaiah write as if he were experiencing the Babylonian exile? It would make little sense to his contemporary audience, and would not be very helpful to them. They would be long dead before any of those prophecies made sense. It could be written like that as a sign to future audiences that God has predictive power, but to some that seems like an unusual and trivial thing for God to do.
The important question to ask for the purposes of this study is not "Who wrote the text of Isaiah", but rather "When and how was the text of Isaiah written?".
Isaiah in the Book of Mormon
The primary Isaiah passages found in the Book of Mormon are illustrated in the accompanying table.
Isaiah passages found in the Book of Mormon
2 Nephi 12-24 quotes 1st Isaiah. This is not a problem because it is agreed by scholars that this author wrote before Nephi obtained the brass plates. 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 7-2 Nephi 8, and 3 Nephi 16꞉18-20all quote from 2nd Isaiah, which is a problem if those chapters were not written by 2nd Isaiah until after Nephi had obtained the brass plates. (The 3 Nephi example is a citation of Isaiah by the risen Christ, so any of the 'Isaiahs' would have written by that point. One could argue, however, that it would be strange for the Savior to cite a prophecy they did not have without pointing that out.)
Along with the quotations from the above table, Third Isaiah is alluded to in Jacob 6꞉3 of the Book of Mormon. It is important to remember that the only part of 2nd Isaiah we need to account for is Isaiah 48-Isaiah 53 and the only part of Trito-Isaiah (it should be remembered that some scholars reject trito-Isaiah) being the one verse from Isaiah 65 (65꞉2). Thus we have four chapters and four verses to account for.
The development of the text of Isaiah
Understanding the proposed development of the text of Isaiah may be helpful:
1st Isaiah wrote during a time when a powerful nation, Assyria, threatened the destruction of Israel. While this was the immediate issue in 1st Isaiah's mind, he also may have been inspired to make general prophecies about a more future destruction of Israel. While not specifically mentioning "Bablyon" or "Cyrus", this 1st Isaiah may have made broad prophecies about a future threat to Israel separate from the immediate Assyrian threat.
Latter-day Saints scholar Sidney B. Sperry has suggested that we pay attention to the research of several non-Latter-day Saint scholars who "held that Isaiah 40-66 arose in exilic times, but consisted in considerable measure of ancient prophecies of Isaiah, which were reproduced by an author of Isaiah's school living in the exilic period, because the events of the day were bringing fulfillment of the prophecies." In other words, our current Isaiah 40-55 (or 40-66) may originate in primitive writings of 1st Isaiah, but they were reworked and reinterpreted by 2nd Isaiah, and it is in this form that we have them. This is very likely the best approach and one the easily accounts for the both the essential unity of the text of Isaiah and the presence of material from other chapters. Marc Schindler describes this approach in detail.[43]
In the same vein, Latter-day Saint scholar Brant Gardner writes:
Rather than seeing the specificity of "Cyrus" or "Babylon" as denying Isaiah's authorship because they must have been written later, those same techniques of analysis suggest that others added those names later when fulfillment made the intent of the prophecy obvious. Cyrus might not have been named when Isaiah ben Amoz [1st Isaiah] wrote, but anyone living after the fact would certainly recognize the name and perhaps "improve" the original Isaiah text by adding the specifics of the fulfilled prophecy. If the earliest versions of Deutero-Isaiah were actually written by proto-Isaiah, they were later redacted on the basis of the similar historical facts of destruction and hope of return from exile that were part of both the earlier Assyrian and later Babylonian captivity.
Issues of Translation
We now need to ask, "What text was available to Nephi?" He would have only had the text of 1st Isaiah (which presumably would include the 1st Isaiah version of the 4 chapters and 4 verses of Deutero-Isaiah that we need), a text which possibly included broad prophecies of the threat of future exile for Israel. The prophecies on Laban's plates of brass which Nephi was quoting from may not have specifically mentioned "Babylon" as that threat.
Thus, what Nephi quoted as he inscribed on his plates would have been the original, early, 1st Isaiah version of Isaiah 48-52 and all of chs. 2-40. However, the text that we have in the Book of Mormon of Isaiah 48-52 quotes from the later, 2nd Isaiah material (which is a reworked version of 1st Isaiah's earlier material) as found in the KJV Bible. How would advocates of the Deutero-Isaiah option address this?
The answer hinges on the translation process. Some have thought that the Book of Mormon must have been nothing but formal equivalency (word for word translation). The Book of Mormon does not likely represent a one-for-one conversion of text from Reformed Egyptian to English, however.
Using the Original and Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen has determined 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 spelling of words had indeed been standardized prior to the translation of the Book of Mormon (contrary to popular belief) and that Oliver Cowdery (Joseph's scribe) 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.[44]
A Proposed Scenario
Skousen proposes that, rather than looking at a Bible (the absence of a Bible now near-definitively confirmed by the manuscript evidence and the unequivocal statements of witnesses to the translation to the Book of Mormon), Joseph was provided a page of text via his gift of seership. This page of text contained, in this view, the King James Bible text. Joseph was then free to alter the text for his audience. Thus:
As Joseph was translating the text of the Book of Mormon, he encounter something that was being roughly similar to texts from the Bible. This would occur most prominently when Nephi quotes from Isaiah.
Instead of translating Nephi's quotations of Isaiah word-for-word, the Lord gave the passages from Isaiah as contained in the KJV. Reasons for which this may have been done are discussed earlier in this article.
Consequently, the Isaiah chapters on Nephi's plates would have looked slightly different from the Isaiah chapters that we have now in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's version of Isaiah 48-52 would have been the primitive, early version written by 1st Isaiah. The version of Isaiah 48-52 that we have now in the Book of Mormon would not then be taken directly from Nephi's plates, but rather adapted from the KJV Bible as described.
A mistake Joseph doesn't make
If we're going to criticize the Book of Mormon for containing 2nd Isaiah, we need to give credit where it gets things right. Scholars believe that Isaiah chapter 1 was not part of 1st Isaiah's original book,[45] but was a later addition by a later writer, perhaps 2nd or 3rd Isaiah.
It is noteworthy that the Book of Mormon starts instead with Isaiah 2 and continues until Isaiah 14 without break. So this was a prime opportunity for Joseph Smith to make an error if he is fabricating the Book of Mormon. If you're going to quote that much Isaiah, why not begin from the beginning? But, he didn't.
Option #2—Theories of a “Single Isaiah” and the Book of Mormon
Some take a conservative view and argue for the unity of Isaiah, suggesting that theories about multiple authorship are not correct. This approach was taken by one author in an old article in the Ensign. The following represents part of that answer that was given (the full text may be read on churchofjesuschrist.org at the link below):
Many non-LDS scholars claim that the second half of the book of Isaiah was written after the time Lehi left Jerusalem, Yet the Book of Mormon contains material from both halves. How do we explain this?
....
Literary style in Hebrew is much more accessible to computer analysis than is English. This is partly because the Hebrew characteristic known as the function prefix can help identify speech patterns of a given author. For example, how an author uses Hebrew function prefixes, such as those that translate into “and in this,” “and it is,” and “and to,” are expected to be unique with him. Thus, comparing parts of an author’s work with other parts, as well as comparing his work with work by other authors, can yield statistical evidence for claims of authorship.
Accordingly, we coded the Hebrew text of the book of Isaiah and a random sampling of eleven other Old Testament books onto computer tape. 3 Then, using a computer, we compared rates of literary usage (such as unique expressions and idiomatic phrases including the function prefix and other such literary elements) from text to text. Since any author varies within himself, depending on context, audience, his own change of style, and so forth, variations for a given author were compared with variations between authors for any literary element.
The results of the study were conclusive: there is a unique authorship style throughout the various sections of Isaiah. The rates of usage for the elements of this particular style are more consistent within the book of Isaiah, regardless of the section, than in any other book in the study. This statistical evidence led us to a single conclusion: based on style alone, the book of Isaiah definitely appears to be the work of one man. The two parts of Isaiah most often claimed to have been written by different authors, chapters 1–39 and 40–66, were found to be more similar to each other in style than to any of the other eleven Old Testament books examined.[46]
Single or multiple Isaiahs?—Summary
We should recognize that:
We have four chapters and four verses to account for. We don't need to have the entire book of Isaiah date to a certain time—just those passages in the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon uses KJV language for a variety of reasons which do not require "plagiarism" as an explanation.
Literary arguments for dating a text are often highly subjective and most prone to disagreement. Many scholars use narrative criticism to establish the dating of a text. This is one of the trickiest ways to date a text and several scholars have pointed out how tenuous these approaches can be.[47] This is significant: we have no manuscript evidence that would establish that there were multiple authors. The earliest manuscript of the text "ha[s been] dated using both radiocarbon dating and palaeographic/scribal dating[,] giving calibrated date ranges between 356–103 BCE and 150–100 BCE respectively."[48]
The argument would be settled were a copy of Isaiah—either whole or few of fragments of the 2nd or 3rd Isaiah material— within 7th century strata. This is unlikely because:
The texts themselves, if preserved, would most likely be contained within temple deposits. These would have been ransacked by the Babylonians when they took Israel captive circa 600 BCE. Upon taking Israel, the Babylonians pillaged and destroyed the Israelite's temples, records, and other belongings.[49] The most likely temple site would be the Temple of Solomon which is buried under the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. It is archaeologically inaccessible by law for religious and political reasons.
The texts, if they survived outside temple deposits and survived Babylonian or other foreign invasion, would rarely survive for two millennia. For example, K.A. Kitchen commenting on arguments against the historicity of the Exodus narratives in the Bible, wrote the following:
Egyptian gods gave only victories to kings—and defeats indicated divine disapproval, not applause! It is no use looking for administrative registers giving the Hebrews "customs clearance" to clear out of Egypt. In fact, 99 percent of all New Kingdom papyri are irrevocably lost (administrative and otherwise), the more so in the sopping mud of the Delta; the few survivors hail from the dry sands of Sawwara and Upper Egypt, far away from Pi-Ramesse's total of our administrative texts so far recovered from Pi-Ramesse![50]
Thus, depending on what environmental conditions obtained upon deposition, the papyri or scrolls are likely lost. (In some ways, the survival of any ancient text is a near miracle given everything that can happen to it.)
But even in good conditions for preservation, it may be years before such a document were uncovered. Consider that one archaeological excavation took some 30 years to uncover a Philistine cemetery in southern Israel.[51] This argument against the Book of Mormon is an argument from silence. A single discovery can overturn such silence.
Daniel T. Ellsworth, "Their Imperfect Best: Isaianic Authorship from an LDS Perspective," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27/1 (15 September 2017). [1–28] link
Video
"Deutero-Isaiah," BH Roberts Foundationprint-link.
KnoWhy #38, "What Vision Guides Nephi's Choice of Isaiah Chapters?," Scripture Central (12 February 2024). link
KnoWhy #214, "Why Did Jesus Mix Together Micah and Isaiah?," Scripture Central (21 August 2019). link
KnoWhy #216, "Why Did Jesus Quote All of Isaiah 54?," Scripture Central (21 August 2019). link
Joseph M. Spencer, The Vision of All: Twenty-five Lectures on Isaiah in Nephi's Record. Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford, 2016. This book is remarkable in that, as part of its analysis, it demonstrates clearly that the selection of Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon is one not done at random but that there is a unifying theme and purpose that drives Nephi's use of Isaiah.
Sidney B. Sperry, "The ‘Isaiah Problem’ in the Book of Mormon," in Book of Mormon Compendium. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968. An explanation of the problem and response from Sidney Sperry concerning the "Isaiah Problem."
Kent P. Jackson, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2016. This book chapter responds to common questions about the so-called "Isaiah Problem" and offers resources for further study and help in resolving those questions.
David Carr, “Reaching for Unity in Isaiah,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 18, no. 57 (1993): 61–80. There is a large bibliography of scholars who believe in a single Isaiah in notes 3-5 of this article.
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament. Grant Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969, 371–78.
F. W. Bush, D. A. Hubbard, and W. S.LaSor, Old Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982.
Donald Parry and John W. Welch, Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998. One of the largest studies done on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. John Welch offers his perspective on the "Isaiah Problem" near the end of the volume.
Alvin A. and Larry L. Rencher, "A Computer Analysis of the Isaiah Authorship Problem," Adams, BYU Studies 15 (Autumn 1974): 95-102. This analysis takes the English KJV text of Isaiah and through textual analysis argues that there was one singular author of Isaiah. That this study was done with the English translation of Isaiah instead of the original Hebrew is a weakness (though perhaps not necessarily fatal to the authors' arguments).
Francis L. Andersen, "Style and Authorship," in The Tyndale Paper 21 (June 1976): 2.
E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah. 2 vols. Dublin, Ireland: 1941, 1943.
Victor L. Ludlow, Isaiah: Prophet, Seer, and Poet. Salt Lake City, 1981.
John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon," Isaiah and the Prophets, ed. M. Nyman. Provo, Utah: 1984.
Edward J. Young, Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: 1949.
Joshua M. Sears, "Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," in They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon, ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022. Perhaps the best treatment on different approaches taken by Latter-day Saints to the problem and resources for reconciling criticism.
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. The Nephite texutal tradition was a Josephite one (Ephraism and Manasseh) from the Northern Kingdom of Israel—this is where Lehi hailed from. It was thus probably an independent stream of textual variation from the Judah-based texts that our modern bible draws from. Differences between these two traditions would be expected.
Notes
↑Stephen R. Gibson, One Minute Answers to Anti-Mormon Questions. off-site
↑John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha: Shadow or Reality? (Review of Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [326–372] link
↑Emma Smith to Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856," Journal of History 9 (January 1916): 454.
↑Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints’ Advocate 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
↑Jay P. Green Sr., The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew-Greek-English (Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1995), 975.
↑Bruce R. McConkie, "Ten Keys to Understanding Isaiah," Ensign/10 (October 1973): 78–83. off-site
↑See LDS KJV, Bible Dictionary, "Quotations from the Old Testament found in the New Testament," 756-59. off-site
↑Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), 128. ISBN 0875791395.
↑See, for example, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 2012). Other examples of similar choices in translation include: Robert H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), Theodor H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 3rd ed. (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976), and Robert Lisle Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Baptist House, n.d.).
↑See A. Melvin McDonald, Day of Defense (Sounds of Zion Inc., 1986; 2004), 49.
↑These were the only editions consulted for this point.
↑See page 81 of either edition of the Book of Mormon.
↑See Michael Hickenbotham, Answering Challenging Mormon Questions: Replies to 130 Queries by Friends and Critics of the LDS Church (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort Publisher, 2004),193–196. (Key source)
↑See also See also Kirk Holland Vestal and Arthur Wallace, The Firm Foundation of Mormonism (Los Angeles, CA: The L. L. Company, 1981), 70–72.
↑The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link For earlier discussions, see Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth about ‘The God Makers’ (Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1989; republished by Bookcraft, 1994), 172. Full text FAIR link ISBN 088494963X.; see also Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Ancient America and the Book of Mormon (Kolob Book Company, 1964),100–102.; Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988),129–143. ISBN 0875791395.
↑A critic, David Wright, responded to Tvedtnes and Tvedtnes’ review of that critic’s response can be found in John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link.
↑Please forgive blurriness from scanning/transmitting the images.
↑Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38/5 (10 July 2020). [45–106] link
↑See Joseph M. Spencer, The Vision of All: 25 Lectures on Isaiah in Nephi’s Record (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2016). For a good summary, see BMC Team, "What Vision Guides Nephi’s Choice of Isaiah Chapters?" KnoWhy #38 (February 22, 2016).
↑John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984), 165–78. A critic, David Wright, responded to John Tvedtnes' chapter there. Tvedtnes responds to Wright in John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon," The FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 161–72.
↑See such scriptural examples as D&C 109꞉34,42,56,68; 110꞉1-3; 128꞉9. See also Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 220, 221, 250–251. off-site
↑John A. Tvedtnes, The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon, 87; note: there is no evidence that this is a scribal mistake. Skousen retains "sons"
↑Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 9.
↑Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 992n8.18–9.7.
↑Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Five: King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019), 216.
↑ 38.038.138.2Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38/5 (10 July 2020). [45–106] link
↑Legrande Davies, "Isaiah: Texts in the Book of Mormon," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992). Worthy of mention is that two then-current apostles, Elder Neal A. Maxwell and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, and one future apostle, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, were advisors for the encyclopedia and its editorial board. They are recognized in the acknowledgements to the encyclopedia.
↑Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), "Chapter 5: The Bible in the Book of Mormon", subsection "The Book of Mormon Explains Isaiah". ISBN 0875791395.
↑Marc Schindler, "Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon?," FAIR PapersFAIR link
↑John Barton, Isaiah 1-39, (London: T&T Clark International, 1995), 25–26. See also Michael Fallon, "Introduction to Isaiah 40–48," Isaiah School in Exile—Isaiah 40–55 (6 September 2014), 194.
↑Benjamin D. Sommer, "Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism," The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research eds., Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 85-108.
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".
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.
The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some of the same verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. See the JST on the church website.
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.
As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."
Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it is intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".
One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.
The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.
Learn more about the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the bible
Key sources
Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40/2 (2 October 2020). [15–60] link
FAIR links
Jeffrey Bradshaw, "The Message of the Joseph Smith Translation: A Walk in the Garden," Proceedings of the 2008 FAIR Conference (August 2008). link
Kent P. Jackson, "Was Joseph Smith Influenced by Outside Sources in His Translation of the Bible?," Proceedings of the 2022 FAIR Conference (August 2022). link
Online
W. John Welsh, "Why Didn't Joseph Correct KJV Errors When Translating the JST?", lightplanet.comoff-site
Garold N. Davis, "Review of The Legacy of the Brass Plates of Laban: A Comparison of Biblical and Book of Mormon Isaiah Texts by H. Clay Gorton," FARMS Review 7/1 (1995). [123–129] link
Kevin L. Barney, "The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 no. 3 (Fall 1986), 85–102.off-site
Cynthia L. Hallen, "Redeeming the Desolate Woman: The Message of Isaiah 54 and 3 Nephi 22," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998). [40–47] link
Matthew L. Bowen, "'They Shall Be Scattered Again': Some Notes on JST Genesis 50:24–25, 33–35," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 57/4 (23 June 2023). [107–128] link
Brant A. Gardner, "Joseph Smith's Translation Projects under a Microscope," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41/15 (18 December 2020). [257–264] link
Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40/2 (2 October 2020). [15–60] link
Spencer Kraus, "An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith's Translation of Ancient Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52/1 (17 June 2022). [1–64] link
Mark J. Johnson, "Review of The Legacy of the Brass Plates of Laban: A Comparison of Biblical and Book of Mormon Isaiah Texts by H. Clay Gorton," FARMS Review 7/1 (1995). [130–138] link
Stephen D. Ricks, "Review of The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 4/1 (1992). [235–250] link
Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link
A. Don Sorensen, "'The Problem of the Sermon on the Mount and 3 Nephi (Review of “A Further Inquiry into the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” Sunstone September–October 1982, 20–27)'," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [117–148] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "'Literary Problems in the Book of Mormon involving 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and Other New Testament Books'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [166–174] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "The Book of Mormon and the Problem of the Sermon on the Mount," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [153–165] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "The 'Isaiah Problem' in the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [129–152] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "The Isaiah Quotation: 2 Nephi 12–24," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [192–208] link
John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link
Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1985).
Matthew B. Brown, "The Restoration of Biblical Texts," in All Things Restored, 2d ed. (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2006),159–181. AISN B000R4LXSM. ISBN 1577347129.
Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.
The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some of the same verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. See the JST on the church website.
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.
As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."
Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it is intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".
One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.
The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.
Learn more about the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the bible
Key sources
Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40/2 (2 October 2020). [15–60] link
FAIR links
Jeffrey Bradshaw, "The Message of the Joseph Smith Translation: A Walk in the Garden," Proceedings of the 2008 FAIR Conference (August 2008). link
Kent P. Jackson, "Was Joseph Smith Influenced by Outside Sources in His Translation of the Bible?," Proceedings of the 2022 FAIR Conference (August 2022). link
Online
W. John Welsh, "Why Didn't Joseph Correct KJV Errors When Translating the JST?", lightplanet.comoff-site
Garold N. Davis, "Review of The Legacy of the Brass Plates of Laban: A Comparison of Biblical and Book of Mormon Isaiah Texts by H. Clay Gorton," FARMS Review 7/1 (1995). [123–129] link
Kevin L. Barney, "The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 no. 3 (Fall 1986), 85–102.off-site
Cynthia L. Hallen, "Redeeming the Desolate Woman: The Message of Isaiah 54 and 3 Nephi 22," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998). [40–47] link
Matthew L. Bowen, "'They Shall Be Scattered Again': Some Notes on JST Genesis 50:24–25, 33–35," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 57/4 (23 June 2023). [107–128] link
Brant A. Gardner, "Joseph Smith's Translation Projects under a Microscope," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41/15 (18 December 2020). [257–264] link
Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40/2 (2 October 2020). [15–60] link
Spencer Kraus, "An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith's Translation of Ancient Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52/1 (17 June 2022). [1–64] link
Mark J. Johnson, "Review of The Legacy of the Brass Plates of Laban: A Comparison of Biblical and Book of Mormon Isaiah Texts by H. Clay Gorton," FARMS Review 7/1 (1995). [130–138] link
Stephen D. Ricks, "Review of The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 4/1 (1992). [235–250] link
Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link
A. Don Sorensen, "'The Problem of the Sermon on the Mount and 3 Nephi (Review of “A Further Inquiry into the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” Sunstone September–October 1982, 20–27)'," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [117–148] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "'Literary Problems in the Book of Mormon involving 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and Other New Testament Books'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [166–174] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "The Book of Mormon and the Problem of the Sermon on the Mount," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [153–165] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "The 'Isaiah Problem' in the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [129–152] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "The Isaiah Quotation: 2 Nephi 12–24," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [192–208] link
John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link
Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1985).
Matthew B. Brown, "The Restoration of Biblical Texts," in All Things Restored, 2d ed. (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2006),159–181. AISN B000R4LXSM. ISBN 1577347129.
Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.
The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some of the same verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. See the JST on the church website.
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.
As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."
Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it is intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".
One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.
The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.
Learn more about the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the bible
Key sources
Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40/2 (2 October 2020). [15–60] link
FAIR links
Jeffrey Bradshaw, "The Message of the Joseph Smith Translation: A Walk in the Garden," Proceedings of the 2008 FAIR Conference (August 2008). link
Kent P. Jackson, "Was Joseph Smith Influenced by Outside Sources in His Translation of the Bible?," Proceedings of the 2022 FAIR Conference (August 2022). link
Online
W. John Welsh, "Why Didn't Joseph Correct KJV Errors When Translating the JST?", lightplanet.comoff-site
Garold N. Davis, "Review of The Legacy of the Brass Plates of Laban: A Comparison of Biblical and Book of Mormon Isaiah Texts by H. Clay Gorton," FARMS Review 7/1 (1995). [123–129] link
Kevin L. Barney, "The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 no. 3 (Fall 1986), 85–102.off-site
Cynthia L. Hallen, "Redeeming the Desolate Woman: The Message of Isaiah 54 and 3 Nephi 22," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998). [40–47] link
Matthew L. Bowen, "'They Shall Be Scattered Again': Some Notes on JST Genesis 50:24–25, 33–35," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 57/4 (23 June 2023). [107–128] link
Brant A. Gardner, "Joseph Smith's Translation Projects under a Microscope," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41/15 (18 December 2020). [257–264] link
Kent P. Jackson, "Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40/2 (2 October 2020). [15–60] link
Spencer Kraus, "An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith's Translation of Ancient Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52/1 (17 June 2022). [1–64] link
Mark J. Johnson, "Review of The Legacy of the Brass Plates of Laban: A Comparison of Biblical and Book of Mormon Isaiah Texts by H. Clay Gorton," FARMS Review 7/1 (1995). [130–138] link
Stephen D. Ricks, "Review of The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 4/1 (1992). [235–250] link
Dana M. Pike and David R. Seely, "'Upon All the Ships of the Sea, and Upon All the Ships of Tarshish': Revisiting 2 Nephi 12:16 and Isaiah 2:16," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [12–25] link
A. Don Sorensen, "'The Problem of the Sermon on the Mount and 3 Nephi (Review of “A Further Inquiry into the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” Sunstone September–October 1982, 20–27)'," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [117–148] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "'Literary Problems in the Book of Mormon involving 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and Other New Testament Books'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [166–174] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "The Book of Mormon and the Problem of the Sermon on the Mount," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [153–165] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "The 'Isaiah Problem' in the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [129–152] link
Sidney B. Sperry, "The Isaiah Quotation: 2 Nephi 12–24," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4/1 (1995). [192–208] link
John A. Tvedtnes, "Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Review of 'Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah.' in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 157–234.)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). [161–172] link
Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1985).
Matthew B. Brown, "The Restoration of Biblical Texts," in All Things Restored, 2d ed. (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2006),159–181. AISN B000R4LXSM. ISBN 1577347129.
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.
FAIR's 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 English translation of 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.
Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"
And again, in connection with this quotation I will give you a quotation from one of the prophets, who had his eye fixed on the restoration of the priesthood, the glories to be revealed in the last days, and in an especial manner this most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting gospel, namely, the baptism for the dead; for Malachi says, last chapter, verses 5th and 6th: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
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. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times (D&C 128꞉17,18).
Notes
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.
FAIR's 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. Following the links below and reading associated articles clearly demonstrates that DNA evidence posits no problem for the Book of Mormon.[1]
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.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
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
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 with anyone from 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 to force a 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 Mormonism must at all costs negate the Limited Geography of the Book of Mormon.
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 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[2]) 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 DNA. But if we're descended from someone, we have at least a chance—even if it's a very small chance—of having their DNA in our cells...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.[3]
Response to claim: "It was a teaching accepted and taught by these “prophets, seers, and revelators,” including Joseph Smith himself, for most of the Church’s entire existence until the Church quietly and unofficially made the change in the Book of Mormon in 2006"
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:
I like how FairMormon calls a 170+ year Mormon teaching believed and taught by “prophets, seers, and revelators” an “assumption.” It was not an “assumption.” It was a teaching accepted and taught by these “prophets, seers, and revelators,” including Joseph Smith himself, for most of the Church’s entire existence until the Church quietly and unofficially made the change in the Book of Mormon in 2006, after the DNA evidence started pouring in. The Prophet Joseph Smith disagrees with FairMormon’s “integration” and “Limited Geography” theories.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The idea that the land of the Book of Mormon comprised the entire North and South American continents was a natural assumption to make based upon the "narrow neck" of land described in the Book of Mormon being assumed to be the Isthmus of Panama. Joseph Smith believed in a hemispheric geography, along with most early Church leaders. Many Latter-day Saints today believe in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon. However, the "Limited Geography" theory has been around a lot longer than 2006. It was, in fact, first proposed in the 1920s, and was based upon a more careful reading of distances traveled in the Book of Mormon. It appeared in the official Church magazine, the Ensign, in 1984 in a two-part series. It appeared in the filmstrip Ancient America Speaks, which was used by missionaries during the late 1970's and early 1980's. It was not formulated in response to questions regarding DNA, since it predates the DNA argument by at least 70 years. (And, as an aside, just how does the Church "quietly" and "unofficially" change the introduction to the Book of Mormon? The change was published in the Church-owned Deseret News on 8 November 2007.[4])
Question: Was the Limited Geography model created in response to DNA claims?
The Limited Geography Model was introduced in 1927, many years before DNA claims
Was the Limited Geography model created in respond to DNA claims? The answer is no. The idea that Lehi's party entered a larger, pre-existing New World population was introduced as early as 1927, well before the Book of Mormon was being challenged on issues related to DNA. [5] Limited Geography Models in General have been present since at least 10 years before that.
An examination of both Part 1 and Part 2 of John Sorenson's 1984 Ensign articles quickly shows that they do not even contain the term "DNA". The articles focus on anthropological and geographical topics which support the Limited Geography model.
I have said repeatedly that the correspondences in geography, history, and cultural patterns—large scale or micro-scale—between Mesoamerican cultures and the Book of Mormon peoples do not “prove” anything conclusively. Still, the fact that large numbers of such correspondences exist ought to register in the minds of truth-loving people. With this in mind, it is clearly misleading for a scholar—one of our own—to imply that there is no “important archaeological evidence” to support the Book of Mormon story “of Indian origins,” or for another to find it amusing to think that anyone would seriously try to compare the Book of Mormon with objective facts of historical importance. [6]
The Sorenson map of Book of Mormon lands as it appeared in the September 1984 church magazine, the Ensign. This map may be viewed on the official Church website LDS.org
Question: What is the Limited Geography Theory and model?
The Limited Geography Model is based upon an accurate reading the Book of Mormon text and limits geography to several hundred miles
The Limited Geography Theory (or LGT) is a non-traditional interpretation of the text, but one that has gained wide acceptance among the Book of Mormon scholars and readers over the last 60 years.[7] It is based on a close reading of the text, which indicates that the lands inhabited by the Lehites could be traversed on foot in only a few weeks, making the area no larger than present-day California.
Advantages of this model:
a limited model seems to match the textual information about distance with much greater accuracy
a limited model offers a more realistic fit for an ancient society, which would have had great difficulties travelling or communicating over the vast distances required by the Hemispheric Geography Theory
a limited model potentially restricts Book of Mormon peoples to an area which matches regions (e.g., such as Mesoamerica) known to have had high culture, city-building, written language, etc.
Disadvantages include:
many Church members are unfamiliar with the basis for this model, having not paid close attention to issues of distance and travel times, since they have been more focused on the spiritual details of the Book of Mormon instead of its mundane details.
most early members and leaders of the Church have, when they made geography explicit at all, tended to adopt a hemispheric model
being a "newer" model, some claim that advocates of the LGT are 'changing the Church's story' about the Book of Mormon, even though the Church has been clear that it had no official or revealed Book of Mormon geography.
placing the model exactly becomes more difficult, since a smaller geography can 'fit' more than one potential location.
critics of the theory maintain that it uses mental gymnastics to explain away the mention of an "exceedingly great distance" in the text. Traditionally, it had been believed that there was an exceedingly great distance between the core of the Nephite domain and the Hill Cumorah in the area where the Nephites and Jaredites were destroyed.
Question: Has the Church ever promoted a Limited Geography model for the Book of Mormon?
The Church produced materials showing a limited geography for the Book of Mormon in the 1970s and 1980s
Three frames from the Church-produced filmstrip "Ancient America Speaks." This filmstrip was used by missionaries in the late 1970s and early 80s. It clearly showed a Limited Geography for Book of Mormon lands with the "narrow neck" being the Isthmus of Panama.
Has the Church ever promoted a Limited Geography model for the Book of Mormon? The answer to that question is yes. The Church filmstrip "Ancient America Speaks" was heavily used by missionaries in the 1970s. It included a map which indicated that Nephite and Lamanite lands were distinct and separated by the Isthmus of Panama.
In September and October of 1984, the official Church magazine the Ensign printed a two-part series which outlined the limited geography model for the Book of Mormon. The articles were called "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture" and were written by Latter-day Saint anthropologist John L. Sorenson. Sorenson notes:
Many Latter-day Saints have not had access to sources which communicate how recent research has changed our understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document. Many also are unaware of some rather surprising new discoveries supporting the Book of Mormon which have been brought about by the advanced methods of science. The purpose of this article and the one to follow is to sketch a few vivid examples of changes in how some Latter-day Saint scholars view the Book of Mormon in the light of new theories and discoveries about the past. These articles are not intended to be an expression of official Church teachings, but on the basis of my own research and study, I have thought this new information to be worth consideration. [8]
Question: Why have Church leaders taught a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon rather than a limited one?
"Traditional" interpretations of the Book of Mormon assume a hemispheric geography
Latter-day Saint anthropologist John L. Sorenson specifically notes that there is a difference between the "traditional" interpretation of the Book of Mormon versus what it actually says,
One problem some Latter-day Saint writers and lecturers have had is confusing the actual text of the Book of Mormon with the traditional interpretation of it. For example, a commonly heard statement is that the Book of Mormon is “the history of the American Indians.” This statement contains a number of unexamined assumptions—that the scripture is a history in the common sense—a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that “the” American Indians are a unitary population; and that the approximately one hundred pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scripture could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere. When unexamined assumptions like these are made, critics respond in kind, criticizing not the ancient text itself, but the assumptions we have made about it. [8]
Sorenson notes that critics make the same assumptions about traditional interpretations as Latter-day saints,
Among the criticisms of the Book of Mormon by archaeologists, the two most widely circulated statements (the late Robert Wauchope’s book and Michael Coe’s article nearly a decade ago) suffer from similar limitations. Both of these eminent scholars based their reactions to the Book of Mormon on the same unfortunate assumption that the Book of Mormon account is about events involving American Indians throughout the entire New World. Their conclusions were as flawed as those arrived at by some Latter-day Saints. [8]
Question: Did Joseph Smith teach a hemispheric, rather than a limited, geography model for the Book of Mormon?
It does not appear that the Angel Moroni identified the locations of places mentioned in the Book of Mormon
What did Joseph Smith believe and teach about Book of Mormon geography? How does it relate to the location where the plates were buried? Matthew Roper addresses this issue:
The Prophet Joseph Smith knew that the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated had been obtained from the hill near his home. Aside from this, however, it does not appear that the angel Moroni identified current locations for places mentioned in the book. It is noteworthy—but scarcely surprising—that the Book of Mormon itself does not identify the hill in which it was buried. Instead, the hill in which all the Nephite plates other than those of the Book of Mormon were buried is identified (Mormon 6:6).26 It is also unclear how much, if any, geography Moroni revealed to the Prophet—whose calling was that of translator, not geographer. In the absence of revelation on Book of Mormon geography, we must expect the Saints to express their own ideas. Revelation is one thing, while speculation is quite another. Joseph Smith said very little about the geography of the Book of Mormon. What little he did say suggests that he may have shared the view held by his associates, that the Book of Mormon narrative describes events occurring in North, Central, and South America. [9]
Latter-day Saint archaeologist John Clark "points out the dangers of uncritically accepting the opinions of Joseph Smith as authoritative on the issue of Book of Mormon geography." [10]
The dangerous area is where opinion is thought to clarify ambiguities in the text, of which there are many. The minimal fact that various statements are attributed to Joseph Smith that place cities in different lands suggests that he continued to be interested throughout [Page 80]his life in the location of Book of Mormon lands and, consequently, that it remained an open question for him. If he knew where they were, why did he continue guessing? Should we not be similarly open-minded today? Do we go with the Prophet’s early statements or his later statements? [11]
Joseph occasionally expressed ideas related to where the Book of Mormon occurred, which ranged from the area around New York to the lands of Central America
Joseph occasionally expressed ideas related to where the Book of Mormon occurred, which ranged from the area around New York to the lands of Central America. He never explicitly taught a specific geography, although he appears to have held a hemispheric view, just as many members today do. Joseph was as much an observer of the restoration as he was its principle player. When revelations were received, he had to use his physical faculties to interpret and understand them like the rest of us. And although he had a "front row seat" to many of the foundational events, he was often as astounded and surprised by the revelations he received as were those who received them from him, and he had to understand those things that were evidenced but not explicitly stated by revelation in the same way we all do. This includes of course the geographic setting for the Book of Mormon. A limited geography does not in any way contradict the revelations of Joseph Smith.
Roper: "Critics of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the limited geography is only a late, desperate attempt to defend the Book of Mormon"
Matthew Roper:
Recently, some critics of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the limited geography is only a late, desperate attempt to defend the Book of Mormon. It is, they assert, contrary "to the Book of Mormon text, early Mormon history, [and] Joseph Smith's divine edicts."2 In order to place the assertions of these critics in perspective, it is necessary to address several questions: What was the hemispheric geography based on? Granted that this early view was popular, was it based on revelation? Is there any authoritative interpretation of Book of Mormon geography? Is the localized geography some kind of debater's ploy or are there substantial reasons for this view? [12]—(Click here to continue)
Response to claim: "Horses...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
Horses...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
The author now shifts discussion to questions of anachronism. Readers are strongly encouraged to read the article right below this about evaluating anachronisms before proceeding if they haven't read it before. Ancient horses are believed to have vanished before the time of the Lehite's arrival, and modern horses were brought to the New World by the Spaniards. Yet there are a few pieces of circumstantial evidence of horses which are currently not accepted as valid by the scientific community. The idea that all defenders of the Church (e.g. "apologists") believe that New World horses are actually "tapirs" is a popular strawman put forth by the ex-Mormon community, and only represents a single suggestion offered by LDS anthropologist John L. Sorenson. Any others who mention tapirs as a possibility (such as Mike Ash), are simply citing Sorenson's work. The idea that Daniel C. Peterson promotes tapirs as horses is a popular meme within the ex-Mormon online community, however, at present we can find only a single quote attributable to Dr. Peterson, which also cites John L. Sorenson. Peterson, in fact, favors the idea that actual horses existed at the time, noting that
"it remains possible that the term horse in the Book of Mormon-which, by the way, does not occur very often, and even then in rather puzzling contexts-refers simply to deer or tapirs or similar quadrupeds thought by the Nephites to be analogous to the horse....But there is archaeological reason to believe that horses may, in fact, have existed in the Americas during Book of Mormon times. The question remains very much open."[13]
Peterson's footnote to this statement adds
"Valuable discussions of the evidence can be found at John L. Sorenson, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: An Annotated Bibliography."
In fact, every mention of a "loan-shift" of the name "horse" to "deer" or "tapir" cites John L. Sorenson's original work.
Question: What is an anachronism, and what should be borne in mind when assessing the Book of Mormon (or any other text) for supposed "anachronisms"?
An "anachronism" is an element in a text that is "out of time." That is, it does not match the time and place of the text's claimed production.
For example, if Sherman tanks appeared in a supposed account of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, the tanks would be "anachronistic." They don't belong. Critics of the church point to a variety of items in the Book of Mormon that they claim are anachronistic.[14]
Three General Categories of Anachronism that Critics Claim Exist in Scripture
There are basically three broad categories of claimed anachronisms in the scriptures: material anachronisms, theological/intellectual anachronisms, and linguistic/textual anachronisms.
Material anachronisms: refers to plants, animals, weapons, and other materials that are claimed to not fit the desired historical context.
Theological/intellectual anachronisms: refers to theological or intellectual ideas that supposedly do not fit a desired historical context. In another article, we have laid out principles and procedures for responding to claims of theological anachronisms.
Linguistic/textual anachronisms: refers to accusations of plagiarism made against Joseph Smith including the idea that he lifted rhetoric from the New Testament to render his translation of the Book of Mormon. In another article, we have laid out principles and procedures for responding to claims of linguistic anachronisms.
This article will focus on material anachronisms; but we encourage readers to familiarize themselves with the principles and procedures for dealing with accusations of other types of anachronisms laid out in the linked articles.
We have also laid out principles and procedures for dealing with accusations of anachronisms in other books of scripture such as the Book of Abraham.
Difference Between Apparent Anachronism and Actual Anachronism
There is a big difference between an apparent or possible anachronism and an actual anachronism. An apparent anachronism is one that, given current data, seems to exist. An apparent anachronism may or may not be recognized as one that might expire given more data. An actual anachronism is one that all agree exists. It will be agreed that it will not expire given more time and study.
Example of an apparent anachronism; the horse in ancient America. We do not know that there weren’t horses in ancient America during Book of Mormon times and in Book of Mormon lands. But, given more time, we may find horse remains.
Example of an actual anachronism: saying that Abraham Lincoln called his wife Mary Todd on his cellphone. We know that cellphones weren’t invented during the life of Abraham Lincoln. This is an actual anachronism.
As apologists, we obviously believe that all anachronisms either don’t exist or are merely apparent/possible anachronisms.
Anachronisms are important for dating a text. If an actual anachronism exists in a text, then the text could not have been authored until after a time in which that particular thing was introduced to the world. In the Abraham Lincoln example, we could conclude that the sentence was not written nor spoken until after the late 1970s and early 1980s when cellphones were first invented. Our contention, as apologists, is that the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are only apparent or otherwise do not lead one to conclude, by necessity, that the Book of Mormon can't be ancient because of anachronisms.
Four Possibilities for Why Material Anachronisms Might Present Themselves in the Scriptures
Material anachronisms may appear in an authentic text for four reasons:
Archaeology: The objects or facts have not yet been discovered given the current state of historical understanding and/or archaeological sciences;
Loan-shifts: The original authors using terms in a novel way that we do not expect.
Translator's anachronisms (for translated texts only): If the text is a translated text, anachronisms can appear because of the translator's choices to translate something into language that is familiar to him/her and their audience.
Non-translated terms: At least in the case of the Book of Mormon, we have terms that appear to have not been translated from their original language and thus cannot be identified with certitude at this time.
All four possibilities must be ruled out before an anachronism can be used to "disprove" the Book of Mormon or any other translated document.
Let's take these possibilities individually and unpack them some more.
Archaeology
There are a number of things to keep in mind as one evaluates a claimed anachronism about how to test it archaeologically. These include the limitations of archaeology for a given geography theory for the Book of Mormon but can be applied to other texts as well. These principles are expectations held by other archaeologists and ancient historians when evaluating anachronisms.
How do we know to what extant something was used in a historical society?
One question of concern to scholars is what the known collection of faunal remains reveals in terms of what once existed. This record of past life is of immeasurable value to our knowledge, but it is also incomplete and we often encounter a discrepancy between historical accounts and the archaeological record. William Hamblin and others have observed, for example, that the Huns of central Asia and eastern Europe reportedly had hundreds of thousands of horses, yet remains of these horses are exceptionally rare given what we would expect.[15] “The presence of horses among the Huns is not at issue,” explains Lindner. “The crux of the problem is the presence of large numbers of horses, numbers suitable for sustaining a nomadic life and ensuring the mobility, speed and range of a nomadic horde.”[16] Obviously, few Hun horse remains that could be identified by archaeologists were preserved. While the Book of Mormon mentions horses, nothing in the text indicates that their importance approached anywhere near that of horses in Hun society. So, given the rarity of Hun horse remains, we should not be disturbed if so far we do not have incontrovertible evidence of Nephite horses.
Preservation
It is important to keep preservative conditions in mind when evaluating supposed anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Depending on where one sets the Book of Mormon, preservative conditions are different. For example, many scholars believe that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. If we are to assess an anachronism within its confines, then it should be kept in mind that Mesoamerica has very damp and acidic soil and many areas have a hot and humid climate. If we are looking for, say, silk as archaeologists, it will be incredibly difficult to find and document since silk is such a delicate textile that would not survive after 1000+ years. If we are to find any remains of any supposed anachronism within the cultural region, we would seriously consider that this existed more ubiquitously. Any remains of anything would have to be found in areas where preservation could be easier for the remains, such as caves where the soil is better preserved from the harsh soil, the heat and humidity, rain, and excessive human contact. This is true even with items such as iron or steel in the Book of Mormon.[17]
As Dr. Wade E. Miller writes:
"Then, as now, the vast majority of bones left after death would disintegrate upon exposure to the elements, turning to dust, Additionally, there were times when extensive famine-causing droughts came upon both the Jaredites and Nephites. Great numbers of animals would have died along with the people (Ether 9:30-34; 11:7). Although famines also took place among the Nephites and Lamanites, the effects on the animals is not noted (Alma 62:35; Helaman 11:4). Even so, these famines must have seriously reduced animal populations. Could these famines have caused any extinctions, at least locally? Possibly they might have done this. It should be indicated here that droughts do occur in semi-tropical regions, such as those postulated for at least some of the lands in which the Jaredites and Nephites lived. It has been state that, . . . "Classical Maya civilization collapsed as a result of a drought in Mesoamerica extending throughout the 9th Century A.D." (Gill, 2000, p.4).
Another circumstance that would have led to a paucity of animal evidence being available to us now, relates to the climatic conditions under which they probably lived. This is a critical factor. Assuming that both Jaredites and Nephites lived in what now constitutes part of Mesoamerica, climatic conditions would have been unfavorable for preserving evidences of life. Most of this region during the time they lived there, like now, was in a tropical to subtropical belt.
When organisms die in this type of environment, they quickly decompose and disintegrate. The many mountainous areas of Mesoamerica are also not conducive to preservation. Here, shortly after death skeletons of organisms are washed away, being broken up in the process, until no recognizable parts remain.[18] There are some exceptions to having conditions so unfavorable for the preservation of past life in this region, one is the presence of a number of caves. As indicated below, caves have provides some interesting finds. Another situation where past life can escape complete destruction, is when the hard parts of an animal are quickly buried, such as in the sediments of an ocean, a lake or flood plain."[19]
In a similar vein non-LDS scholars Elizabeth J. Reitz and Elizabeth S. Wing observed:
The remains of all animals used by people living at the site will not be recovered from the site, because either their remains were discarded beyond the excavated portion of the site or their remains did not survive deposition[20]
Jacques Soustelle, an authority on the Olmec of southern Mexico, whose culture once thrived more than three thousand years ago, thinks it probable that the Olmec domesticated dogs, turkeys, and other animals, “but the destruction of any sort of bone remains, both human and animal, by the dampness and the acidity of the soil keeps us from being certain of this.”[21]
Archaeologist Michael Coe lamented, “We never did find an Olmec burial at San Lorenzo. Given the terrible conditions of bone preservation in the acid soils of the Olmec heartland, it is likely that surviving skeletons would have been few and far between,” though he was unsure if this was due to the destruction of human remains at the site or their deposition elsewhere[22]
Simon Davis writes:
A long chain of events occurs between the original collection and slaughter of animals in antiquity, their incorporation within an archaeological site, their ending up on the faunal analyst’s workbench, and their final publication. One sometimes wonders whether there is any similarity between a published bone report and the animals exploited by ancient humans. In an ideal situation the data and conclusions contained in the final faunal report would reveal something about the original population of animals exploited by man. Sadly, this is rare.[23]
As Matthew Roper and Wade Miller wrote:
As discussed above, species on their way to extinction continue to live on, but in greatly reduced numbers, beyond their last recorded date of existence. The problem is finding specimens from immediately prior to their extinction. This is a serious problem because at times when fewer and fewer animals of a given species were alive, their remains become ever more difficult to find. At the same time, the area(s) where they still survived would almost always become more restricted. And if these areas were in highlands, the problem is exacerbated. Highland (mountainous) areas undergo erosion, decreasing the chance of remains being preserved in them. Mesoamerica consists of many highland areas. Additionally, this area is mostly humid, especially in its southern extent, with subtropical to tropical conditions. In areas such as this, animal and plant remains quickly decompose and are destroyed without leaving a trace. Even if an organism is buried before it decomposes, the commonly acidic soils continue the rapid process of decomposition. Also, with the generally abundant vegetation in such a region, very limited areas of exposed ground exist where bones or teeth might be observed. Because of this combination of factors, a significant record of past life in Mesoamerica would be very difficult to uncover. As archaeologists as well as paleontologists have discovered, most animal remains are not preserved and are lost for all time [24][25]
If anyone is to find anything in an environment that isn't suitable for preservation, scientific consensus would dramatically change. For example, twenty-five years ago, archaeologists announced the discovery of woolly mammoth remains on Wrangle Island in the Siberian arctic dated as late as 2000 BC. “Hardly anyone has doubted that mammoths had become extinct everywhere by around 9,500 years before present,” noted these archaeologists in one report. These new discoveries “force this view to be revised"[26]
The situation changes depending on the material/animal being searched for. Certain materials are more susceptible to rapid decomposition than others. Non Latter-day Saint taphonomy scholars Mark Kibblewhite, Gergely Toth, and Tamas Hermann have observed that basically any material placed under damp, acidic soil would leave no traces of itself after thousands of years of deposition.[27]
For different evidences of different materials during Book of Mormon times, be sure to see our articles at the link below.
Though figures vary among researchers, the total number of plant and animal species living today is probably no more than 1 percent of all that ever lived on earth.[28]
As Matthew Roper and Wade Miller have observed about extinction:
What causes organisms (plant and animal) to become extinct? Basically, it is a change in the environment, usually sudden in the geologic sense, to which organisms cannot adjust. These events might be climatic changes, changes in worldwide sea level, volcanic activity, atmospheric changes, bolide impacts, new and more competitive species arriving in the area, or a disease for which the organism has no defense. In recent times, humanity has caused the extinction of many organisms. Such animals include the passenger pigeon, the dodo (a bird), the quagga (a type of zebra), and the Tasmanian “tiger” (or Tasmanian “wolf”). While some Pleistocene extinctions were possibly (or even probably) caused by humans (this is still a hotly debated topic), most extinctions apparently were the result of environmental factors such as those named above. The fact that the mammoth (elephant), horse, and ass were supposed to have been extinct in North America before Book of Mormon time has caused many to doubt, if not disbelieve, the book’s authenticity and divine origin. It is therefore vital to have a clear understanding of when these animals actually became extinct. Obtaining an exact date for the last surviving member of any extinct species would be next to impossible—winning the lottery would be thousands of times more likely. As one team of scientists has recently observed, “The youngest reliably dated macrofossil (usually a bone or tooth) of an extinct species is commonly taken to represent the approximate time of its disappearance. In practice, however, there is a very low probability of discovering fossil remains of the last members of any species, so ages for extinction based on dated macrofossil finds will likely be older than the true ages.”[29] Only a minuscule number of animals that have lived on earth have become fossilized or preserved. And even though an animal might have been abundant in an area in the past, its remains (including fossils) could well go undetected or no longer exist. The fossil record clearly shows that extinction is fact; but extinctions are not limited to the distant past. Numerous extinctions have occurred in modern times as well and are continuing.
Populations of animals (or plants) could have lived for prolonged periods and yet provide little or no evidence of their existence. A classic example of this is the coelacanth. This rare fish can reach lengths over six feet and weigh nearly two hundred pounds. It was once considered to have become extinct over sixty-five million years ago. Then, in 1938, it was found living in the ocean off the coast of eastern Africa.[30] Recently, this fish has also been found in the seas of Indonesia.
[. . .]
Twenty-five years ago, archaeologists announced the discovery of woolly mammoth remains on Wrangle Island in the Siberian arctic dated as late as 2000 BC. “Hardly anyone has doubted that mammoths had become extinct everywhere by around 9,500 years before present,” noted these archaeologists in one report. These new discoveries “force this view to be revised.”[31] On St. Paul’s Island in Alaska, additional remains of the same species have subsequently been found that have been dated to 5,700 years before present,[32] and on the Alaskan mainland, remains were found that date to 7,600 years before present[33]
Given these fairly recent discoveries, it is certainly possible, as one researcher insists, that many important species could well have been allowed (albeit unknowingly) to slip into extinction without ever becoming known to science. And certain “officially” extinct species that may have persisted in small numbers within remote, rarely visited localities could have died out by now [34]
Therefore, it is certainly possible for a species to live on a few thousands of years after its last recorded appearance. This undoubtedly has happened in the case of Pleistocene vertebrates, whose last occurrence dates have become more recent in the scientific literature.[35] The extinctions of these vertebrates likely took thousands of years and were the result of unfavorable environmental conditions that had developed for certain species. This extinction undoubtedly occurred at the close of the Pleistocene epoch (Ice Age), when much of the world’s climate changed in a relatively short period of time. Climate and environment changes would have caused Pleistocene mammals to move into more restricted areas where they could still survive. As favorable areas continued to shrink and food supplies lessened, the populations of a given species would have also decreased. Finally, a point would be reached where the breeding population would become too small to sustain itself for long. The species would then become extinct. As numbers within a species dwindled over a prolonged period, the number of potential fossils would also diminish, making them increasingly difficult to find and identify. One reason why scientists are discovering extinct animals from more recent dates is that more and more are searching for them. Mammals other than the mammoth and horse in North America now have more recent last-occurrence dates. For example, the mastodon was considered to be extinct at the end of the Pleistocene, about ten thousand years ago. But this presumed last occurrence date had to be revised with more recent finds. The remains of a mastodon, for instance, were discovered in Utah and dated at 7,090 years before the present[36]
State of archaeology
To date,[37] only about 1% of Mesoamerican archaeology has been performed for understanding the Early Pre-Classic through Early Classic Periods (Book of Mormon times).[38] If these items are to be substantially documented, then they will be in areas with good preservative conditions and with a lot more work being done on those lands. Currently, we know so little about this portion of Mesoamerican ethnohistory and have poor enough preservative conditions to not be able to assess these anachronsisms adequately. Thus, we shouldn’t pass judgement too quickly on the historicity of the Book of Mormon.[39]
Loan-shifts
The second possibility is that of "loan-shifting" occurring in the text. What is loan-shifting?[40] It is when a group of people apply the name of animal already familiar to them to an animal that they are not familiar with.
The term "loan-shifting" or "semantic extension" refers to a change in the meaning of an established native word in order to extend the number of things to which it applies
Loan-shifting has occurred throughout history. For example, when the Greeks first encountered a large unfamiliar animal in the Nile, they named it hippopotamus, which in ancient Greek means "river horse."[41]:10 Anyone would agree that a hippo bears little resemblance to a horse, yet the Greeks chose to extend the use of the word "horse" to describe this new creature.
Likewise, when the conquistadors arrived in the New World, reintroducing the horse to the Americas, the natives had problems classifying these new animals. The reintroduced Spanish horse was unfamiliar to the Native Americans and so it became associated with either the deer or the tapir. When Cortes and his horses arrived,, the Aztecs simply called the unfamiliar horses "deer."[42]:10 One Aztec messenger reported to Montezuma:
"Their deer carry them on their backs wherever they wish to go. These deer, our lord, are as tall as the roof of a house."[43]
Some of the Maya called the European horses and donkeys "tapirs" because they looked so similar
Some of the Maya called the European horses and donkeys "tapirs" because, at least according to one observer, they looked so similar.[44]:134
The Spaniards likewise expanded the definition of some of their animal categories. They called the native tapir an "ass."[45]
If we find such loan-shifting in verifiable New World sources when the Native Americans and the Spaniards encountered unfamiliar animals, why do some critics think it is impossible that the Nephites would have acted any differently when they encountered unfamiliar items or had to identify different items with a limited written vocabulary? Perhaps the reformed Egyptian word for "horse" was expanded to include other animals that were in some way horse-like. The most likely animals to have been included in the expanded definition of the Book of Mormon "horse" are the deer and the tapir.
"Loan-shifting" simply means that the idea is plausible
This does not mean that loan-shifting must be the answer in this case. What it does mean, however, is that the idea is plausible, and most who mock it show little evidence that they have understood the argument, or can represent it fairly. They resort, instead, to the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule.
One of the items which some love to mock is the idea that the "horse" referred to in the Book of Mormon might have actually been another animal, such as a deer or tapir. It is important to remember that the Book of Mormon is not only an ancient text--it's a nineteenth-century translation of an ancient text. When we, as modern readers, read texts from ancient or foreign cultures, we need to have an understanding of what the ancient or foreign author was attempting to convey. Some of the things that seem "plain" to us are not so "plain" upon further investigation or once we understand the culture that produced the text.
Translator's Anachronisms
When dealing with a translated text (such as the Book of Mormon claims to be), evaluating anachronisms can become more complicated since a translator can introduce anachronisms that are not present in the original text.
For example, the King James version of the Bible often speaks about candles. "15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel," said Jesus, "but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house" (Matthew 5꞉15).
The problem is that candles were not used in Palestine in Jesus' day. Light came from oil lamps, not from candles. If we examine the Greek text, we see that this is so--the King James translators chose a term that was appropriate to their time and place. Jesus' meaning remains clear with the King James translation, even though he was speaking of a lamp, not a candle.
It would be a mistake to conclude that the Bible text had been forged because the candles are an anachronism--the text itself did not refer to candles; the translators made that choice, and they introduced the anachronism. We would also be foolish to go looking for candles in the archaeology of Jersualem in the 1st century A.D.. They weren't there. But, whether we can find candle remains in the digs says nothing about whether the Bible is a genuine ancient document, or whether Jesus actually spoke about not hiding a light-giving device.
We can determine that this is so because we have the original Greek texts of the Bible. But, what are we to do when we have a translation, but no original? How can we be certain when an anachronism comes from the translator, and when it comes from the original? We cannot--or at least, not without a great deal of difficulty.
In the case of the Book of Mormon, it becomes especially difficult since we obviously don’t have the plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from. In its case, we are required to guess as to what might be behind the translation. Both a loan-shift and translator’s anachronisms may exist in the Book of Mormon. Some may object to this argument by saying that “since every word was provided by God, anachronisms shouldn’t exist”. Yet Joseph’s model of revelation clearly allows such things to exist.
Non-Translated Terms
The only two non-translated terms we have in the Book of Mormon are cumoms and cureloms. These animals were apparently familiar to the Jaredites and the terms for them are vestiges of Jaredite language. Joseph Smith and God apparently decided to leave the terms unexplained. A variety of animals have been proposed as possibilities for identifying cureloms and cumoms such as llamas, alpacas, mastodons, or other Pleistocene mammals. Without more information, one cannot count this as a strike against the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, were Joseph Smith fabricating the Book of Mormon, this was an opportunity for him to let his imagination run wild, and yet no descriptions of these strange beasts (which he goes to the trouble to name, in the forgery model of Book of Mormon production) are provided.[46]
With Loan-shifts and Translator's Anachronisms, is God lying?
Many have become uncomfortable with allowing the possibility that loan-shifts or translator's anachronisms have made it into the Book of Mormon text since "God doesn't lie."
It is true that there are a number of scriptures that testify to God's veracity.[47] But God is not the one lying by allowing this to happen. He's merely allowing prophets to speak "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" as the Doctrine and Covenants informs us about the nature of revelation.[48] He himself has not made any lie.
How Specifically Book of Mormon Anachronisms Have Trended Over Time
During Joseph Smith's lifetime, most of the "archaeology" of the Book of Mormon did not match what was known about the early Americas. (Click to enlarge)By 2005, a number of features of the Book of Mormon text were known in the ancient Americas. Yet, in 1842, many of these would have been seen as "errors" or "anachronisms". (Click to enlarge)
It is important to note that as knowledge expands, what was once an anachronism turns out to be a legitimate feature of the ancient world. John Clark[49] prepared the charts displayed above which demonstrate the trend, over time, to confirmation of the Book of Mormon account.[50]
Matthew Roper presented updated charts at the 2019 FAIR Conference. He updated the list that Clark first made to include 205 publicly available claims of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. His research concludes that 141 items have been confirmed, 26 items are trending, and 38 remain yet unconfirmed.[51]
That research by Roper was summarized in this accessible, entertaining video from Saints Unscripted:
While the initial recognition of anachronisms in a text can appear overwhelming at first, they do not have to remain that way if one is willing to adjust their expectations appropriately given what we know about archaeology today, the nature of revelation, and the origins of Joseph Smith's scriptural productions.
Question: Why are horses considered an anachronism in the Book of Mormon?
Horses existed in the New World anciently and spread to other parts of the world, however, it is currently believed that "The last prehistoric North American horses died out between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene." [52]
Modern horses did not arrive in the New World until they were brought by Spanish explorers. Thus, the mention of "horses" in the Americas during Book of Mormon times presents an anachronism--something that doesn't fit the time frame for which it is claimed.
There are at least two possible resolutions to the "horse" problem in the Book of Mormon:
Horses were present but their remains have not been found.
Definitions of the word "horse" were expanded to include new meanings.
Question: What is the origin of the modern horse in the New World?
Most scientists believe that the horse originated in the Americas and spread across land bridges from the Americas to Asia, eventually migrating into Africa and Europe. Over the course of millions of years the horse evolved from a smaller breed to the larger horses of today. Near the end of the Pleistocene period--about 10,000 years ago--the most recent ice-age came to an end. During this time many large mammals that once roamed the Americas became extinct. Among these were mammoths, camels, and the mid-sized horses that once lived in abundance in the New World. Scientists typically postulate that these animals died off due to climate changes and possible over-hunting. In other parts of the world, however, horses continued to thrive and eventually evolved into modern-day horses. When the Spaniards came to the New World in the early sixteenth century, they brought horses with them. Some horses eventually escaped and multiplied in the wild.
A horse skeleton from the La Brea Tarpits, in Los Angeles, California. The Museum notes that this is an example of the "extinct Western horse". Image taken from [1] on the La Brea Tarpits Museum website.
Verses in the Book of Mormon that talk about "horses"
Horses associated with travel and chariots
Alma 18꞉9-10 And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi...Now when king Lamoni heard that Ammon was preparing his horses and his chariots he was more astonished...
Alma 18꞉12 And it came to pass that when Ammon had made ready the horses and the chariots for the king and his servants...
Alma 20꞉6 Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots.
3 Nephi 3꞉22 And it came to pass in the *seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies.
(It should be noted that we are not told if these chariots served a purpose in riding, or if they were for transport of goods, or if they had a ceremonial function. One assumes some sort of practicality or ritual use in war, since they brought chariots to the siege in 3 Nephi.)
Horse mentioned in quotes of Old World scripture
2 Nephi 12꞉7 Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots.
2 Nephi 15꞉28 Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion.
3 Nephi 21꞉14 Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots;
Wild horses
1 Nephi 18꞉25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men.
Domesticated horses
Enos 1꞉21 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.
Horses as a potential source of food
3 Nephi 4꞉4 Therefore, there was no chance for the robbers to plunder and to obtain food, save it were to come up in open battle against the Nephites; and the Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number, and having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years...
3 Nephi 6꞉1 And now it came to pass that the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the *twenty and sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his horses and his cattle...
Ether 9꞉19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
It is interesting that the horses are often grouped with cattle, and seem to have played a role in the diet (though this may have been under the exigencies of the siege of 3 Nephi.)
The Book of Mormon never mentions horses pulling chariots or being ridden
A few things to keep in mind:
The Book of Mormon does not mention horses pulling chariots. The BOM does not mention horses being ridden. Horses are mentioned with chariots several times. Assuming that they were present in order to pull the chariots must be extrapolated.
Joseph knew much about horses yet in the Book of Mormon, they are not used in any way he was familiar with. They are not mentioned as being used for work, transportation or battle.
Joseph likely knew, as everyone did, that the European horse was introduced by the Spanish. Why, then, did he make such a clumsy error in his forgery?
Critics of the Church falsely attributes the possibility of the word "horse" as a description of a similar animal to Joseph mistranslating the text. No one claimed that Joseph "mistranslated" the term deer for horse. The accurate position is that early Nephites may have labeled deer "horses." This conjecture is based on the fact that The Amerindians called horses "deer" when they first saw them.
Question: What role do horses not play in the Book of Mormon?
Nor do we see a role for the horse in gallant cavalry charges that were the romantic warrior ideal in Joseph Smith's day. Nor is there any sign of the rapid war of maneuver and skirmish favored by the cavalry of the western nations. These are not the horses of the nineteenth century's practical realities or fanciful dreams.
There are societies in which the horse was vital, such as among the Hun warriors of Asia and Eastern Europe, for whom horses were a sign of wealth and status, and for whom they were essential for food, clothing, and war. Yet, there is no known horse bone from this period in the archaeological record.[53]
Question: Have any ancient horse remains from the Nephite period been found in the New World?
Wild horses were present in ancient America during the Pleistocene period (Ice Age), yet were not present at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards. Horses thrived once they were re-introduced by the Spaniards into the New World. The question then is: "Why were horses missing when the Spaniards arrived?" Is it possible that real horses lived in the Americas during Book of Mormon times? And if so, why does there seem to be no archaeological support?
At least a few non-Mormon scholars believe that real horses (of a stature smaller than modern horses) may have survived New World extinction. The late British anthropologist, M.F. Ashley Montague, a non-LDS scholar who taught at Harvard, suggested that the horse never became extinct in America. According to Montague, the size of post-Columbian horses provides evidence that the European horses bred with early American horses.[54]
Non-LDS Canadian researcher, Yuri Kuchinsky, also believes that there were pre-Columbian horses. Kuchinsky, however, believes that horses (smaller than our modern horses) were reintroduced into the west coast of the Americas about 2000 years ago from Asians who came by ship. Among Kuchinsky's evidences for pre-Columbian horses are:
Horse traditions among the Indians that may pre-date the arrival of the Spaniards.
Supposedly pre-Columbian petroglyphs that appear to depict horses.
Noticeable differences between the typical Spanish horse and the much smaller American Indian ponies.[55]
Latter-day Saint scholars have also addressed this issue in various venues:
Question: Why don't potential pre-Columbian horse remains in the New World receive greater attention from scientists?
Theories that horses survived extinction after the Pleistocene extinction are viewed as fringe by mainstream scholars and are dismissed
Unfortunately for this solution for the Book of Mormon, however, such theories are typically seen as fringe among mainstream scholars. Due to the dearth of archaeological support, most scholars continue to believe that horses became extinct at the end of the Pleistocene period.
We know, for example, that the Norsemen probably introduced horses, cows, sheep, goats, and pigs into the Eastern North America in the eleventh century A.D., yet these animals didn't spread throughout the continent and they left no archeological remains.[56] According to one non-LDS authority on ancient American, the Olmecs had domesticated dogs and turkeys but the damp acidic Mesoamerican soil would have destroyed any remains and any archaeological evidence of such animal domestication.[57]
Even in areas of the world where animals lived in abundance, we sometimes have problems finding archaeological remains. The textual evidence for lions in Israel, for example, suggests that lions were present in Israel from ancient times until at least the sixteenth century AD. Robert R. Bennett of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute Of Religious Scholarship notes,
A parallel example from the Bible is instructive. The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region.6 Thus there is often a gap between what historical records such as the Book of Mormon claim existed and what the limited archaeological record may yield. In addition, archaeological excavations in Bible lands have been under way for decades longer and on a much larger scale than those in proposed Book of Mormon lands.[58]
In the Bible we read that Abraham had camels while in Egypt, yet archaeologists used to believe that this was an anachronism because camels were supposedly unknown in Egypt until Greek and Roman times. More recently, however, some researchers have shown that camels were used in Egypt from pre-historic times until the present day.
The fact is, however, that there does appear to be archaeological support that horses existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. In 1957, for instance, at Mayapan (a site corresponding to Book of Mormon lands/times) horse remains were discovered at a depth considered to be pre-Columbian. Likewise, in southwest Yucatan, a non-Mormon archaeologist found what may likely be pre-Columbian horse remains in three caves. Excavations in a cave in the Mayan lowlands in 1978 also turned up horse remains.[59]
As an article for the Academy of Natural Science explains, such discoveries are typically "either dismissed or ignored by the European scientific community."[60] The problem may be one of pre-conceived paradigms. Dr. Sorenson recently related the story of a non-LDS archaeologist colleague who was digging at an archaeological dig in Tula and discovered a horse tooth. He took it to his supervisor--the chief archaeologist--who said, "Oh, that's a modern horse, throw it away" (which he did)--it was never dated.[61]
Dr. John Clark, director of the New World Archaeological Foundation has expressed similar concerns:
The problem is archaeologists get in the same hole that everybody else gets in. If you find a horse--if I'm digging a site and I find a horse bone--if I actually know enough to know that it is a horse bone, because that takes some expertise--my assumption would be that there's something wrong with my site. And so archaeologists who find a horse bone and say, "Ah! Somebody's screwing around with my archaeology." So we would never date it. Why am I going to throw away $600 to date the horse bone when I already know [that they're modern]? ...I think that hole's screwed up. If I dig a hole and I find plastic in the bottom, I'm not going to run the [radio]carbon, that's all there is to it. Because ...I don't want to waste the money.[62]
Question: Could ancient Americans have expanded the definition of "horse" to include new meanings?
Loan shifting: We must consider the possibility that the ancient author was applying familiar terms to unfamiliar animals that were encountered in the New World
Joseph Smith obviously knew what a "horse" looked like. It stands to reason, therefore, that when Joseph said "horse" that this is exactly what he meant. If we consider, however, that Joseph was receiving revelation that simply conveyed what was written by the ancient author, we must consider the possibility that the ancient author was applying familiar terms to unfamiliar animals that were encountered in the New World. It is important to remember that the Book of Mormon itself is not an ancient text—it is a nineteenth-century translation of an ancient text. Modern readers need to have an understanding of what the ancient author was attempting to convey. Some of the things that seem "plain" to us are not so "plain" upon further investigation or once we understand the culture that produced the text.
Europeans coming to the New World were not the only ones who struggled to label new animal species. The introduction of Old World animals into the New World, such as horses and cattle, also created labeling problems for Native Americans and terms for widely different species—such as deer, tapirs, and most commonly dogs—were loanshifted to horses by various native cultures throughout the Americas (see table 2)…
Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: "Pottery and other cultural materials were found in levels VII and above. But in some of those artifact-bearing strata there were horse bones, even in level II"
Publications from the late 1950s reported results from excavations by scientists working on the Yucatan Peninsula. Excavations at the site of Mayapan, which dates to a few centuries before the Spaniards arrived, yielded horse bones in four spots. (Two of the lots were from the surface, however, and might represent Spanish horses.) From another site, the Cenote (water hole) Ch'en Mul, came other traces, this time from a firm archaeological context. In the bottom stratum in a sequence of levels of unconsolidated earth almost two meters in thickness, two horse teeth were found. They were partially mineralized, indicating that they were definitely ancient and could not have come from any Spanish animal. The interesting thing is that Maya pottery was also found in the stratified soil where the teeth were located. [64]
Subsequent digging has expanded the evidence for an association of humans with horses. But the full story actually goes back to 1895, when American paleontologist Henry C. Mercer went to Yucatan hoping to find remains of Ice Age man. He visited 29 caves in the hill area—the Puuc—of the peninsula and tried stratigraphic excavation in 10 of them. But the results were confused, and he came away disillusioned. He did find horse bones in three caves (Actun Sayab, Actun Lara, and Chektalen). In terms of their visible characteristics, those bones should have been classified as from the Pleistocene American horse species, then called Equus occidentalis L. However, Mercer decided that since the remains were near the surface, they must actually be from the modern horse, Equus equus, that the Spaniards had brought with them to the New World, and so he reported them as such.[65] In 1947 Robert T. Hatt repeated Mercer's activities. He found within Actun Lara and one other cave more remains of the American horse (in his day it was called Equus conversidens), along with bones of other extinct animals. Hatt recommended that any future work concentrate on Loltun Cave, where abundant animal and cultural remains could be seen.[66]
It took until 1977 before that recommendation bore fruit. Two Mexican archaeologists carried out a project that included a complete survey of the complex system of subterranean cavities (made by underground water that had dissolved the subsurface limestone). They also did stratigraphic excavation in areas in the Lóltun complex not previously visited. The pits they excavated revealed a sequence of 16 layers, which they numbered from the surface downward. Bones of extinct animals (including mammoth) appear in the lowest layers.
Pottery and other cultural materials were found in levels VII and above. But in some of those artifact-bearing strata there were horse bones, even in level II. A radiocarbon date for the beginning of VII turned out to be around 1800 BC. The pottery fragments above that would place some portions in the range of at least 900–400 BC and possibly later. The report on this work concludes with the observation that "something went on here that is still difficult to explain." Some archaeologists have suggested that the horse bones were stirred upward from lower to higher levels by the action of tunneling rodents, but they admit that this explanation is not easy to accept. The statement has also been made that paleontologists will not be pleased at the idea that horses survived to such a late date as to be involved with civilized or near-civilized people whose remains are seen in the ceramic-using levels.[67] Surprisingly, the Mexican researchers show no awareness of the horse teeth discovered in 1957 by Carnegie Institution scientists Pollock and Ray. (Some uncomfortable scientific facts seem to need rediscovering time and time again.)
Martin: "no theoretical reason why a herd of mastodons, horses, or ground sloths could not have survived in some small refuge until 8000 or even 4000 years ago"
Paul S. Martin:
Admittedly, there is no theoretical reason why a herd of mastodons, horses, or ground sloths could not have survived in some small refuge until 8000 or even 4000 years ago. But in the past two decades, concordant stratiagraphic, palynological, archeological, and radiocarbon evidence to demonstrate beyond doubt the post-glacial survival of an extinct large mammal has been confined to extinct species of Bison…No evidence of similar quality has been mustered to show that mammoths, mastodons, or any of the other 29 genera of extinct large mammals of North America were alive 10,000 years ago. The coincidence in time between massive extinction and the first arrival of big game hunters cannot be ignored.[68]
Grayson: "extinct North American mammals...losses began in Mexico and Alaska during the Pleistocene and ended in Florida perhaps as recently as 2000 years ago"
Grayson:
In the first thorough review of radiocarbon dates associated with the extinct North American mammals, Martin (1958) concluded that the losses began in Mexico and Alaska during the Pleistocene and ended in Florida perhaps as recently as 2000 years ago (1958:405). Soon after, however, Hester (1960:58) concluded that the great majority of herd animals seemed to have been lost swiftly and together around 8,000 years ago even if some, like the mastodon, may have lingered on beyond then. Hester was thus the first to suggest, based on radiocarbon evidence, that a significant number, if not all, of the North American extinctions were synchronous. [69]
Bernardino de Sahagun: "Fodder was provided the deer—horses—which the Spaniards rode"
Bernardino de Sahagun:
Fodder was provided the deer—horses—which the Spaniards rode....The horses—they looked like deer—neighed and whinnied. They were all sweating; water fell from their bodies....[70]
Sorenson: Horse bones in Yucatan "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization"
Excavations at the Post-Classic site of Mayapan in Yucatan in 1957 yielded remains of horses in four lots. Two of these specimens are from the surface and might have been remains of Spanish animals. Two other lots, however, were obtained from excavation in Cenote [water hole] Ch'en Mul "from the bottom stratum in a sequence of unconsolidated earth almost 2 meters in thickness." They were "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization. Such mineralization was observed in no other bone or tooth in the collection although thousands were examined, some of which were found in close proximity to the horse teeth." Clayton E. Ray somewhat lamely suggests that the fossil teeth were of Pleistocene age and "could have been transported . . . as curios by the Mayans." [72]
Response to claim: "FairMormon considers a tapir to satisfy this requirement, I’m sorry but that just won’t work. Tapirs do not pull chariots. Especially chariots without wheels"
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:
FairMormon considers a tapir to satisfy this requirement, I’m sorry but that just won’t work. Tapirs do not pull chariots. Especially chariots without wheels.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
FairMormon does not, and never has, taken an official position that the horses referred to in the Book of Mormon are tapirs, and does not consider the presence of tapirs to "satisfy this requirement." FairMormon has never suggested that tapirs "pull chariots" or pull "chariots without wheels." This claim is a creation of the author's mind, and there is no data that he will be able to locate to support it. The idea that tapirs or deer might have been called "horses" is only one possibility that was presented by LDS anthropologist John Sorenson (who is not associated with FairMormon), and it is described by FairMormon as one possibility among many, but it does not represent FairMormon's position. The most common position taken (as is demonstrated by the references listed in the previous section) is that horses actually were present during these times and that there is some evidence that this is the case. The author does this with other positions on anachronisms from FairMormon in his "debunking"— by appealing to ridicule and creating strawmen.
Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.
FairMormon has never suggested that tapirs "pull chariots" or pull "chariots without wheels." Ex-Mormons take Sorenson's "tapir" suggestion of plausibility and promote it to the primary apologetic response. This is the CES Letter author's strawman:
He asserts that FairMormon's position is that horses in the Book of Mormon are actually tapirs (this is a false assertion).
He asserts that FairMormon's position is that horses in the Book of Mormon pulled chariots (this is a false assertion).
He asserts that FairMormon's position is the chariots in the Book of Mormon without wheels were pulled by draft animals (this is a false assertion).
He then "debunks" his own assertion.
This is a massive "failure to debunk" on the part of the author.
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.
Question: Do Mormon apologists claim that the horse referred to in the Book of Mormon is actually a deer or tapir?
The origin of the suggestion that that name "horse" could have been "loan-shifted" or expanded to refer to "deer" or "tapir" was anthropologist John L. Sorenson
Latter-day Saint anthropologist John L. Sorenson originally suggested the possibility of "loan-shifting" of the word "horse" to "deer" or "tapir" in 1984. Mormon apologists have never claimed that "horses were tapirs." It is a suggestion of plausibility only and is offered only as one possible loan-shift, however, many Latter-day Saint apologists generally favor the presence of true Equus horses in ancient America during the period of time described by the Book of Mormon.
The Maya called the Spanish horse tzimin ("beast") and the tapir tzimin che ("forest beast") in order to distinguish them
For example, the Maya used the word tzimin to refer to horses brought to the new world by the Spaniards. They used the word tzimin che ("forest beast" or "forest horse,") to refer to the tapir. Words change over time. Horses are now quite common, and Maya languages have shifted the primary meaning of tzimin to mean horse. North Americans use buffalo for bison. Words are reassigned often.
Composite expressions such as this were used in Lowland Maya nomenclature:
Composite expressions also occur for a few generic species when their names indicate an intermediate category. For example, the tapir, tzimin(+)che' ("forest beast"), forms an intermediate category tegether with horse, tzimin, which is optionally marked by the composite expression tzimin(+kaj)("village beast") or tzimin(+kastil) ("Spanish beast"). [73]
Prior to the arrival of the horse, tzimin had a different meaning, but with the shift to horse as the primary meaning, the "forest horse" was added to distinguish the use of the word for "tapir" from what has become the lesser usage. Still, the pre-contact meaning of tzimin was "beast" rather than "horse." It was a word reassigned to horse when they had to describe the new animal, and eventually the horse became the most important reference.
Anyone else who has mentioned the possibility of "horse" as "deer" or "tapir" has based it upon Sorenson's 1984 research
John L. Sorenson said in 1992,
Is "horse" in the Book of Mormon merely a matter of labeling by analogy some other quadruped with the name Equus, the true horse, or does the scripture's use of "horse" refer to the actual survival into very recent times of the American Pleistocene horse (Equus equus)? If, as most zoologists and paleontologists assume, Equus equus was absent from the New World during Book of Mormon times, could deer, tapir, or another quadruped have been termed "horse" by Joseph Smith in his translating?[74]
In 2000, the FARMS Research Department wrote,
Similarly, members of Lehi's family may have applied loanwords to certain animal species that they encountered for the first time in the New World, such as the Mesoamerican tapir. While some species of tapir are rather small, the Mesoamerican variety (tapiris bairdii) can grow to be nearly six and a half feet in length and can weigh more than six hundred pounds. Many zoologists and anthropologists have compared the tapir's features to those of a horse or a donkey. "Whenever I saw a tapir," notes zoologist Hans Krieg, "it reminded me of an animal similar to a horse or a donkey. The movements as well as the shape of the animal, especially the high neck with the small brush mane, even the expression on the face, are much more like a horse's than a pig's [to which some have compared the smaller species]. When watching a tapir on the alert . . . as he picks himself up when recognizing danger, taking off in a gallop, almost nothing remains of the similarity to a pig."[75]
Other zoologists have made similar observations. "At first glance," note Hans Frädrich and Erich Thenius, "the tapirs' movements also are not similar to those of their relatives, the rhinoceros and the horses. In a slow walk, they usually keep the head lowered." However, when a tapir runs, its movement becomes quite horselike: "In a trot, they lift their heads and move their legs in an elastic manner. The amazingly fast gallop is seen only when the animals are in flight, playing, or when they are extremely excited." In addition, tapirs can "climb quite well, even though one would not expect this because of their bulky figure. Even steep slopes do not present obstacles. They jump vertical fences or walls, rising on their hind legs and leaping up."[75] Tapirs can be domesticated quite easily if they are captured when young. Young tapirs who have lost their mothers are easily tamed and will eat from a bowl, and they like to be petted and will often allow children to ride on their backs.[75]
One could hardly fault Old World visitors to the New World for choosing to classify the Mesoamerican tapir as a horse or an ass, if that is what happened. Given the limitations of zoo-archaeology, and also those of other potentially helpful disciplines when probing many centuries into the forgotten past, it is unwise to dismiss the references in the Book of Mormon to horses as erroneous.[76]
John A. Tvedtnes cites Sorenson
John A. Tvedtnes refers to Sorenson's work in 1994 while responding to a criticism of the idea,
Hutchinson's criticism of John Sorenson's work on Book of Mormon geography is a gross oversimplification and the "problems" he claims to identify are mostly nonexistent. For example, he criticizes Sorenson's comment that the cows, asses, and swine of the Book of Mormon might be Mesoamerican animals such as deer, tapirs, and peccaries. "When is a cow not a cow?" he asks. I respond, "When it's a deer!" There are, in fact, many linguistic parallels to the kind of thing Sorenson discusses, wherein people have applied the names of known animals to newly discovered or newly introduced creatures. Thus, the Greeks named the huge beast encountered in the Nile River, hippopotamus, "river horse." The same kind of thing happens with both fauna and flora. For example, the term used for potatoes in a number of the languages of Europe (where the tuber is not indigenous) is "earth apple." When the Spanish introduced horses into the New World, some Amerindian tribes called them "deer." I agree with Hutchinson, however, that dogs are an unlikely explanation for the "flocks" of the Book of Mormon. The term more likely refers to herd animals meeting the requirements for cleanliness in the law of Moses.[77]
Daniel C. Peterson cites Sorenson
Daniel C. Peterson cites Sorenson here, as one theory among many (if anything, favoring actual Equus horses).
Even if one assumes that the true horse (Equus equus) was absent from the Americas during Book of Mormon times, it remains possible that the term horse in the Book of Mormon-which, by the way, does not occur very often, and even then in rather puzzling contexts-refers simply to deer or tapirs or similar quadrupeds thought by the Nephites to be analogous to the horse. (It should be noted, incidentally, that no Book of Mormon text speaks of people riding their "horses.") Both Mayan and Aztec texts, for instance, appear to refer to Spanish horses as "deer" and to their riders as "deer-riders." But there is archaeological reason to believe that horses may, in fact, have existed in the Americas during Book of Mormon times. The question remains very much open.[78]
Peterson's footnote states "Valuable discussions of the evidence can be found at John L. Sorenson, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: An Annotated Bibliography" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992); Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting, 295-6; Welch, "Finding Answers," 8; Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 98-100."
Matthew Roper cites Sorenson
Matthew Roper cites Sorenson's, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (1985), 288-99. in 1997:
Kiddle notes that "The first two naming procedures are hard to study because they require an intimate knowledge of the receiving languages in order to comprehend the thought processes of their speakers."118 This is, of course, extremely relevant in the case of Book of Mormon animal names, which may have similar complexities, since the book purports to be a document translated from another language and deals in part with Old World cultures encountering New World cultures for the first time. What, for example, would Nephi have called a Mesoamerican tapir if he had encountered one? Could he have called it a horse? The tapir is considered by zoologists to be a kind of horse in unevolved form.119 Although the Central American tapir, the largest of the New World species, can weigh up to 300 kilos,120 it can move rather quickly at a gallop and can jump vertical fences or walls by rising on its hind legs and leaping up.121 Zoologist Hans Krieg notes, "Whenever I saw a tapir, it reminded me of an animal similar to a horse or a donkey. The movements as well as the shape of the animal, especially the high neck with the small brush mane, even the expression on the face is much more like a horse's."122 The tapir can also be domesticated quite easily if captured when young.123 Young tapirs who have lost their mothers are easily tamed and can be fed from a bowl. They like to be petted and will often let children ride on their backs.124 When the Spanish arrived in the Yucatan, the Maya called European horses and donkeys tzimin, meaning "tapir," because, according to one early observer, "they say they resemble them greatly."125 After the spread of horses, tapir were still called tzimin-kaax, which means literally "forest horse."126 Some observers have felt that the tapir more accurately resembles an ass. In fact, among many native Americans today, the tapir is called anteburro, which means "once an ass."127 In Brazil some farmers have actually used the tapir to pull ploughs, suggesting potential as a draft animal.128 So tapirs could certainly have been used in ways similar to horses.[79]
Brant Gardner cites Sorenson
Brant Gardner cites Sorenson in 2005 (on tapirs, deer, and other options):
What, then, is the outrageous claim for horses, tapirs, and deer? From Sorenson:
True horses (Equus sp.) were present in the western hemisphere long ago, but it has been assumed that they did not survive to the time when settled peoples inhabited the New World. I recently summarized evidence suggesting that the issue is not settled. Actual horse bones have been found in a number of archaeological sites on the Yucatan Peninsula, in one case with artifacts six feet beneath the surface under circumstances that rule out their coming from Spanish horses. Still, other large animals might have functioned or looked enough like a horse that one of them was what was referred to by horse. A prehispanic figure modeled on the cover of an incense burner from Poptun, Guatemala, shows a man sitting on the back of a deer holding its ears or horns, and a stone monument dating to around a.d. 700 represents a woman astride the neck of a deer, grasping its horns. Then there is another figurine of a person riding an animal, this one from central Mexico. Possibly, then, the deer served as a sort of “horse” for riding. (That was a practice in Siberia until recently, so the idea is not as odd as moderns might think. Besides, in the Quiche languages of highland Guatemala we have expressions like keh, deer or horse, keheh, mount or ride, and so on.)[58][80]
Daniel C. Peterson and Matt Roper cite Sorenson here (indeed, it is an explicit defense of an attack on Sorenson's ideas):
Tapir as "Horse." As Professor Sorenson and others have repeatedly pointed out, the practice of naming flora and fauna is far more complicated than critics of the Book of Mormon have been willing to admit. For instance, people typically give the names of familiar animals to animals that have newly come to their attention. Think, for instance, of sea lions, sea cows, and sea horses. When the Romans, confronting the army of Pyrrhus of Epirus in 280 BC, first encountered the elephant, they called it a Lucca bos or "Lucanian cow." The Greeks' naming of the hippopotamus (the word means "horse of the river" or "river horse") is also a good example. (Some will recall that the hippopotamus is called a Nilpferd, a "Nile horse," in German.) When the Spanish first arrived in Central America, the natives called their horses and donkeys tzimin, meaning "tapir." The Arabs' labeling of the turkey as an Ethiopian or Roman rooster (dik al-abash or dik rumi), the Conquistadors' use of the terms lion and tiger to designate the jaguar, and the fact that several Amerindian groups called horses deer represent but a few more examples of a very well-attested global phenomenon. The Nephites too could easily have assigned familiar Old World names to the animals they discovered in the New.[81]
Peterson and Roper mention other possibilities
However, Peterson and Roper also mention other options offered like deer, and genuine Equus horse bones.
Incidentally, horse bones were also found in association with cultural remains at Loltun Cave in northern Yucatan. There, archaeologists identified a sequence of sixteen layers numbered from the surface downward and obtained a radiocarbon date of about 1800 BC from charcoal fragments found between layers VIII and VII.66 Significantly, forty-four fragments of horse remains were found in the layers VII, VI, V, and II—above all in association with pottery. But the earliest Maya ceramics in the region date no earlier than 900-400 BC.67 [82]
Question: What is "loan-shifting"?
The term "loan-shifting" or "semantic extension" refers to a change in the meaning of an established native word in order to extend the number of things to which it applies
Loan-shifting has occurred throughout history. For example, when the Greeks first encountered a large unfamiliar animal in the Nile, they named it hippopotamus, which in ancient Greek means "river horse."[83]:10 Anyone would agree that a hippo bears little resemblance to a horse, yet the Greeks chose to extend the use of the word "horse" to describe this new creature.
Likewise, when the conquistadors arrived in the New World, reintroducing the horse to the Americas, the natives had problems classifying these new animals. The reintroduced Spanish horse was unfamiliar to the Native Americans and so it became associated with either the deer or the tapir. When Cortes and his horses arrived,, the Aztecs simply called the unfamiliar horses "deer."[84]:10 One Aztec messenger reported to Montezuma:
"Their deer carry them on their backs wherever they wish to go. These deer, our lord, are as tall as the roof of a house."[85]
Some of the Maya called the European horses and donkeys "tapirs" because they looked so similar
Some of the Maya called the European horses and donkeys "tapirs" because, at least according to one observer, they looked so similar.[86]:134
The Spaniards likewise expanded the definition of some of their animal categories. They called the native tapir an "ass."[87]
If we find such loan-shifting in verifiable New World sources when the Native Americans and the Spaniards encountered unfamiliar animals, why do some critics think it is impossible that the Nephites would have acted any differently when they encountered unfamiliar items or had to identify different items with a limited written vocabulary? Perhaps the reformed Egyptian word for "horse" was expanded to include other animals that were in some way horse-like. The most likely animals to have been included in the expanded definition of the Book of Mormon "horse" are the deer and the tapir.
"Loan-shifting" simply means that the idea is plausible
This does not mean that loan-shifting must be the answer in this case. What it does mean, however, is that the idea is plausible, and most who mock it evidence little sign that they have understood the argument, or can represent it fairly. They resort, instead, to the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule.
One of the items which some love to mock is the idea that the "horse" referred to in the Book of Mormon might have actually been another animal, such as a deer or tapir. It is important to remember that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text--it's a nineteenth-century translation of an ancient text. When we, as modern readers, read texts from ancient or foreign cultures, we need to have an understanding of what the ancient or foreign author was attempting to convey. Some of the things that seem "plain" to us are not so "plain" upon further investigation or once we understand the culture that produced the text.
If 6th century B.C. Egyptians, or people who wrote with an Egyptian script, had lived in the Americas and had left records, they easily could have included the deer, tapir, and perhaps other animals into their expanded definition of the term "horse."
Response to claim: "cattle...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
cattle...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
The current consensus is that ancient Americans did not keep herds of large animals for use as food. There is, however, some evidence to the contrary.
Sorenson: "The Miami Indians, for example, were unfamiliar with the buffalo and simply called them 'wild cows'"
John L. Sorenson:
As with many other animals in the Book of Mormon, it is likely that these Book of Mormon terms are the product of reassigning familiar labels to unfamiliar items...The Miami Indians, for example, were unfamiliar with the buffalo and simply called them “wild cows.” Likewise the “explorer DeSoto called the buffalo simply vaca, cow. The Delaware Indians named the cow after the deer, and the Miami tribe labeled sheep, when they first saw them, ‘looks-like-a-cow’”[88]
Miller and Roper: "Bones of domesticated cattle...have been reported from different caves in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico"
Bones of domesticated cattle (Bos taurus – see Figure 2) have been reported from different caves in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico.[90] In one instance these bones were found with those of an extinct horse, Equus conversidens. It is especially interesting that along with these cow and horse remains, human artifacts were found in association with them! The indication is that domesticated cattle and the horse coexisted with humans in pre-Columbian time. [91]
Pietro Martire d'Anghiera (1912): "the Spaniards noticed herds of deer similar to our herds of cattle"
The current consensus is that ancient Americans did not keep herds of large animals for use as food. However, Pietro Martire d'Anghiera noted the following in 1912:
In all these regions they visited, the Spaniards noticed herds of deer similar to our herds of cattle. These deer bring forth and nourish their young in the houses of the natives. During the daytime they wander freely through the woods in search of their food, and in the evening they come back to their little ones, who have been cared for, allowing themselves to be shut up in the courtyards and even to be milked, when they have suckled their fawns. The only milk the natives know is that of the does, from which they make cheese.[92]
Response to claim: "sheep...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
sheep...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
The falsehood: The author asserts that sheep did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.The facts: Bighorn sheep are native to North America. There has also been a report of sheep wool unearthed in southern Mexico.
Sheep were probably among the animals brought to America by the Jaredites, although they were not stated explicitly by name (Ether 6:4). They most likely are to be included in the term “flocks,” and are mentioned by name in Ether ( 9:18) several generations later. Sheep have been useful to man for many centuries and were probably man’s first domesticated animal [94] (along with the dog). They are useful for both food and clothing. In addition to Old World sheep, apparently brought to the New World by the Jaredites, there are sheep native to America. The most common type is the Mountain Sheep, Ovis canadensis. Their current geographic range extends south only to northern Mexico. However, their past range was more extensive, as was their habitat before human settlements expanded. [95] They are an animal that can be tamed or at least semi-domesticated. According to Geist , “It is hard to imagine a wild animal more readily tamed than mountain sheep.” [96] Sorenson noted the apparent recovery of sheep wool from a pre-Columbian burial site near Puebla (southeast of Mexico City). [97] Petroglyphs from Mexico and the southwestern United States show many prehistoric depictions of sheep. It appears certain that the association of sheep and man occurred in America before this animal was brought over beginning in 1493 with Columbus’ second voyage.
Wikipedia: Bighorn sheep "crossed to North America over the Bering land bridge"
Bighorn sheep were native to North America at the time the the Jaredites arrived. The following is from Wikipedia:
The bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis)[98] is a species of sheep in North America [99] named for its large horns. These horns can weigh up to 30 lb (14 kg), while the sheep themselves weigh up to 300 lb (140 kg). [100] Recent genetic testing indicates three distinct subspecies of Ovis canadensis, one of which is endangered: O. c. sierrae. Sheep originally crossed to North America over the Bering land bridge from Siberia: the population in North America peaked in the millions, and the bighorn sheep entered into the mythology of Native Americans. [101]
Response to claim: "swine...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
swine...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
The falsehood: The claim that there were no swine in pre-Columbian America.The facts: Wikipedia says that there were: "A peccary (also javelina or skunk pig) is a medium-sized hoofed mammal of the family Tayassuidae (New World pigs) in the suborder Suina along with the Old World pigs, Suidae. They are found in the southwestern area of North America and throughout Central and South America....Although they are common in South America today, peccaries did not reach that continent until about three million years ago during the Great American Interchange, when the Isthmus of Panama formed, connecting North America and South America. At that time, many North American animals—including peccaries, llamas and tapirs—entered South America, while some South American species, such as the ground sloths, and opossums, migrated north."[102]
Sorenson: "There is an animal which they call chic, wonderfully active, as large as a small dog, with a snout like a sucking pig. The Indian women raise them"
John L. Sorenson:
A good example of the confusion is with the coatimundi (Nasua narica). Landa, the padre who favored us with a detailed description of Yucatan, wrote of the beast, "There is an animal which they call chic, wonderfully active, as large as a small dog, with a snout like a sucking pig. The Indian women raise them, and they leave nothing which they do not root over and turn upside down"...Another name, from the Aztecs, is pisote (Nahuatl pezotli), which means basically glutton. Yet pisote is sometimes applied also to the peccary or wild pig. In regard to the peccary, the Nahuatl terms quauhcoyametl and quahpizotl were developed after the conquest to distinguish the native species from the introduced Castilian pig, so by extension, the coati was sometimes termed quauhpezotli, tree-glutton, to distinguish it from the peccary, the ground-glutton.[103]
Miller and Roper: "two distinct species of peccary live in Mesoamerica....They were hunted and eaten as early as Olmec times"
Presently two distinct species of peccary live in Mesoamerica. These include the Collared Peccary (Pecari tajacu) and the White-lipped Peccary (Tayassu pecari), both of which can be found in the tropical regions near the Tuxtlas Mountains of the Yucatan. [105] The Jaredites as they presumably established settlements in Mesoamerica no doubt would have encountered them. They were hunted and eaten as early as Olmec times. Remains of these animals have been found associated with man for several thousands of years. There is a paleo-Indian carving of an extinct camel sacrum in the shape of a peccary. A Picture of this bone is shown by Evans. [106] The bone of this extinct camel came from deposits in central Mexico, and shows ancient interaction between this extinct animal and Pre-columbian natives. Remains of Pre-Columbian peccary have been found finds in Loltún Cave in the Yucatan [107] and in several other caves in the region associated with human artifacts. [108] There is no question that peccaries (“wild pigs”) and man shared this area since prehistoric times.
Response to claim: "goats...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
goats...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: The claim that there were not goats in pre-Columbian America.The facts: It is true that modern goats were brought to the New World by the Spaniards in the same manner as modern horses. However, according to Wikipedia, "The mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), also known as the Rocky Mountain goat, is a large-hoofed mammal found only in North America." [109]
Goats are mentioned among the animals once had by the Jaredites (Ether 9:18). Later, after their arrival in the land of promise Lehi’s family encountered “the goat and the wild goat” as they traveled in the wilderness in the land southward (1 Nephi 18:25). Sometime after the death of his father Jacob, Enos wrote that the Nephites raised “flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats” (Enos 1:21). During Alma and Amulek’s miraculous escape from the prison in Ammonihah, their terrified persecutors are said to have fled “even as a goat fleeth with her young from two lions” (Alma 14:29). There is no indication in the text that the Lehites brought goats with them to the land of promise; however, it is possible that they may have been included among those flocks and herds brought by the Jaredites in their journey over the sea (Ether 6:4). If so, it is possible that some of those encountered later by Lehi’s people were descendants of those had by the Jaredites. They would have been a useful animal to both the Jaredites and Nephites, just as they have been for man through the ages in the Old World. Evidence of goats associated with pre-Columbian man also comes from caves in Yucatan. [111] It was not made clear whether this was a wild or a domesticated type of goat.
Miller and Roper: "In post-biblical Jewish literature some Jewish writers distinguished between wild and domestic cattle such as goats"
Mention of the “wild goat” may at first seem peculiar. Biblical animals that could be eaten under the Law of Moses included the “goat” and the “wild goat” (Deuteronomy 14:4-5). In post-biblical Jewish literature some Jewish writers distinguished between wild and domestic cattle such as goats. Both were considered clean and could be eaten, but only the domestic variety was thought acceptable for sacrifice. [113] .... The only native wild goat in North America is the Mountain Goat, Oreamnos americanus. Its geographic range, though, currently only extends south from southwest Alaska down to the northwest United States. Even with a possible extended range for this animal during Book of Mormon time, it is extremely unlikely it got as far south as Mesoamerica. A closely related, but extinct, species is Oreamnos harringtoni. This goat did have a much more southerly distribution, extending into Mexico. While this goat might have survived much past the terminal Pleistocene along with other animals, there is not sufficient evidence yet for this.
It has already been indicated that a referenced animal in the Book of Mormon could actually be something somewhat different, but had a similar appearance. There is an animal now living in Mesoamerica that fits this description, the Red Brocket deer, Mazama americana. Unlike other deer it has but a single goat-like horn – which is really an antler that is shed and regrown annually like other cervids. [114]
Response to claim: "elephants...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
elephants...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: There is no acknowledgement by the author of substantial circumstantial evidence that New World natives were familiar with the elephant.The facts: Elephants only need to have existed during early Jaredite times since they are never mentioned by the Nephites.
Question: In what context are elephants mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
Elephants are only mentioned once in the Book of Mormon in connection with the Jaredites. They were noted as being among the most useful animals. The Jaredites are estimated to have arrived in the New World between 2600 and 2100 BC.
And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms. (Ether 9꞉19)
There is no mention in the Book of Mormon of elephants having existed in the New World during the Nephite period.
Wikipedia: Mammoths "were members of the family Elephantidae"
Mammoths could have easily been present in North America at the time of the Jaredites (the only time that elephants are mentioned in the Book of Mormon). The Wikipedia article "Mammoth" notes:
A mammoth is any species of the extinct genus Mammuthus, proboscideans commonly equipped with long, curved tusks and, in northern species, a covering of long hair. They lived from the Pliocene epoch (from around 5 million years ago) into the Holocene at about 4,500 years ago[1][2] in Africa, Europe, Asia, and North America. They were members of the family Elephantidae which contains, along with mammoths, the two genera of modern elephants and their ancestors. [115]
Johnson: "Probably it is safe to say that American Proboscidea have been extinct for a minimum of 3000 years"
The Elephant is only mentioned in the Book of Ether. If the elephants had died off at least 3000 years ago, they would still have been well within range of the Jaredite era. Ludwell Johnson wrote in 1952:
Discoveries of associations of human and proboscidean remains [Elephantine mammals, including, elephants, mammoths, and mastodons] are by no means uncommon. As of 1950, MacCowan listed no less than twenty-seven” including, as noted by Hugo Gross, a “partly burned mastodon skeleton and numerous potsherds at Alangasi, Ecuador...There can no longer be any doubt that man and elephant coexisted in America.... Probably it is safe to say that American Proboscidea have been extinct for a minimum of 3000 years." [116]
Miller and Roper: "This was long enough to bring them (mammoths) to the time of the Jaredites"
Elephants are only mentioned in the Book of Ether. Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper note that mammoths survived until the time of the Jaredites: [117]
Along with a number of large mammals thought to have become extinct about 10,000 years ago, it’s now known that the mammoth survived for a few thousand years longer. This was long enough to bring them to the time of the Jaredites. A date for a mammoth in northern North America was cited at 3,700 years before the present. [118] An Alaskan mammoth was dated at 5,720 years ago. [119] In the contiguous United States Mead and Meltzer provided an age of 4,885 years for a dated mammoth specimen. [120] As more mammoth (elephant) finds are made, even younger dates will no doubt arise. Generally, when animal species’ populations decrease, they survive longer in southern refugia. Small populations could well have survived in Mesoamerica well past the close of the Pleistocene. The fact that known dates of mammoths in Mesoamerica are numerous up to the end of this epoch helps support this view. It should be pointed out that the mammoth never did range as far south as South America.
Miller favors the Columbian Mammoth as the most likely candidate for the elephant that the Jaredites would have encountered as it it has the closest resemblance to the African and Indian Elephants that they would have encountered if they crossed west asia before making their voyage to the Americas. Its range extends as far north as the Northern United States and as far south as Costa Rica.
Miller and Roper: "Evidence for the survival of the elephant can be found in Native American myths and traditions"
Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper note that "evidence for the survival of the elephant can be found in Native American myths and traditions": [121]
Gulf of Mexico: "giant beasts with long noses that could trample people and uproot trees"
Indigenous people along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico have traditions of giant beasts with long noses that could trample people and uproot trees.[122]
The Abenaki (New England region): "a kind of arm which grows out of his shoulder"
Abenaki tradition tells of a great “elk” that could easily walk through more than eight feet of snow, whose skin was said to be tough and had “a kind of arm which grows out of his shoulder, which he makes use of as we do ours.” [123]
The Naskapi (Quebec region): "large ears and a long nose with which he hit people"
The Naskapi people tell of a large monster that once trampled them and left deep tracks in the snow had large ears and a long nose with which he hit people. [123]
The Penobscot (Maine region): "huge animals with long teeth which drank water for half a day at a time"
The Penobscot culture hero Snow Owl is said to have gone on a long journey to a far valley in search of his missing wife. When he reached the valley he saw what appeared to be hills without vegetation moving slowly about. Upon closer inspection he found that these were the backs of huge animals with long teeth which drank water for half a day at a time and when they laid down could not get back up. Snow owl was able to trap the large beasts by making them fall on sharpened stakes where he then was able to shoot and kill them. [123]
Native American groups from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico
Similar traditions have been documented for Native American groups from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico persuading some scholars that they are based upon a core memory of actual historical encounters with elephant-like species who may have survived into the region as late as 3,000 years ago. [124]
Mexico: "long tapering arms and could tear up trees as if they were lettuce"
Pre-Columbian traditions from Mexico tell of monstrous ogre-like giants who once inhabited the region and were subsequently killed following the arrival of Aztec ancestors. These tales attribute some human characteristics to these legendary giants, while other ones seem less so. The giants were said to have long tapering arms and could tear up trees as if they were lettuce. [125]
Mexico: "a vague memory of prehensile trunks, something like the `extra arm’ of the Giant Elk in Abenaki and Iroquois myth"
These legends say, notes Adrienna Mayor, “… that the giants destroyed by the ancestors pulled down trees and ate grass, elephant-like behavior.” and she suggests that these stories may reflect “a vague memory of prehensile trunks, something like the `extra arm’ of the Giant Elk in Abenaki and Iroquois myth.” While this cannot be proven, she thinks it possible that “…localized mammoth species (and other large Pleistocene animals and birds) may have survived to later dates in the Valley of Mexico and the Southwestern United States.” … and also that “some aspects of the legendary giant-ogres may have originated in ancestral memories of Columbian mammoths and may have been later confirmed by discoveries of fossils.” [126]
Response to claim: "chariots...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
chariots...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
Wheeled chariots pulled by draft animals did not exist during this period. However, enlightening alternatives exist for the chariot as we approach the text more exegetically.
The Book of Mormon mentions "chariots," which one assumes to be a wheeled vehicle. It is also claimed that no draft animals existed in the New World to pull such chariots. It should be remembered that chariots do not play a major role in the Book of Mormon. They are mentioned in the following contexts:
3 Nephi 21꞉14 - Jesus speaks of "horses and chariots" in a symbolic and apocalyptic address
Used in conjunction with horses
Alma 18꞉9 - Ammon feeds the Lamanite king's horses, which are associated with his "chariots."
Alma 20꞉6 - Lamanite king uses horses and chariot for visit to neighboring kingdom
3 Nephi 3꞉22 - Nephites "had taken their horses, and their chariots" to a central fortified area for protection against robbers
(It should be noted that we are not told if these chariots served a purpose in riding, or if they were for transport of goods, or if they had a ceremonial function. One assumes some sort of practicality or ritual importance in war, since they brought chariots to the siege.)
Conspicuously absent is any role of the chariot in the many journeys recorded in the Book of Mormon. Nor do horses or chariots play any role in the many Nephite wars; this is in stark contrast to the Biblical account, in which the chariots of Egypt, Babylon, and the Philistines are feared super-weapons upon the plains of Israel.
Gardner: "a correct approach to a Mesoamerican battle required all three elements: king, litter, and battle beast"
Wrote Mesoamerican expert Brant Gardner, who believes the Book of Mormon was situated in Mesoamerica:
Regardless of the reason for the presence of "horse" and "chariot" in the text, we must still deal with the question of what the original text might have meant the animal and conveyance that Joseph translated as "horse" and "chariot" to be. From this point on, all is speculation—but speculation consistent with the Mesoamerican world.
The wording describing horses and chariots is at least suggestive that the king would be transported in connection with the horse and chariot: "they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth." "Conduct him" does not necessarily mean that Lamoni was conducted in the horse/chariot. Indeed, verse 9 mentions horses and chariots, but only the king is "conducted." It is possible that we are dealing with several ritual objects rather than a conveyance. Verse 12, however, does suggest that conveyances are available for the king and his servants; but if would be highly unusual for servants to ride in a culture where everyone walks. Riding would confer upon them the same social status as the king—not to be thought of unless chariots were so common that they were in universal use. And nothing in the text suggests that they were.
If we are dealing with a conveyance, there is a Mesoamerican possibility. A king might be conveyed in a litter, but the litters were carried by men, not pulled by animals. However, an interesting connection between the litter and an animal occurs on what has been termed a battle litter. Freidel, Schele, and Parker note:
Lintel 2 of Temple 1 shows Hasaw-Ka'an-K'awil wearing the balloon headdress of Tlaloc-Venus warfare adopted at the time of the Waxaktun conquest, and holding the bunched javelins and shield, the original metaphors for war imported from Teothuacan. He sits in majesty on the litter that carried him into battle, while above him hulks Waxkluha=un-Ubah-Kan, the great War serpent....Graffiti drawings scratched on the walls of Tikal palaces, depicting the conjuring of supernatural beings from the Otherworld, prove that these scenes were more than imaginary events seen only by the kings. Several of these elaborate doodles show the great litters of the king with his protector beings hovering over him while he is participating in ritual. These images are not the propaganda of rulers, created in an effort to persuade the people of the reality of the supernatural events they were witnessing. They are the poorly drawn images of witnesses, perhaps minor members of lordly families, who scratched the wonders that they saw during moments of ritual into the walls of the places where they lived their lives.
Thus, Maya art represents the king riding on a litter. In battle, capturing the litter was tantamount to capturing that king's gods. However, the graffiti litters at least open the possibility that these were simply formal litters and not limited to battle context. These litters were accompanied by a "battle beast," or an animal alter ego, embodied in the regalia of the king and litter. Thus, a correct approach to a Mesoamerican battle required all three elements: king, litter, and battle beast.
If Joseph Smith, while translating, came upon an unfamiliar idea but which seemed to describe a kingly conveyance associated with an animal, would it not have seemed logical to him to describe it as a horses and chariot for the king? I see the plausible underlying conveyance as an elaborate royal litter, accompanied in peacetime by the spiritual animal associated with the king. This animal was a type of alter-ego for the king, and was called the way [pronounced like the letter "Y"]....[127]
Gardner's case may be strengthened by the mention of chariots being brought to the lengthy siege in 3 Nephi—suggesting again a possible ritual use associated with warfare.
The most frequent loan-shift applied to the horses by the native americans who first received the Spaniards was "dog". This was the case 45% of the time. Images of these conveyances associated with what appear to be dogs have been documented before. [128]
Rappleye: "In Maya art from the Classic period (ca. AD 300–900), at least, an animal (often a dog) is frequently depicted as traveling near the litter as part of the entourage, thus indicating that both animal and royal litter would need to be made ready for a royal visit."
Another important thing to remember is that the Book of Mormon is a translation, and translations sometimes create anachronisms, or at least misconceptions, that were not there in the original text. The King James Bible, for example, frequently mentions candles and candlesticks, yet ancient Jews and Israelites did not use candles, but rather oil lamps, thus more contemporary translations properly use lamps and lampstands instead.
Although not strictly an anachronism in the Biblical world, the use of chariot in the King James rendering of Song of Solomon 3:9 is another example where the translation may create a misunderstanding. The Hebrew word here is afiryon, which actually refers to a litter or palanquin, which is “an enclosed couch carried by bearers.” This interesting bit of trivia may be relevant to references to chariots in the Book of Mormon.
Although late-19th century French archaeologist Désiré Charnay actually reported finding “chariots” in Mexico, these were merely “toys,” or figurines. No chariot-like wheeled vehicles have yet been found in pre-Columbian America, but litters or palanquins like that mentioned in the Song of Solomon were known and widely used for royal visits in Mesoamerica as early as the Late Preclassic period (ca. 300–50 BC).
Although such a “chariot” would not be drawn by horses, it is important to notice that neither are the chariots in the Book of Mormon ever described as being pulled by horses, but rather are simply prepared with horses. In Maya art from the Classic period (ca. AD 300–900), at least, an animal (often a dog) is frequently depicted as traveling near the litter as part of the entourage, thus indicating that both animal and royal litter would need to be made ready for a royal visit.
The chariots of Lamoni are twice made ready for occasions not unlike those in which royal litters would be used to “conduct [the king] forth” (Alma 18:9) in Mesoamerica. Understanding the Book of Mormon in the context of translations, with the difficulties and imprecisions that all translations come with, can thus accommodate the mention of chariots, but it creates a considerably different picture than what we are used to envisioning here.[129]
Response to claim: "wheat...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
wheat...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
Wheat as we know it today is not known to have been present during Book of Mormon times. However, amaranth was. According to Wikipedia, "Some amaranth species are cultivated as leaf vegetables, cereals, and ornamental plants". Real wheat would be incredibly hard to find as A) The tests that might be able to find it are expensive to implement B) the soil in Mesoamerica is too damp and acidic to preserve this type of a plant and C) less than 2% of Mesoamerica has been excavated.
Amaranth has a similar nutritional profile to grain (the Aztecs got up to 80% of the calories from it prior to the Spanish conquest), and it is even today termed a "pseudograin" because it can be ground into flour like wheat or other seed grains, which biologically are grasses.[130] Even today, Amaranth is used to replace wheat flour in gluten-intolerant patients (e.g., celiac disease) or to increase the nutritional content of standard whole-wheat flour.
Amaranth, considered an Old World grain, was grown and used in Mexico at the time the Spaniards arrived. Botanist Jonathan Sauer thought its origin to be American, but he noted too that it was widely distributed in the Old World in pre-Columbian times. Its uses in the two hemispheres were strikingly similar also (it was popped and eaten as "popcorn balls" on special feast days); the similarities have suggested to some scholars that amaranth seed was carried across the ocean in ancient times.[132]
Response to claim: "silk...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
silk...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: The author assumes that "silk" must only refer to the material produced by the mulberry silkworm, which did not exist in pre-Columbian America.The facts: Materials classified as "silk" did exist in the New World during this period.
Armitage: "It is suggested by de Ávila Blomberg that wild silk was used in Oaxaca in pre-Columbian times"
The theory that "wild silk" was used anciently in Oaxaca, near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mesoamerica, "has been greatly debated."
Wild silk was produced by the Gloveria paidii, a moth, and the Eucheira socialis, a butterfly, found in the Oaxaca area (de Ávila Blomberg, 1997). It is suggested by de Ávila Blomberg that wild silk was used in Oaxaca in pre-Columbian times, a theory that has been greatly debated. However, in a 1777 document, an excavation of a pre-Columbian burial site is described as containing wild silk.[133]
Sorenson: Linen and silk textiles in ancient America
Linen and silk are textiles mentioned in the Book of Mormon (Alma 4:6). Neither fabric as we now know them was found in Mesoamerica at the coming of the Spaniards. The problem might be no more than linguistic. The redoubtable Bernal Diaz, who served with Cortez in the initial wave of conquest, described native Mexican garments made of "henequen which is like linen." [135] The fiber of the maguey plant, from which henequen was manufactured, closely resembles the flax fiber used to make European linen. Several kinds of "silk," too, were reported by the conquerors. One kind was of thread spun from the fine hair on the bellies of rabbits. Padre Motolinia also reported the presence of a wild silkworm, although he thought the Indians did not make use of the cocoons. But other reports indicate that wild silk was spun and woven in certain areas of Mesoamerica. Another type came from the pod of the ceiba tree. [136] We may never discover actual remains of these fabrics, but at least the use of the words in the Book of Mormon now seems to offer no problem.
Response to claim: "steel...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
steel...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: The author assumes that "steel" refers to modern steel, which did not exist in pre-Columbian America.The facts: Steel has been found in the Old World in the appropriate time period.
Question: What was known about steel in ancient America?
The steel of the Book of Mormon is probably not modern steel. Steel, as we understand today, had to be produced using a very cumbersome process and was extremely expensive until the development of puddling towards the end of the 18th century. Even in ancient times, however, experienced smiths could produce steel by heating and hammering pig-iron or, earlier still, the never-molten iron from a bloomery to loose the surplus of carbon to get something like elastic steel. Early smiths even knew that by quenching hot steel in water, oil, or a salt solution the surface could be hardened.
Any Mesoamerican production likely depended upon the first method, which requires lower temperatures and less sophistication. Laban's "steel sword" is not anachronistic; Middle Eastern smiths were making steel by the tenth century B.C.[137]
Madden et al.: "by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron"
Robert Maddin, James D. Muhly and Tamara S. Wheeler:
It seems evident that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron.
[138]
Roper: "For example, an iron knife was found in an eleventh century Philistine tomb showed evidence of deliberate carburization"
Matthew Roper:
Archaeologists, for example, have discovered evidence of sophisticated iron technology from the island of Cyprus. One interesting example was a curved iron knife found in an eleventh century tomb. Metallurgist Erik Tholander analyzed the weapon and found that it was made of “quench-hardened steel.” Other examples are known from Syro-Palestine. For example, an iron knife was found in an eleventh century Philistine tomb showed evidence of deliberate carburization. Another is an iron pick found at the ruins of an fortress on Mount Adir in northern Galilee and may date as early as the thirteenth century B.C. “The manufacturer of the pick had knowledge of the full range of iron-working skills associated with the production of quench hardened steel” (James D. Muhly, “How Iron technology changed the ancient world and gave the Philistines a military edge,” Biblical Archaeology Review 8/6 [November-December 1982]: 50).
According to Amihai Mazar this implement was “made of real steel produced by carburizing, quenching and tempering.” (Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday, 1990, 361).[139]
Roper: "archaeologists have discovered a carburized iron sword near Jericho" which dates about 600 B.C.
Matthew Roper:
More significant, perhaps, in relation to the sword of Laban, archaeologists have discovered a carburized iron sword near Jericho. The sword which had a bronze haft, was one meter long and dates to the time of king Josiah, who would have been a contemporary of Lehi. This find has been described as “spectacular” since it is apparently “the only complete sword of its size and type from this period yet discovered in Israel.”(Hershall Shanks, “Antiquities director confronts problems and controversies,” Biblical Archaeology Review 12/4 [July-August 1986]: 33, 35).
Today the sword is displayed at Jerusalem’s Israel Museum. For a photo of the sword see the pdf version of the article here.
The sign on the display reads:
This rare and exceptionally long sword, which was discovered on the floor of a building next to the skeleton of a man, dates to the end of the First Temple period. The sword is 1.05 m. long (!) and has a double edged blade, with a prominent central ridge running along its entire length.
The hilt was originally inlaid with a material that has not survived, most probably wood. Only the nails that once secured the inlays to the hilt can still be seen. The sword’s sheath was also made of wood, and all that remains of it is its bronze tip. Owing to the length and weight of the sword, it was probably necessary to hold it with two hands. The sword is made of iron hardened into steel, attesting to substantial metallurgical know-how. Over the years, it has become cracked, due to corrosion.
Such discoveries lend a greater sense of historicity to Nephi’s passing comment in the Book of Mormon.[140]
Steel is "iron that has been combined with carbon atoms through a controlled treatment of heating and cooling." [142] Yet "the ancients possessed in the natural (meteoric) nickel-iron alloy a type of steel that was not manufactured by mankind before 1890." [143] (It has been estimated that 50,000 tons of meteoritic material falls on the earth each day, although only a fraction of that is recoverable.) [144] By 1400 BC, smiths in Armenia had discovered how to carburize iron by prolonged heating in contact with carbon (derived from the charcoal in their forges). This produced martensite, which forms a thin layer of steel on the exterior of the object (commonly a sword) being manufactured. [145] Iron/steel jewelry, weapons, and tools (including tempered steel) were definitely made as early as 1300 BC (and perhaps earlier), as attested by excavations in present-day Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and Jordan. [146] "Smiths were carburizing [i.e., making steel] intentionally on a fairly large scale by at least 1000 BC in the Eastern Mediterranean area." [147]
Hamblin: "there are no references to Nephite steel after 400 B.C."
Steel is mentioned only five times in the Book of Mormon, once in the Book of Ether (7.9), and four times in the Nephite records (1 Ne 4.9, 1 Ne 16.18, 2 Ne 5.15 and Jar 1.8). Of these, two refer to Near Eastern weapons of the early sixth century B.C. 1 Ne 4.9 states that the blade of Laban’s sword was “of most precious steel.” Nephi’s Near Eastern bow was “made of fine steel” (1 Ne 16.18). The next two references are to steel among generic metal lists. The first is to the time of Nephi, around 580 B.C.:
“work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores” (2 Ne 5:15)
The second is from Jarom 1:8, around 400 B.C.:
“workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war–yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war”
Notice that these two texts are what is called a “literary topos,” meaning a stylized literary description which repeats the same ideas, events, or items in a standardized way in the same order and form.
Nephi: “wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel”
Jarom: “wood, …iron and copper, and brass and steel”
The use of literary topoi is a fairly common ancient literary device found extensively in the Book of Mormon (and, incidentally, an evidence for the antiquity of the text). Scholars are often skeptical about the actuality behind a literary topos; it is often unclear if it is merely a literary device or is intended to describe specific unique circumstances.
Note, also, that although Jarom mentions a number of “weapons of war,” this list notably leaves off swords. Rather, it includes “arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin.” If iron/steel swords were extensively used by Book of Mormon armies, why are they notably absent from this list of weapons, the only weapon-list that specifically mentions steel?
Significantly, there are no references to Nephite steel after 400 B.C.
Response to claim: "iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: The author assumes that because iron was not mined and smelted in pre-Columbian America, that it therefore did not exist.The facts: Yes, iron did exist in pre-Columbian America, and there is evidence to support the use of iron obtained from meteorites.
Iron use was documented in the statements of early Spaniards, who told of the Aztecs using iron-studded clubs. [150] A number of artifacts have been preserved that are unquestionably of iron; their considerable sophistication, in some cases, at least suggests interest in this metal [151]....Few of these specimens have been chemically analyzed to determine whether the iron used was from meteors or from smelted ore. The possibility that smelted iron either has been or may yet be found is enhanced by a find at Teotihuacan. A pottery vessel dating to about A.D. 300, and apparently used for smelting, contained a "metallic-looking" mass. Analyzed chemically, it proved to contain copper and iron. [152]
Sorenson: "Lumps of hematite, magnetite, and ilmenite were brought into Valley of Oaxaca"
John L. Sorenson:
Without even considering smelted iron, we find that peoples in Mesoamerica exploited iron minerals from early times. Lumps of hematite, magnetite, and ilmenite were brought into Valley of Oaxaca sites from some of the thirty-six ore exposures located near or in the valley. These were carried to a workshop section within the site of San Jose Mogote as early as 1200 B.C. There they were crafted into mirrors by sticking the fragments onto prepared mirror backs and polishing the surface highly. These objects, clearly of high value, were traded at considerable distances.[153]
Response to claim: "None of the metallurgy identified in FairMormon’s charts, such as...brass...existed in the pre-Columbian Americas"
The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014 make(s) the following claim:
None of the metallurgy identified in FairMormon’s charts, such as...brass...existed in the pre-Columbian Americas.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: The author may have made some incorrect assumptions about brass in the Book of Mormon.The facts: Brass is an alloy. The Book of Mormon brass is never "found" but "made".
"Brass" is an alloy of copper and zinc. It is a term used frequently in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Some occurrences in the Bible have been determined by Biblical scholars to actually reflect the use of bronze (an alloy of copper and tin), rather than brass.
On the other hand, actual brass has been found in the Old World which dates to Lehi's era, and so the idea of "brass" plates is not the anachronism which was once thought. Either "brass plates" or "bronze plates" would fit.[154]
The Jaredites dug for gold, silver and iron, but they "made" brass
An interesting point concerning alloys is found in Ether 10꞉23 in which the Jaredites "did make...brass," (an alloy), but "did dig...to get ore of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper." The Book of Mormon author has a clear understanding of those metals which are found in a raw state, and those which must be made as an alloy.
Response to claim: "There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites/Lamanites who numbered in the millions.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
The falsehood: This is simply a popular claim made by ex-Mormons, which ignores any evidence.The facts: The reality is that there is plenty of supporting evidence.
Note that word “directly.” Archaeology very often doesn’t “directly” support claims. You often are having to draw inferences from the data. You know, the rocks in the foundations of buildings don’t speak for themselves usually, and there are relatively few inscriptions. I mean, even Jerusalem itself: we’ve known from tradition where is was located, but it was only relatively recently that an inscription was found actually identifying that city as Jerusalem. So, there are limits to archaeology. But again I mention John Sorenson, the writing of John Clark, Brant Gardner, Mark Wright. If the author of the letter has dealt with them there’s no sign of it. I don’t see any evidence that he’s engaged them.
Question: What Old World sites match those on Lehi's journey as described in the Book of Mormon?
The Hilton model (1976): Models developed by LDS researchers predicted geographic locations long before they were located
Models developed by LDS researchers predicted geographic locations long before they were located. Therefore, geographical correlates discovered later are confirmed predictions made by the geographical model offered by the Book of Mormon.
Figure 1: Scan from Hilton and Hilton (1976), pp. 22–23 showing hypothesized route of Lehi's party. (Labels have been added to original graphic for clarity.)
In the scan pictured here, hypothesized sites for Lehi's journey include:
A - Valley of Lemuel (with River of Laman) (1 Nephi 2:6–10.)
The Hilton's acknowledged their debt to the writings of Hugh Nibley, which pushes the essentials of their model back to 1950.[155]
The Hilton's model—like all such models constructed from a text that gives only approximate distances at many points—has been tweaked slightly, but the basic layout of the journey has been remarkably stable. Most importantly, the subsequent findings which support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon's account fit neatly into Nibley's schema and the Hilton's model.
In 1986, Eugene England summarized 23 details of Arabian geography predicted by the Book of Mormon
In 1986, Eugene England summarized 23 details of Arabian geography predicted by the Book of Mormon, and concluded that Joseph Smith would have not had access to the necessary information to forge so many inter-related facts. England's list read:
Figure 2: BYU Geography Department map of the Lehi party's journey from Jerusalem to Old World Bountiful.
The route south to Aqaba is an anciently primary way out of Jerusalem.
The ancient route, the Frankincense Trail, leaves the beach coast at Aqaba, so it is "near" the Red Sea; then it returns to it, so it is "nearer."
The location of a major oasis about three days' journey along the trail from Aqaba.
The location there of an impressive valley that could be used for poetic metaphor and
of a continually flowing river that
flows into an arm of the Red Sea called anciently a "fountain" and
is capable of supporting extended settlement and growth of crops.
Four days from this oasis, in a south-southeast direction, is another major oasis where
wild animals that can be hunted with bow and arrow begin to be available.
Further in the same direction, still along the Frankincense Trail that is in this whole area the only tenable route, with anciently dug or natural water holes at regular intervals,
the area (north and south of modern Jiddah) becomes more inhospitable, a source of "much affliction," with fewer water holes,
many sand storms and metal-destroying salt air and humidity where a steel bow would break and wooden ones lose their spring but
where there is excellent pomegranate wood for new bows and
a mountain where wild game is plentiful.
Many days further in the same direction is another major oasis capable of supporting a caravan through a growing season, and
this is where the Frankincense Trail turns sharply to the east and then
skirts the notorious "Empty Quarter," the worst desert in Arabia, another period of "much affliction" to the group and
a place where danger from Bedouin raiders could require traveling without firebuilding.
There is, exactly where the direct route east intercepts the southern Arabian coast, a unique fertile area of fruit and wild honey, with
a gentle beach and yet nearby high cliffs dropping into deep water,
mountains nearby with iron ore for toolmaking,
sycamore-fig trees growing on the mountains that are excellent for shipbuilding and
strong monsoon winds used anciently for sailing to India and out into the Pacific Ocean.[156]
Question: Why does "Nahom" constitute archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?
Written Hebrew does not employ vowels, therefore, Book of Mormon "Nahom" is NHM in Hebrew
The Book of Mormon name "Nahom" becomes NHM when written in Hebrew. This is a significant correlation in name and location.
Three altar inscriptions have been discovered containing the name "NHM" as a tribal name and dating from the seventh to sixth centuries BC
Three altar inscriptions have been discovered containing the name "NHM" as a tribal name and dating from the seventh to sixth centuries BC. This is roughly the time period when Lehi’s family was traveling though the same area.
In one instance, however, Nephi does preserve a local name, that of Nahom, the burial place of Ishmael, his father-in-law. Nephi writes in the passive, "the place which was called Nahom," clearly indicating that local people had already named the place. That this area lay in southern Arabia has been certified by recent Journal publications that have featured three inscribed limestone altars discovered by a German archaeological team in the ruined temple of Bar'an in Marib, Yemen.[158] Here a person finds the tribal name NHM noted on all three altars, which were donated by a certain "Bicathar, son of Sawâd, son of Nawcân, the Nihmite." (In Semitic languages, one deals with consonants rather than vowels, in this case NHM.)
Such discoveries demonstrate as firmly as possible by archaeological means the existence of the tribal name NHM in that part of Arabia in the seventh and sixth centuries BC, the general dates assigned to the carving of the altars by the excavators.[159] In the view of one recent commentator, the discovery of the altars amounts to "the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon."[160]
These altars are located in the area where the spice route makes an eastward turn to cross the Arabian desert
The spice route proceed southward from Jerusalem and then turns toward the east at the place where the NHM inscriptions were found. Lehi's group proceeded southward and then made an "eastward" change in direction after leaving the "place which was called Nahom."
And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth.
S. Kent Brown:
The case for Nahom, or NHM, in this area is made even more tight by recent study. It has become clearly apparent from Nephi's note—"we did travel nearly eastward" from Nahom (1 Nephi 17:1)—that he and his party not only had stayed in the NHM tribal area, burying Ishmael there, but also were following or shadowing the incense trail, a trading road that by then offered an infrastructure of wells and fodder to travelers and their animals. From the general region of the NHM tribe, all roads turned east. How so? Across the Ramlat Sabcatayn desert, east of this tribal region and east of Marib, lay the city of Shabwah, now in ruins. By ancient Arabian law, it was to this city that all incense harvested in the highlands of southern Arabia was carried for inventorying, weighing, and taxing. In addition, traders made gifts of incense to the temples at Shabwah.[161] After this process, traders loaded the incense and other goods onto camels and shipped them toward the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian areas, traveling at first westward and then, after reaching the edges of the region of the NHM tribe, turning northward (these directions are exactly opposite from those that Nephi and his party followed). Even the daunting shortcuts across the Ramlat Sabcatayn desert, which left travelers without water for 150 miles, ran generally east-west. What is important for our purposes is the fact that the "eastward" turn of Nephi's narrative does not show up in any known ancient source, including Pliny the Elder's famous description of the incense-growing lands of Arabia. In a word, no one knew of this eastward turn in the incense trail except persons who had traveled it or who lived in that territory. This kind of detail in the Book of Mormon narrative, combined with the reference to Nahom, is information that was unavailable in Joseph Smith's day and thus stands as compelling evidence of the antiquity of the text.[162]
The name NHM is associated with a burial site and mourning
Nephi indicated that their group had reached a "place which was called Nahom," indicating that the site was already named. Ismael was buried there, and his daughters mourned him there.
And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom. And it came to pass that the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly, because of the loss of their father...
Critical responses to NHM
Critics of the Church attempt to dismiss this correlation as simply "the willingness of LDS scholars to look anywhere in their despair to find a shred of validation for their erroneous beliefs." [163] However, given the high correlation of the data, it seems that the critics are the ones that have difficulty explaining the data.
To make this information easier to understand and digest, Book of Mormon Central has produced the following video to explain Nahom and the strength of using this as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon:
Question: Did Joseph Smith have access to materials related to Nahom at Allegheny College?
At least two critical websites have asserted that Joseph could have accessed materials related to Nahom at Allegheny College because, they claim, it was only "50 miles from Harmony"
1782 map by Carsten Niebuhr shows the name "Nehem". A copy of this map was located at Allegheny College, which was 320 miles away from Harmony Township, Pennsylvania, during the time that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon
Several websites that are critical of the Church have presented the following argument:[164]
This FAIR Link mentions Niebuhr's and d'Anville's books. It also says that neither were at Dartmouth when Joseph was a boy, nor were they available in Manchester, New York in the lending library.
Now for the rest of the story. Allegheny College in Meadville Pennsylvania is about 50 miles from Harmony. Its library began through donations from private individuals. In 1824, Thomas Jefferson wrote that he hoped his University of Virginia could someday possess the richness of Allegheny's library.
In the Allegheny's collection were both books that apologists claim were not available to Joseph Smith. Here is an 1823 catalog:
D'Anville's book on ancient geography is on page 18
[Carsten] Niebuhr [1782 map] is on page 44
The critics conclude with the following assertion:
Both books were fifty miles away from where the translation was being done.
This is not, however, the case. These books were actually 320 miles from where Joseph Smith lived.
The "Harmony" located 50 miles from Allegheny College is not the same as the Harmony Township where Joseph Smith lived
Actually, the "Harmony" located 50 miles from Allegheny College is not the same as the Harmony Township where Joseph Smith lived. Indeed, if one simply types “Harmony, Pennsylvania” into Google Maps, it does indicate that a town called “Harmony” is located approximately 50 miles from Allegheny College in Meadville. However, the critics got it wrong. The Harmony Township in which Joseph lived is located 320 miles from Allegheny College. This is easily confirmed by typing “Harmony Township, Susquehanna, PA” into Google Maps.
Allegheny College, at 320 miles distance, was too far from Harmony Township for Joseph to have seen the name “Nahom” on one of the maps located there
FairMormon has acknowledged that two books were available at Allegheny College in Meadville Pennsylvania containing maps which showed the location of Nahom (alternatively spelled Nihm or Nehem). We concluded that even though these books were present, that they were not located close enough to Harmony Township for Joseph to have utilized them. The critics, however, appear to have utilized a faulty Google search to assert that these books were located close enough to where Joseph Smith lived for him to have used them. For example, the critical website MormonThink attempted to refute FairMormon's argument on their "Book of Mormon Problems" page.
MormonThink stated in June 2014: "Now for the rest of the story. Allegheny College in Meadville Pennsylvania is about 50 miles from Harmony. ...In the Allegheny's collection were both books that apologists claim were not available to Joseph Smith." However, after Neal Rappleye and Stephen Smoot pointed out in the paper "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel" that the critics had selected the wrong town of Harmony for their Google map search, MormonThink removed the claim and it no longer appears as of October 2014. The claim still appears on at least one other critical website.[165]
Harmony Township, Forest County, Pennsylvania is located 50 miles from Allegheny College, however, this is not the Harmony Township in which Joseph Smith lived.
The second possibility is Harmony Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, which is located 86 miles from Allegheny College. But this isn’t the location at which Joseph Smith lived either.
Finally, we have Harmony Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. This is where Joseph Smith lived and translated the Book of Mormon. The Harmony Township in which Joseph lived is located 320 miles from Allegheny College. This is easily confirmed by typing “Harmony Township, Susquehanna, PA” into Google Maps.
FairMormon therefore stands by its assertion that Allegheny College, at 320 miles distance, was too far from Harmony Township for Joseph to have seen the name “Nahom” on one of the maps located there.
Question: How does archaeology in the New World fit with the Book of Mormon?
It is also worth noting that there is a growing body of evidence from New World archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon. For example, results from LiDAR surveys in Mesoamerica continue to reveal infrastructure consistent with Book of Mormon history.[166]
Dr. John Clark of the New World Archaeological Foundation compiled a list of sixty items that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon and were publicly criticized in Joseph Smith's day and matched it with the best research available at that time. The list includes items such as “steel swords,” “barley,” “cement,” “thrones,” and literacy. In 1842, only eight (or 13.3%) of those sixty items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology provided little support for the claims made by the Book of Mormon. In fact, the Book of Mormon text ran counter to both expert and popular ideas about ancient America in the early 1800s.
As the efforts of archaeology have shed light on the ancient New World, we find in 2005 that forty-five of those sixty items (75%) have been confirmed. Thirty-five of the items (58%) have been definitively confirmed by archaeological evidence and ten items (17%) have received possible—tentative, yet not fully verified—confirmation. Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon.[167]
Status of Book of Mormon evidence in 1842. This chart includes both Old World and New World evidence.Status of Book of Mormon evidence in 2005. This chart includes both Old World and New World evidence.
These charts are criticized for “not including all anachronisms” and some claims surface occasionally that Dr. Clark “didn’t follow the consensus on these items”. Critics have prepared charts of their own using their own methodologies to try and “debunk” Clark’s chart. These criticisms miss the entire point of the charts, are ignorant of the methodology by which they were created, and ignore who Dr. Clark is. The selection of the anachronisms was done by taking a random sample of the publicly documented claims of anachronisms from Joseph Smith's day. Dr. Clark is one of the most well-recognized and esteemed Mesoamericanists currently working in his field. He (along with Wade Ardern and Matthew Roper) carefully prepared these lists using the best contemporary scholarship to show the trend that Book of Mormon anachronisms follow—expiring over time (1 Corinthians 4:5). Unfortunately the research they marshaled was never published since such wasn’t the aim of the presentation.
Matthew Roper presented updated charts at the 2019 FairMormon Conference. He updated the list that Clark first made to include 205 publicly availble claims of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. His research concludes that 141 items have been confirmed, 26 items are trending, and 38 remain yet unconfirmed.[168]
More information on anachronisms can be found in the articles addressing anachronisms, research presented at FairMormon Conferences, and other Latter-day Saint academic venues.
Question: What do we find in Mesoamerican archaeology with respect to place names, such as city names?
In Mesoamerica, toponyms often disappeared from one era to the next
What do we find in Mesoamerican archaeology with respect to toponyms [toponyms = place names, such as city names]? First, unlike the biblical lands where many toponyms survived due to a continuity of culture, there is no reason to assume that Maya languages and Nephite languages were related. Secondly, we find that toponyms often disappeared from one era to the next. Many of the Mesoamerican cities today have Spanish names such as San Lorenzo, La Venta, and El Mirador. The “collapse of the indigenous civilizations before the conquistadors created a sharp historical discontinuity. We have the names of almost none of the Classic Mayan and Olmec cities of two millennia ago, which is why they are known today under Spanish titles such as La Libertad and Tres Zapotes, Santa Rosa and El Mirador.”[169] Archaeologists simply don’t know what many of the original names for these Mayan cities were. If archaeologists don’t know the names of some cities they have discovered, how could one expect to provide English names for those cities, such as names provided in the Book of Mormon?[170]
Additionally, scholars are uncertain as to the pronunciation of Mesoamerican cities for which they do have names. This is because city-inscriptions are often iconographic, and not all scholars agree that such icons represent city names. These icons are not only rare (as noted above) but they are symbolic rather than phonetic. In other words, when archaeologists find an iconographic inscription designating a place as the Hill of the Jaguar, the pronunciation of this inscription would be dependent on the language of the speaker—be it a Zapotec, a Mixtec, or a Nephite.[171] The only way to identify an ancient site is by way of an inscription giving a phonetically intelligible name. Barring further discoveries, we may never know how the names of Mesoamerican cities were pronounced in Book of Mormon times.
If the epigraphic [e.g., inscriptions on stones or monuments] data from the Old World were as slim as the epigraphic data from the New World, scholars would be severely limited in their understanding of the Israelites or early Christianity. It would likely be impossible, using strictly non-epigraphic [i.e., non-written, non-language based] archaeological evidences, to distinguish between Canaanites and Israelites when they co-existed in the pre-Babylonian (pre-587 B.C.) Holy Land.[172] We find that the same problems would be apparent in the study of early Christianity if scholars were faced with the absence of epigraphic data. For instance, if Diocletian’s persecutions of Christianity had been successful, if Constantine had never converted, and if Christianity had disappeared around A.D. 300, it would be very difficult if not impossible to reconstruct the history of Christianity using nothing but archaeological artifacts and imperial Roman inscriptions.[173]
“It is quite possible,” notes Hamblin, “for a religion, especially an aniconic religion [a religion which does not use written, symbolic images], to simply disappear from the archaeological record. Despite the fact that there were several million Christians in the Roman [E]mpire in the late third century, it is very difficult to [discover] almost anything of substance about them from archaeology alone.”[174]
One of the very few ancient cities in Mesoamerica for which the pre-Columbian name is known is named "Lamanai"
Did you know that one of the very few ancient cities in Mesoamerica for which the pre-Columbian name is known is named "Lamanai"? It means "submerged crocodile." According to Wikipedia, "The site's name is pre-Columbian, recorded by early Spanish missionaries, and documented over a millennium earlier in Maya inscriptions as Lam'an'ain." Read about it in Wikipedia: Lamanai. We're not saying that this is a Book of Mormon city, but the name makes you think.
Wikipedia entry on the ancient city of Lamanai located on the Yucatan peninsula. The city of Lamani, unlike other Mesoamerican archaeological sites, retains its original name.
Question: How would Book of Mormon archaeology compare to that of the Bible?
There is a lack of readable New World inscriptions from Nephite times
Religious critics frequently like to compare the lack of archaeological support for the Book of Mormon with what they are certain is voluminous archaeological support for the Bible. There is a drastic difference, however, between the two worlds (Old and New) when it comes to epigraphic data, iconographic data, the continuity of culture, and toponyms.
We have already noted the dearth of readable New World inscriptions from Nephite times. From biblical lands, however, we know of thousands of contemporary inscriptions that have survived to modern times. We have pointed out that very few toponyms (place-names) can be read in the surviving few epigraphic fragments from the Nephite-era New World. In contrast, we find for the Bible lands not only scores of epigraphic records identifying ancient Mediterranean cities, but we also sometimes find a “continuity of culture” that preserves city names. In other words, many modern Near Eastern cities are known by the same name as they were known anciently (this is not the case for ancient America). Knowing the exact location of one city helps biblical archaeologists locate other cities, simply by calculating the distances.[175]
Even acknowledging the archaeological advantages for determining the location and historical actuality of biblical lands, we find that only slightly more than half of all place names mentioned in the Bible have been located and positively identified.[176] Most of these identifications are based on the preservation of the toponym. For biblical locations with no toponym preserved, only about 7% to 8% of them have been identified to a degree of certainty and about another 7% to 8% of them have been identified with some degree of conjectural certainty.[177] The identification of these locations without place names could not have been made were it not for the identification of locations with preserved toponyms. If few or no Biblical toponyms had survived in a continuous, unbroken "language chain" from the Bible's era to our own, the identification of biblical locations would be largely speculative.
Despite the identification of some biblical sites, many important Bible locations have not been identified. The location of Mt. Sinai, for example, is unknown, and there are over twenty possible candidates. Some scholars reject the claim that the city of Jericho existed at the time of Joshua. The exact route taken by the Israelites on their Exodus is unknown, and some scholars dispute the biblical claim that there ever was an Israelite conquest of Canaan.[178]
Question: What do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?
Of the approximately half dozen known written language systems in the New World only the Mayan language can be fully read
Understanding that a written record (epigraphic or iconographic) is necessary for building archaeological context, what do we find when we turn to the records of the ancient (i.e. before A.D. 400) Americas?
Of the approximately half dozen known written language systems in the New World (all of which are located in Mesoamerica), only the Mayan language can be fully read with confidence. Scholars can understand some basic structure of some of the other languages, but they cannot fully understand what the ancients were saying. In other words, there is a problem with deciphering the epigraphic record. According to the experts, “the pronunciation of the actual names of the earliest Maya kings and other name-glyphs from other writing systems is not known with certainty.”[179]
For the time period in which the Nephites lived, scholars are aware of only a very limited number of inscriptions from the entire ancient New World that can be read with any degree of certainty. Even with these fragments, however, scholars are still uncertain from these inscriptions just how the ancients pronounced the proper names and place names (toponyms). Four of these readable inscriptions merely give dates or a king’s name—a very limited cultural context. Another five inscriptions contain historical information and proper names—the mention of the cities Tikal and Uaxactun (for which the ancient pronunciation remain uncertain) and five kings from these two cities (whom we know by iconographic symbols and whose ancient pronunciation remains uncertain).[180]
With such sparse epigraphic information, how could we possibly recognize—even if they we discovered archaeologically—that we had found the location of cities we know as Bountiful and Zarahemla, or if the religious rulers were actually named Nephi or Moroni? The critics like to claim that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, but the truth is that there is scant archaeological data to tell us anything about the names of ancient New World inhabitants or locations—and names are the only means by which we could archaeologically identify whether there were Nephites in ancient America.
Question: What archaeological evidence might be considered the minimal irrefutable proof needed to convince a non-believing world of the authenticity of the Nephite scripture?
For critics, every time something is found that correlates with the Book of Mormon, it is considered a "lucky guess" and dismissed
A reasonable question for those suggesting that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon would be “What archaeological evidence might be considered the minimal irrefutable proof needed to convince a non-believing world of the authenticity of the Nephite scripture?”
Some people might suggest that finding the existence of horses or chariots would constitute proof for the Book of Mormon. This is doubtful. Finding such items would merely demonstrate that such things existed in the ancient New World, and while such discoveries may be consistent with the Book of Mormon, they hardly amount to “proof.”
As an example, the Book of Mormon mentions barley which, until recently, was thought not to exist in the ancient Americas. Critics considered barley to be one of the things that “Joseph Smith got wrong.” However, pre-Columbian New World barley has now been verified, without people flocking to join the Church because of this discovery. For critics, finding such items are too often seen as “lucky guesses” on the part of Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon mentions cities, trade, warfare, towers, and the use of armor—all of which did exist in the ancient Americas—yet their existence has not convinced critics that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text.
Question: How would an archaeologist distinguish a Christian's pot from that of a non-Christian?
Physical evidence doesn’t provide much information unless it is placed within a context
When examining ancient evidence archaeologists work with a very fragmentary record. In general, they find physical evidence, but such evidence in and of itself doesn’t provide much information unless it is placed within a context—a framework by which it can be understood. For instance, if an archaeologist finds a pot (or, more likely, a fragment of a pot), it provides little evidence concerning the civilization that created or used the pot. Contextual clues—such as other artifacts uncovered near the pot—may provide some clues about the timeframe in which the pot was last used, but it certainly doesn’t provide conclusive evidence as to what the civilization, or the individuals in that civilization, were like.
Critics, for example, sometimes deride the idea that Nephites were, for much of their written history, “Christians.” In the critics' view, there should be archaeological remains indicating a Christian presence in the ancient New World. How, exactly, would an archaeologist distinguish a Christian's pot from that of a non-Christian? What would a Christian pot look like? One must also keep in mind that, according to the Book of Mormon, the New World “Christians” were a persecuted minority who were wiped out over fifteen hundred years ago. How much archaeological evidence would we really expect to have survived the intervening centuries?
For the archaeologist, the strongest contextual clues come from writing or markings that are sometimes found on the physical evidence. These are of two general types: epigraphic and iconographic. Epigraphic evidence consists of a written record, such as this text you are reading, while iconographic evidence consists of pictures, or icons. For instance, the word “cross” is epigraphic, but a picture of a cross is iconographic. Epigraphic evidence, providing it can be translated, provides a record of what people thought or did. Iconographic evidence is much more symbolic and its interpretation depends on the context in which the image is used.
The only way archaeologists can determine names is through written records
As noted by Dr. William Hamblin, "the only way archaeologists can determine the names of political kingdoms, people, ethnography, and religion of an ancient people is through written records."
"Iconography can be helpful, but must be understood in a particular cultural context which can only be fully understood through written records. (Thus, the existence of swastikas, for example, on late medieval mosques in Central Asia or on Tibetan Buddhist temples in Tibet does not demonstrate that Muslims and Buddhists are Nazis, nor, for that matter, that Nazis are Buddhists. Rather, medieval swastikas demonstrate that different symbolic meanings were applied to the same symbol in early twentieth century Germany, Muslim Central Asia, and in Tibet.)"[181]
Many ancient peoples, however, wrote on perishable materials that have deteriorated through the centuries. Egypt, for example, wrote on materials that have survived through the ages, whereas the kingdom of Judah generally did not.
"[F]rom archaeological data alone," notes Hamblin, "we would know almost nothing about the religion and kingdom of ancient Judah. Indeed, based on archaeological data alone we would assume the Jews were polytheists exactly like their neighbors. Judaism, as a unique religion, would simply disappear without the survival of the Bible and other Jewish written texts."
"...Methodologically speaking, does the absence of archaeologically discovered written records demonstrate that a certain kingdom does not exist? Or to put it another way, does the existence of an ancient kingdom depend on whether or not twenty-first century archaeologists have discovered written records of that kingdom? Or does the kingdom exist irrespective of whether or not it is part of the knowledge horizon of early twenty-first century archaeologists? Or, to state the principle more broadly, does absence of evidence equal evidence of absence?"[182]
Response to claim: "The overwhelming consensus from these unbiased experts in pre-Columbian America archaeology/anthropology and Egyptology is that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Book of Abraham is historical, factual, or congruent to the current and existing data and evidence."
The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014 make(s) the following claim:
In August 2013, a 17-year-old by the name of Zachary decided to email sixty college professors whose expertise was in one of the following fields: Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica Archaeology, Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica Anthropology, and Egyptology. Zachary sought their professional opinion on the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.
Out of the sixty college professors that Zachary emailed, 25 responded. Out of the 25 who responded, 14 gave permission to Zachary to publish their names and comments. The responses that Zachary received from these experts are fascinating. The overwhelming consensus from these unbiased experts in pre-Columbian America archaeology/anthropology and Egyptology is that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Book of Abraham is historical, factual, or congruent to the current and existing data and evidence.
The responses from these professors and experts can be read here.
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
The author attempts to show that the "overwhelming consensus" from scholars is that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are not "historical, factual, or congruent to the current and existing data". The fact of the matter is that few non-LDS scholars are interested in doing the type of work that LDS scholars are doing. Even fewer have followed/become informed on Latter-day Saint scholarship. Who wants to study Latter-day Saint scripture when one isn't a Latter-day Saint? Would they feel comfortable in being compelled to join a religion based upon the evidence that Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists are bringing to light? Would anyone feel comfortable to do so? Even so, there are several non-LDS scholars who respect the work of Latter-day Saints. John Welch worked with several in "Chiasmus in Antiquity". His work on "Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon" was given good reviews from non-LDS scholars. Non-LDS archaeologist and Mesoamerican scholar Michael Coe has called the work of John Sorenson on Transoceanic Voyages to the Americas "irrefutable"[183]. Latter-day Saint scholars have frequently cited the work of non-LDS professionals to support the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. See here for article responses to this. Readers should seek out scholarship from Latter-day Saint authors and judge the matter for themselves. They should read the careful work of Brant Gardner in Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History and Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (6 vols.), they should read the great work of John Gee, John L. Sorenson, and others. Sweeping, generalized, and propagandistic claims like this should not persuade anyone into thinking that this is all settled--especially when the vast majority of these scholars have had virtually no interaction with the relevant scholarship done by Latter-day Saints up to this point of time.
Response to claim:"In addition to the statements made by those professors, here are some more statements made by both LDS and non-LDS archaeologist and anthropologist individuals and organizations...'The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…."
The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014 make(s) the following claim:
In addition to the statements made by those professors, here are some more statements made by both LDS and non-LDS archaeologist and anthropologist individuals and organizations...'The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…. '
FAIR's 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
The author distorts the meaning of Dee Green's comments.
Question: Did Dee F. Green say that there is no such thing as Book of Mormon archaeology?
Green argues that the concept of "Book of Mormon archaeology" is inadequate, and that a broader anthropological perspective is necessary
Dee F. Green wrote the following in 1969:
I am not impressed with allegations that Book of Mormon archaeology converts people to the Church. My personal preference in Church members still runs to those who have a faith-inspired commitment to Jesus Christ, and if their testimonies need bolstering by "scientific proof" of the Book of Mormon (or anything else for that matter), I am prone to suggest that the basis of the testimony could stand some re-examination. Having spent a considerable portion of the past ten years functioning as a scientist dealing with New World archaeology, I find that nothing in so-called Book of Mormon archaeology materially affects my religious commitment one way or the other, and I do not see that the archaeological myths so common in our proselytizing program enhance the process of true conversion….
What then, ought to be our approach to the Book of Mormon? In the first place it is a highly complex record demanding knowledge of a wide variety of anthropological skills from archaeology through ethnology to linguistics and culture change, with perhaps a little physical anthropology thrown in for good measure. No one man outside the Church, much less anyone inside, has command of the necessary information. Furthermore, it isn't just the accumulation of knowledge and skill which is important; the framework in which it is applied must fit. Such a framework can be found only by viewing the Book of Mormon against a picture of New World culture history drawn by the entire discipline of anthropology. Singling out archaeology, a sub-discipline of anthropology, to carry the burden, especially in the naive manner employed by our "Book of Mormon Archaeologists," has resulted in a lopsided promulgation of archaeological myth.
We have never looked at the Book of Mormon in a cultural context. We have mined its pages for doctrine, counsel, and historical events but failed to treat it as a cultural document which can teach something about the inclusive life patterns of a people. And if we are ever to show a relationship between the Book of Mormon and the New World, this step will have to be taken. It is the coincidence of the cultural history of the Book of Mormon with the cultural history of the New World that will tip the scales in our favor....
Several years ago John Sorenson drew an analogy with the Bible which bears repeating:
Playing "the long shots," looking for inscriptions of a particular city, would be like placing the family bankroll on the gambling tables in Las Vegas. We might be lucky, but experience tells us not to plan on it. After lo, these many years of expensive research in Bible lands, there is still not final, incontrovertible proof of a single Biblical event from archaeology alone. The great value of all that effort has been in the broad demonstration that the Bible account fits the context time after time so exactly that no reasonable person can suppose other than that it is genuinely historic. Twenty years or less of systematic "painting the scenery" can yield the same sort of convincing background for the Book of Mormon, I believe. For too long Mormons have sought to "prove" the Book of Mormon authentic by what is really the-- most difficult kind of evidence--historical particulars. In the light of logic and the experience of Biblical archaeology it appears far safer to proceed on the middle ground of seeking general contextual confirmation, even though the results may not be so spectacular as many wish. In any case such a procedure-- the slow building up of a picture and a case--will leave us with a body of new knowledge and increased understanding of the times, manner, and circumstances when Book of Mormon events took place which seems to some of us likely to have more enduring value than “proof.”(italics in original) (emphasis added)
A dated source
The reference is from 1969. Green was a believing archaeologist; believing archaeologists now have more positive things to say about whether archaeology can tell us anything about the Book of Mormon. For a more current assessment, see:
John E. Clark, "'Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [38–49] link
The manner in which critics of the Church use this quote distorts Green's message and intent
The manner in which critics of the Church use this quote distorts Green's message and intent. A few representative quotes demonstrate that Green is not dismissing the possibility of Book of Mormon archaeology. Instead, Green insists that the approaches taken up to 1969 were inadequate, and misdirected:
Among the morass of archaeological half-truths and falsehoods which we have perpetrated in the name of Book of Mormon archaeology, only Jakeman's suggestion of a limited geography and Sorenson's insistence on a cautious, highly controlled trait-complex approach are worth considering. The ink we have spilled on Book of Mormon archaeology has probably done more harm than good.
I am not impressed with allegations that Book of Mormon archaeology converts people to the Church. My personal preference in Church members still runs to those who have a faith-inspired commitment to Jesus Christ, and if their testimonies need bolstering by "scientific proof" of the Book of Mormon (or anything else for that matter), I am prone to suggest that the basis of the testimony could stand some re-examination. Having spent a considerable portion of the past ten years functioning as a scientist dealing with New World archaeology, I find that nothing in so-called Book of Mormon archaeology materially affects my religious commitment one way or the other, and I do not see that the archaeological myths so common in our proselytizing program enhance the process of true conversion.
The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU [note 16 reads: Fortunately now changed to the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, with such qualified men as Merlin Myers, Ray T. Matheny, and Dale Berge giving students a sound and realistic education in anthropology.] devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed (italics in original).
Another myth which needs dispelling is our Lamanite syndrome. Most American Indians are neither descendants of Laman nor necessarily of Book of Mormon peoples. The Book itself makes no such claim....
Finally, I should like to lay at rest the myth that by scurrying around Latin America looking for horses and wheels we can prove the Book of Mormon.
Green also praises some aspects of the approach taken by the Church and a few scholars
...only Jakeman's suggestion of a limited geography and Sorenson's insistence on a cautious, highly controlled trait-complex approach are worth considering.
Considerable embarrassment over the various unscholarly postures assumed by the geographical-historical school resulted in the Church Archaeological Committee's attitude that interpretation should be an individual matter, that is, that any archaeology officially sponsored by the Church (i.e., the monies for which are provided by tithing) should concern itself only with the culture history interpretations normally within the scope of archaeology, and any attempt at correlation or interpretation involving the Book of Mormon should be eschewed. This enlightened policy, much to the gratification of the true professional archaeologist both in and outside the Church, has been scrupulously followed. It was made quite plain to me in 1963 when I was first employed by the BYU-NWAF [New World Archaeological Foundation] that my opinions with regard to Book of Mormon archaeology were to be kept to myself, and my field report was to be kept entirely from any such references.
Some of my colleagues and students, both in and out of the Church, have wondered if perhaps the real reason for the Church's involvement in archaeology (especially since it is centered in Mesoamerica with emphasis on the Preclassic period) is to help prove the Book of Mormon. While this may represent the individual thinking of some members of the Church Archaeological Committee, it has not intruded itself on the work of the foundation except to limit its activities to the preclassic cultures of Mesoamerica. Regardless of individual or group motives, however, the approach of the BYU-NWAF has been outstandingly successful. My numerous non-Church colleagues in Mesoamerican archaeology hold high regard for the work of the foundation and for most of its staff. Gareth Lowe, director of the BYU-NWAF, is as good a Mesoamerican archaeologist as there is in the country, and the foundation's outstanding publication series (which never mentions the Book of Mormon) consistently received good reviews in the professional literature.
Green is calling for a different approach
What then, ought to be our approach to the Book of Mormon? In the first place it is a highly complex record demanding knowledge of a wide variety of anthropological skills from archaeology through ethnology to linguistics and culture change, with perhaps a little physical anthropology thrown in for good measure. No one man outside the Church, much less anyone inside, has command of the necessary information. Furthermore, it isn't just the accumulation of knowledge and skill which is important; the framework in which it is applied must fit. Such a framework can be found only by viewing the Book of Mormon against a picture of New World culture history drawn by the entire discipline of anthropology. Singling out archaeology, a sub-discipline of anthropology, to carry the burden, especially in the naive manner employed by our "Book of Mormon Archaeologists," has resulted in a lopsided promulgation of archaeological myth.
We have never looked at the Book of Mormon in a cultural context. We have mined its pages for doctrine, counsel, and historical events but failed to treat it as a cultural document which can teach something about the inclusive life patterns of a people. And if we are ever to show a relationship between the Book of Mormon and the New World, this step will have to be taken. It is the coincidence of the cultural history of the Book of Mormon with the cultural history of the New World that will tip the scales in our favor.
Not surprisingly, it is this approach recommended by Green that has borne fruit in the thirty-five years since his article.
Also not surprisingly, this fact is carefully hidden from the critic's audience.
For an up-to-date assessment of the Book of Mormon and archaeology, see:
John E. Clark, "'Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [38–49] link
Response to claim: "In addition to the statements made by those professors, here are some more statements made by both LDS and non-LDS archaeologist and anthropologist individuals and organizations...'While some people chose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through archaeological evidences, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient knowledge.'"
The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014 make(s) the following claim:
In addition to the statements made by those professors, here are some more statements made by both LDS and non-LDS archaeologist and anthropologist individuals and organizations...'While some people chose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through archaeological evidences, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient knowledge.'
FAIR's 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
The author distorts the meaning of Raymond Matheny's comments. Matheny clarified that he was responding to a question posed to him as if he were a non-Mormon archaeologist. Matheny states, "The question dealt with how does a non-Mormon archaeologist evaluate the Book of Mormon in terms of its cultural content and claims. My answer to the question was an ad hoc response where I tried to put myself in a non-Mormon’s professional shoes and talked about the nature of the problems that the Book of Mormon poses for the archaeologist." In other words, Matheny was playing "devils advocate." Matheny explains this in a letter:
I received a copy of Heart and Mind and a copy of a letter sent to you by Luke P. Wilson, Executive Director of Gospel Truths Ministries. From these items I feel some obligation to give you a little more information about what took place at the Sunstone symposium in 1984. . . .
I had no idea that I was being used by Gospel Truths Ministries to discredit the LDS Church in their publication. . . . In 1984 I was asked by Sunstone to give a talk, which I refused. They persisted by calling and asked if I would be willing to sit on a panel and comment on papers that would be given on archaeology at the upcoming symposium. To this request I consented. However, when I arrived for the symposium, much to my surprise I was listed as a speaker. I objected and said that I had not prepared a paper. The Sunstone people then handed me a card with a question on it and asked if I would comment on the question. The question dealt with how does a non-Mormon archaeologist evaluate the Book of Mormon in terms of its cultural content and claims. My answer to the question was an ad hoc response where I tried to put myself in a non-Mormon’s professional shoes and talked about the nature of the problems that the Book of Mormon poses for the archaeologist. . . .
Gospel Truths Ministries is using my ad hoc response without my permission, without my knowledge, and in a pernicious way against the church, and against me. The letter sent to you said that a complete transcript of my response was forwarded to you. I don’t know what GT Ministries means by a “complete” transcript. I forbade any publication of my response by Sunstone or any one else, and did not authorize any tape recordings at the time.[184]
Response to claim: "This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists are coming up with the Limited Geography Model"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists are coming up with the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America) and that the real Hill Cumorah is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere and possibly somewhere down there instead. This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
The falsehood: The Limited Geography Model has absolutely nothing to do with apologists, and was not created in reaction to anything that occurred in recent times. It was based upon a careful reading of the Book of Mormon text itself.The facts: The limited geography model of the Book of Mormon has been around since 1917. Matt Roper notes, "It is not known how much these studies influenced the interpretations of Latter-day Saints; their first versions of a fully limited Book of Mormon geography began to appear in the years from 1920 to 1926. In an article for the Improvement Era, Janne Sjodahl outlined the key features of these interpretations without criticism or condemnation. In addition to his own modified hemispheric view, which placed the narrow neck of land at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Sjodahl reviewed the approaches of George Reynolds and Joel Ricks, which generally followed those of Orson Pratt."[185] Links may be found below to the many limited geography theories that have been around for decades. In his follow up claims to FairMormon, the author raises concerns about Joseph's revelations identifying things in the United States relating to the Nephites and its implications for limited or integrated geography theories. A good model to follow for meshing the evidence from the United States with Mesoamerican data may be found here.
This [claim that the Limited Geography is a recent invention of apologists] is simply not true. The Limited Geography Model has been created because the Book of Mormon demands it. You can put together all the travel distances and travel times in the Book of Mormon and it’s very clear that they’re not going far in any direction. We’re not talking about Patagonia to the Aleutian Islands. It’s simply not possible. And so, the text forces this. This sort of thing has been in the works for a long time, before there was any talk about DNA, before the discovery of the DNA double-helix model. DNA was not an issue when this was being created. This is not controversial. This can easily be shown that the limited Mesoamerican model has been in the works for decades. It just wasn’t published until the 1980s, but it existed and was distributed in a kind of summarized underground form for a long time before it was actually published.
Question: What is the Limited Geography Theory and model?
The Limited Geography Model is based upon an accurate reading the Book of Mormon text and limits geography to several hundred miles
The Limited Geography Theory (or LGT) is a non-traditional interpretation of the text, but one that has gained wide acceptance among the Book of Mormon scholars and readers over the last 60 years.[186] It is based on a close reading of the text, which indicates that the lands inhabited by the Lehites could be traversed on foot in only a few weeks, making the area no larger than present-day California.
Advantages of this model:
a limited model seems to match the textual information about distance with much greater accuracy
a limited model offers a more realistic fit for an ancient society, which would have had great difficulties travelling or communicating over the vast distances required by the Hemispheric Geography Theory
a limited model potentially restricts Book of Mormon peoples to an area which matches regions (e.g., such as Mesoamerica) known to have had high culture, city-building, written language, etc.
Disadvantages include:
many Church members are unfamiliar with the basis for this model, having not paid close attention to issues of distance and travel times, since they have been more focused on the spiritual details of the Book of Mormon instead of its mundane details.
most early members and leaders of the Church have, when they made geography explicit at all, tended to adopt a hemispheric model
being a "newer" model, some claim that advocates of the LGT are 'changing the Church's story' about the Book of Mormon, even though the Church has been clear that it had no official or revealed Book of Mormon geography.
placing the model exactly becomes more difficult, since a smaller geography can 'fit' more than one potential location.
critics of the theory maintain that it uses mental gymnastics to explain away the mention of an "exceedingly great distance" in the text. Traditionally, it had been believed that there was an exceedingly great distance between the core of the Nephite domain and the Hill Cumorah in the area where the Nephites and Jaredites were destroyed.
Question: Has the Church ever promoted a Limited Geography model for the Book of Mormon?
The Church produced materials showing a limited geography for the Book of Mormon in the 1970s and 1980s
Three frames from the Church-produced filmstrip "Ancient America Speaks." This filmstrip was used by missionaries in the late 1970s and early 80s. It clearly showed a Limited Geography for Book of Mormon lands with the "narrow neck" being the Isthmus of Panama.
Has the Church ever promoted a Limited Geography model for the Book of Mormon? The answer to that question is yes. The Church filmstrip "Ancient America Speaks" was heavily used by missionaries in the 1970s. It included a map which indicated that Nephite and Lamanite lands were distinct and separated by the Isthmus of Panama.
In September and October of 1984, the official Church magazine the Ensign printed a two-part series which outlined the limited geography model for the Book of Mormon. The articles were called "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture" and were written by Latter-day Saint anthropologist John L. Sorenson. Sorenson notes:
Many Latter-day Saints have not had access to sources which communicate how recent research has changed our understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document. Many also are unaware of some rather surprising new discoveries supporting the Book of Mormon which have been brought about by the advanced methods of science. The purpose of this article and the one to follow is to sketch a few vivid examples of changes in how some Latter-day Saint scholars view the Book of Mormon in the light of new theories and discoveries about the past. These articles are not intended to be an expression of official Church teachings, but on the basis of my own research and study, I have thought this new information to be worth consideration. [8]
Question: Why have Church leaders taught a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon rather than a limited one?
"Traditional" interpretations of the Book of Mormon assume a hemispheric geography
Latter-day Saint anthropologist John L. Sorenson specifically notes that there is a difference between the "traditional" interpretation of the Book of Mormon versus what it actually says,
One problem some Latter-day Saint writers and lecturers have had is confusing the actual text of the Book of Mormon with the traditional interpretation of it. For example, a commonly heard statement is that the Book of Mormon is “the history of the American Indians.” This statement contains a number of unexamined assumptions—that the scripture is a history in the common sense—a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that “the” American Indians are a unitary population; and that the approximately one hundred pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scripture could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere. When unexamined assumptions like these are made, critics respond in kind, criticizing not the ancient text itself, but the assumptions we have made about it. [8]
Sorenson notes that critics make the same assumptions about traditional interpretations as Latter-day saints,
Among the criticisms of the Book of Mormon by archaeologists, the two most widely circulated statements (the late Robert Wauchope’s book and Michael Coe’s article nearly a decade ago) suffer from similar limitations. Both of these eminent scholars based their reactions to the Book of Mormon on the same unfortunate assumption that the Book of Mormon account is about events involving American Indians throughout the entire New World. Their conclusions were as flawed as those arrived at by some Latter-day Saints. [8]
Question: Did Joseph Smith teach a hemispheric, rather than a limited, geography model for the Book of Mormon?
It does not appear that the Angel Moroni identified the locations of places mentioned in the Book of Mormon
What did Joseph Smith believe and teach about Book of Mormon geography? How does it relate to the location where the plates were buried? Matthew Roper addresses this issue:
The Prophet Joseph Smith knew that the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated had been obtained from the hill near his home. Aside from this, however, it does not appear that the angel Moroni identified current locations for places mentioned in the book. It is noteworthy—but scarcely surprising—that the Book of Mormon itself does not identify the hill in which it was buried. Instead, the hill in which all the Nephite plates other than those of the Book of Mormon were buried is identified (Mormon 6:6).26 It is also unclear how much, if any, geography Moroni revealed to the Prophet—whose calling was that of translator, not geographer. In the absence of revelation on Book of Mormon geography, we must expect the Saints to express their own ideas. Revelation is one thing, while speculation is quite another. Joseph Smith said very little about the geography of the Book of Mormon. What little he did say suggests that he may have shared the view held by his associates, that the Book of Mormon narrative describes events occurring in North, Central, and South America. [9]
Latter-day Saint archaeologist John Clark "points out the dangers of uncritically accepting the opinions of Joseph Smith as authoritative on the issue of Book of Mormon geography." [187]
The dangerous area is where opinion is thought to clarify ambiguities in the text, of which there are many. The minimal fact that various statements are attributed to Joseph Smith that place cities in different lands suggests that he continued to be interested throughout [Page 80]his life in the location of Book of Mormon lands and, consequently, that it remained an open question for him. If he knew where they were, why did he continue guessing? Should we not be similarly open-minded today? Do we go with the Prophet’s early statements or his later statements? [188]
Joseph occasionally expressed ideas related to where the Book of Mormon occurred, which ranged from the area around New York to the lands of Central America
Joseph occasionally expressed ideas related to where the Book of Mormon occurred, which ranged from the area around New York to the lands of Central America. He never explicitly taught a specific geography, although he appears to have held a hemispheric view, just as many members today do. Joseph was as much an observer of the restoration as he was its principle player. When revelations were received, he had to use his physical faculties to interpret and understand them like the rest of us. And although he had a "front row seat" to many of the foundational events, he was often as astounded and surprised by the revelations he received as were those who received them from him, and he had to understand those things that were evidenced but not explicitly stated by revelation in the same way we all do. This includes of course the geographic setting for the Book of Mormon. A limited geography does not in any way contradict the revelations of Joseph Smith.
Roper: "Critics of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the limited geography is only a late, desperate attempt to defend the Book of Mormon"
Matthew Roper:
Recently, some critics of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the limited geography is only a late, desperate attempt to defend the Book of Mormon. It is, they assert, contrary "to the Book of Mormon text, early Mormon history, [and] Joseph Smith's divine edicts."2 In order to place the assertions of these critics in perspective, it is necessary to address several questions: What was the hemispheric geography based on? Granted that this early view was popular, was it based on revelation? Is there any authoritative interpretation of Book of Mormon geography? Is the localized geography some kind of debater's ploy or are there substantial reasons for this view? [189]—(Click here to continue)
Question: Was the Limited Geography model created in response to DNA claims?
The Limited Geography Model was introduced in 1927, many years before DNA claims
Was the Limited Geography model created in respond to DNA claims? The answer is no. The idea that Lehi's party entered a larger, pre-existing New World population was introduced as early as 1927, well before the Book of Mormon was being challenged on issues related to DNA. [190] Limited Geography Models in General have been present since at least 10 years before that.
An examination of both Part 1 and Part 2 of John Sorenson's 1984 Ensign articles quickly shows that they do not even contain the term "DNA". The articles focus on anthropological and geographical topics which support the Limited Geography model.
I have said repeatedly that the correspondences in geography, history, and cultural patterns—large scale or micro-scale—between Mesoamerican cultures and the Book of Mormon peoples do not “prove” anything conclusively. Still, the fact that large numbers of such correspondences exist ought to register in the minds of truth-loving people. With this in mind, it is clearly misleading for a scholar—one of our own—to imply that there is no “important archaeological evidence” to support the Book of Mormon story “of Indian origins,” or for another to find it amusing to think that anyone would seriously try to compare the Book of Mormon with objective facts of historical importance. [6]
The Sorenson map of Book of Mormon lands as it appeared in the September 1984 church magazine, the Ensign. This map may be viewed on the official Church website LDS.org
Response to claim: "Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Funding) founder"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Funding) founder. NWAF was financed by the Church. NWAF and Ferguson were tasked by BYU and the Church in the 1950’s and 1960’s to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. This is what Ferguson wrote after 17 years of trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon:“…you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology. I should say – what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.” – Letter dated February 2, 1976
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: Ferguson was not in charge of the archaeology program at BYU.The facts: Ferguson wasn't even an archaeologist - he was a lawyer for whom archaeology was a hobby.
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to authority—The author claims that someone is an authority on a topic, and that because this authority made a statement regarding that topic, that he or she is probably correct.
Ferguson was not even an "authority" on this matter, and he had unrealistic expectations. The author, however, expects us to both accept Ferguson as an authority on this subject, and to accept his conclusions as valid.
∗ ∗ ∗
And the idea is, well, Ferguson failed and Ferguson lost his testimony, and this should discredit the Book of Mormon in the minds of alert, sentient Latter-day Saints. But that statement is wrong on multiple levels. Thomas Stuart Ferguson, for whatever virtues he had, was a lawyer and an amateur hobbyist. He was not the head of the archaeology program at BYU. And the NWAF, I’ve actually written an article on this, based on interviews with the founders and with early leaders and so on, and it’s been published. I mean, there’s no excuse for this. NWAF had non-Mormons on its board. It was mostly non-Mormons. It was specifically forbidden to seek to do explicit Book of Mormon research. It was tasked with working in an area where Latter-day Saints expected it would find evidence, but it was not its task to do that. This is just completely wrong, and Ferguson’s apostasy, whatever it was, his family disputes it. I don’t know exactly what the truth of his mindset was at the end of his life. It may be sad, but it has no significance. And, at the same time, M. Wells Jakeman was an archaeologist, the first trained archaeologist as far as I know in the Church, who specialized in Mesoamerican studies. Why doesn’t anybody write about his biography? He was fascinated…believed to his dying day that the Book of Mormon fit into Mesoamerica brilliantly well.
Question: Was Thomas Stuart Ferguson an archaeologist?
Ferguson never studied archaeology at a professional level - he was self-educated in that area
As John Sorensen, who worked with Ferguson, recalled:
[Stan] Larson implies that Ferguson was one of the "scholars and intellectuals in the Church" and that "his study" was conducted along the lines of reliable scholarship in the "field of archaeology." Those of us with personal experience with Ferguson and his thinking knew differently. He held an undergraduate law degree but never studied archaeology or related disciplines at a professional level, although he was self-educated in some of the literature of American archaeology. He held a naive view of "proof," perhaps related to his law practice where one either "proved" his case or lost the decision; compare the approach he used in his simplistic lawyerly book One Fold and One Shepherd. His associates with scientific training and thus more sophistication in the pitfalls involving intellectual matters could never draw him away from his narrow view of "research." (For example, in April 1953, when he and I did the first archaeological reconnaissance of central Chiapas, which defined the Foundation's work for the next twenty years, his concern was to ask if local people had found any figurines of "horses," rather than to document the scores of sites we discovered and put on record for the first time.) His role in "Mormon scholarship" was largely that of enthusiast and publicist, for which we can be grateful, but he was neither scholar nor analyst.
Ferguson was never an expert on archaeology and the Book of Mormon (let alone on the book of Abraham, about which his knowledge was superficial). He was not one whose careful "study" led him to see greater light, light that would free him from Latter-day Saint dogma, as Larson represents. Instead he was just a layman, initially enthusiastic and hopeful but eventually trapped by his unjustified expectations, flawed logic, limited information, perhaps offended pride, and lack of faith in the tedious research that real scholarship requires. The negative arguments he used against the Latter-day Saint scriptures in his last years display all these weaknesses.
Larson, like others who now wave Ferguson's example before us as a case of emancipation from benighted Mormon thinking, never faces the question of which Tom Ferguson was the real one. Ought we to respect the hard-driving younger man whose faith-filled efforts led to a valuable major research program, or should we admire the double-acting cynic of later years, embittered because he never hit the jackpot on, as he seems to have considered it, the slot-machine of archaeological research? I personally prefer to recall my bright-eyed, believing friend, not the aging figure Larson recommends as somehow wiser. [191]
Peterson and Roper: "We know of no one who cites Ferguson as an authority, except countercultists"
"Thomas Stuart Ferguson," says Stan Larson in the opening chapter of Quest for the Gold Plates, "is best known among Mormons as a popular fireside lecturer on Book of Mormon archaeology, as well as the author of One Fold and One Shepherd, and coauthor of Ancient America and the Book of Mormon" (p. 1). Actually, though, Ferguson is very little known among Latter-day Saints. He died in 1983, after all, and "he published no new articles or books after 1967" (p. 135). The books that he did publish are long out of print. "His role in 'Mormon scholarship' was," as Professor John L. Sorenson puts it, "largely that of enthusiast and publicist, for which we can be grateful, but he was neither scholar nor analyst." We know of no one who cites Ferguson as an authority, except countercultists, and we suspect that a poll of even those Latter-day Saints most interested in Book of Mormon studies would yield only a small percentage who recognize his name. Indeed, the radical discontinuity between Book of Mormon studies as done by Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson in the fifties and those practiced today by, say, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) could hardly be more striking. Ferguson's memory has been kept alive by Stan Larson and certain critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as much as by anyone, and it is tempting to ask why. Why, in fact, is such disproportionate attention being directed to Tom Ferguson, an amateur and a writer of popularizing books, rather than, say, to M. Wells Jakeman, a trained scholar of Mesoamerican studies who served as a member of the advisory committee for the New World Archaeological Foundation?5 Dr. Jakeman retained his faith in the Book of Mormon until his death in 1998, though the fruit of his decades-long work on Book of Mormon geography and archaeology remains unpublished.
Peterson: "Thomas Stuart Ferguson's biographer...makes every effort to portray Ferguson's apparent eventual loss of faith as a failure for 'LDS archaeology'"
In the beginning NWAF was financed by private donations, and it was Thomas Ferguson's responsibility to secure these funds. Devoted to his task, he traveled throughout California, Utah, and Idaho; wrote hundreds of letters; and spoke at firesides, Rotary Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, and wherever else he could. After a tremendous amount of dedicated work, he was able to raise about twenty-two thousand dollars, which was enough for the first season of fieldwork in Mexico.
Stan Larson, Thomas Stuart Ferguson's biographer, who himself makes every effort to portray Ferguson's apparent eventual loss of faith as a failure for "LDS archaeology,"22 agrees, saying that, despite Ferguson's own personal Book of Mormon enthusiasms, the policy set out by the professional archaeologists who actually ran the Foundation was quite different: "From its inception NWAF had a firm policy of objectivity. . . . that was the official position of NWAF. . . . all field directors and working archaeologists were explicitly instructed to do their work in a professional manner and make no reference to the Book of Mormon."
Gee: "Ferguson is largely unknown to the vast majority of Latter-day Saints; his impact on Book of Mormon studies is minimal"
Biographies like the book under review are deliberate, intentional acts; they do not occur by accident.4 Ferguson is largely unknown to the vast majority of Latter-day Saints; his impact on Book of Mormon studies is minimal.5 So, of all the lives that could be celebrated, why hold up that of a "double-acting sourpuss?"6 Is there anything admirable, virtuous, lovely, of good report, praiseworthy, or Christlike about Thomas Stuart Ferguson's apparent dishonesty or hypocrisy? Larson seems to think so: "I feel confident," Larson writes, "that Ferguson would want his intriguing story to be recounted as honestly and sympathetically as possible" (p. xiv). Why? Do we not have enough doubters? Yet Larson does not even intend to provide the reader with a full or complete biographical sketch of Ferguson's life, since he chose to include "almost nothing . . . concerning his professional career as a lawyer, his various real estate investments, his talent as a singer, his activities as a tennis player, or his family life" (p. xi). In his opening paragraph, Larson warns the reader that he is not interested in a well-rounded portrait of Ferguson. Nevertheless, he finds time to discourse on topics that do not deal with Ferguson's life and only tangentially with his research interest.
Response to claim: "Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived
We read in the Book of Mormon of the Land of Desolation named for a warrior named Teancum who helped General Moroni fight in the Land of Desolation. In Smith’s era, an Indian Chief named Tecumseh fought and died near the narrow neck of land helping the British in the War of 1812. Today, the city Tecumseh (near the narrow neck of land) is named after him.
Author's sources:
mazeministry.com (an anti-Mormon web site)
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The author uncritically accepted data from the Vernal Holley map, which is easily disproven. The names aren't so striking when you realize just how many of them didn't exist at the time that Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, or how many don't show up on contemporary maps. Elsewhere, (and even after his "debunking" of our response including his follow up claims and his link the Rick Grunder's parallels) the author admits that he doesn't believe that this claim has sufficient evidence to support it, yet he has retained it in his latest revision of the letter.[195]
Logical Fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter—The author located some pattern in the data that he or she believes was the cause of something else, despite the lack of any supporting connection, and asserted that this was, in fact, the actual cause.
The author uses the work of Vernal Holley, who searched a large area using modern maps to find a few names which are similar. The author then uses those names as proof that there is a relationship to the Book of Mormon. The author recognized the weakness of this argument and actually considered removing the section from the CES Letter or moving it to an appendix but was stopped by other ex-Mormons who claimed that it was effective for shaking people.
Question: How valid are the names used in the Holley Map?
When a comparison is made to maps available in the 1800s, it becomes evident that Holley has included names of places which didn't even exist in Joseph Smith's time
The Book of Mormon contains 345 names— 86 of which have to do with geography. The theory, proposed by Vernal Holley and posted by Mazeministries, is that 28 of these names (those that describe geographic locations) were derived by Joseph Smith by looking at the names of places in the surrounding region, then altering the names slightly to create a map of Book of Mormon lands.
Rather than compare to "modern maps" and "modern place names" as Holley indicated that he did, we have made an attempt to locate these places on maps from the 1800s, which could have been available to Joseph Smith. When such a comparison is made, it becomes evident that Holley has included names of places which didn't even exist in Joseph Smith's time.
We list the correspondences below. We believe it might be helpful for the reader to, along with their appraisal of the names below, see the work done in the Book of Mormon Onomasticon Project which details the linguistic connections of these names to authentic Hebraistic and Egyptian patterns as positive evidence against this claim.
The following correspondences are listed. In order to obtain this list of parallels, a huge geographical area must be scanned: Five states and two Canadian provinces yield this list of parallels, and it gets even smaller when one actually tries to locate many of these places on a map. In the list below,
Names in red indicate places which either did not have that name until after 1830, or cannot be found on a map or in the Book of Mormon.
Names in blue indicate names that are found in the Bible.
Names in green indicate names that could potentially be a valid match.
Actual Place Names = Book of Mormon Place Names
Alma = Alma, Valley of (did not exist)
In the area indicated on the Holley map, modern maps show that there is a small, unincorporated community called Centerville, also known as Alma, in Tyler County, West Virginia, United States. Coordinates: 39°25′55″N 80°50′24″W. However, when we view the 1822 map of Virginia, we cannot find the name "Alma" anywhere.
More information regarding the name "Alma" can be found here.
Antrim = Antum (existed)
"Antrim Township" is located in Franklin County, Pennsylvania. It was named after County Antrim in Northern Ireland. The township was organized in 1741.
Yet, how close is the name? There remains substantial difference.
More information on the name "Antum" may be found here
Antioch = Anti-Anti (did not exist)
The name "Anti-Anti" doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon, nor does the biblical name "Antioch." This is most likely a typo as the name Ani-anti does. Other names proposed to match seem circumstantial.
More information on the name "Ani-Anti" may be found here.
Boaz = Boaz
The name "Boaz" is from the Bible. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
Another reviewer of this criticism added:
The only option in the Great Lakes region is Boaz, Wood County, West Virginia. Wikipedia explains, “The community was named in 1878 by the United States Post Office Department, which selected from three names suggested by a resident named William Johnson: ‘Johnson,’ ‘Ruth,’ and ‘Boaz.'”[197]
More information on the name "Boaz" may be found here.
Connor = Comner (did not exist)
The name "Comner" doesn't appear in the Book of Mormon. The name "Comnor" does, in Ether 14꞉28. Of course, "Comnor" doesn't match "Conner" quite as closely in spelling. We cannot find "Conner" in either New York or Pennsylvania.
Another reviewer of this criticism wrote:
This name only appears on one map of Holley’s and it’s obviously misplaced as later maps all show the same spot as Sherbrooke. But Holley noted this was in Canada (because the Book of Mormon corollary is in “the land northward”), and there is a community named Connor in Simcoe County, Ontario. A history of the township, Adjala by Francis Vincent McDevitt and Mary Margaret Munnoch (1993), says residents requested that name in honor of their hometown in Ireland when the post office was established in 1865 (p. 149). Connor doesn’t show up on an 1853 map of the township in that book (p. 27), confirming that later date of origin.[198]
More information on the name "Comnor" may be found here.
Ephrem, Saint = Ephraim, Hill (did not exist, biblical)
The actual name is "Saint-Éphrem-de-Beauce, Quebec." Wikipedia shows the town being established with that name in 1866. This is 36 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon name "Ephraim," of course, is easily found in the Bible.
More information on the name "Ephraim" may be found here.
Hellam = Helam (existed)
According to their website, Hellam Township, Pennsylvania, was established in 1739.
More information on the name "Helam" may be found here.
Jacobsburg = Jacobugath (did not exist)
Jacobsburg, Belmont Co., Ohio does not even show up on a 1822 map of Ohio. According to Wikipedia: "Jacobsburg was laid out in 1815. It was probably named for its founder, Jacob Calvert." Therefore, the town definitely existed prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon, but was apparently too small to appear on the 1822 map seven years later. By 1833, three years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, Jacobsberg had grown to include "one tavern, two stores, a physician, sundry mechanics, and about 120 inhabitants." [199] Jacobsburg does indeed appear on an 1831 map of Ohio (one year after the Book of Mormon was published).
By 1831, Jacobsburg appeared on a map of Ohio
More information on the name "Jacobugath" may be found here.
Jerusalem = Jerusalem (did not exist); Jerusalem = Jerusalem (biblical)
Jerusalem, Monroe Co., Ohio does not even show up on a 1822 map of Ohio, nor does it show up on a 1831 map of Ohio (one year after the Book of Mormon was published). Even today the village of Jerusalem occupies only 0.2 square miles. The Holley map shows "Jerusalem" in Ohio, but we went ahead and searched for other towns named "Jerusalem." It turns out that there is a Jerusalem, New York that was established in 1789, however, it does not appear on either the 1822 map or the 1831 maps of the state of New York. The town was named after the Biblical city of Jerusalem. Besides, the name "Jerusalem" is from the Bible. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
The town of Jerusalem, Ohio does not show up on a 1831 map of Ohio. According to Wikipedia, "Jerusalem is located at 39°51′8″N 81°5′43″W" " [200]The town of Jerusalem, New York, although it was established in 1789, does not appear on the 1822 or the 1831 maps of the state of New York.
More information on the name "Jerusalem" may be found here.
Jordan = Jordan (existed); Jordan = Jordan (biblical)
The village of Jordan, New York existed prior to 1819 and became an incorporated village in 1835. [201] The town of Jordan, New York was established prior to 1819, but does not appear on the 1822 map of New York. It does appear on the 1827 map (three years prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon) and the 1831 map of New York (one year after the publication of the Book of Mormon). The name "Jordan" is from the Bible. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
The town of Jordan, New York was established prior to 1819, but does not appear on the 1822 map of New York. It does appear on the 1827 and 1831 maps of New York.
More information on the name "Jordan" may be found here.
Kishkiminetas = Kishkumen (did not exist)
Vernal Holley states in his book Book of Mormon Authorship, that he relies upon "modern maps" when he speculates on the name Kishkumen,
The location of the Book of Mormon city of Kishkumen is not given in the text. However. there are names similar to Kishkumen, on modern maps, in the location of Spaulding's Manuscript Story setting. [202]
Kiskiminetas Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania was given that name in 1832, two years after the Book of Mormon was published. From History of Armstrong County Pennsylvania, written in 1883 by Robert Walter Smith, "The petition of sundry inhabitants of Allegheny township was presented December 22, 1831, to the court of quarter sessions of this county, asking that a new township be formed out of the upper end of Allegheny township, to be called Kiskiminetas. Philip Klingensmith, John Lafferty and John McKissen were appointed viewers, who, after one continuance of their order, presented their report recommending the organization of the new township, which was approved by the court June 19, 1832." off-site Kiskiminetas River in Pennsylvania does exist prior to the town, and one would assume that it would show up on a map. In addition, the name appears as a place name on page 40 of the 1776 publication A Topographical Description of Such Parts of North America as are Contained in the (Annexed) Map of the Middle British Colonies, &c. in North America, by T. Pownhall.[203]
Place description of Kiskiminetas from T. Pownhall, A Topographical Description of Such Parts of North America as are Contained in the (Annexed) Map of the Middle British Colonies, &c. in North America, p. 40. (1776)
More information on the name "Kishkumen" may be found here.
Lehigh = Lehi (existed)
There is indeed a "Lehigh Valley" located in Pennsylvania.
More information on the name "Lehi" and its derivatives in the Book of Mormon may be found/linked to here.
Mantua = Manti (did not exist)
According to their website, Mantua Village, Ohio, was incorporated in 1898. This is 68 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.
More information on the name "Manti" may be found here.
Monroe = Moroni (existed)
There is a town "Monroe, New York" which was named in 1808. The town does not appear on either the 1822 or the 1831 maps of New York.
The town of Monroe, New York, named in 1808, does not appear on either the 1822 or the 1831 maps of New York.
More information on the name "Moroni" may be found here.
Minoa = Minon (did not exist)
According to the Minoa town website, the town of Minoa, New York received that name in 1895. That is 60 years after the Book of Mormon was published.
More information on the name "Minon" may be found here.
Moraviantown = Morianton (existed)
Moravian Indian Reserve No. 47, Ontario, appears to have been established in 1782.
Holley made a lot of noise about the supposed similarities between Moriavan Town/Tecumseh and Morianton/Teancum. One reviewer of this criticism noted:
Most early publications and maps refer to the community as Moravian Village (see this 1826 map of Canada, for example). However, the 1819 publication The Late War (a favorite among church critics) notes it as Moravian Town (page 115).[204]
Critics tend to associate Tecumseh and Moriavian Town by means of the Late War instead of the maps. Moravian Town is more often named "Moravian Village" in the maps or "Moravian Indian Reserve" as noted above. Tecumseh is not even listed as a town until 1912 which Holley himself noted in his publication. One reviewer pointed out Tecumseth in Canada as a possible candidate. As they noted:
The name was given in 1821, and settlers arrived soon after. The township is depicted on an 1826 map of Canada. An American option is, of course, the city of Tecumseh in Lenawee County, Michigan. The city was established in 1824, and appears on many maps of the 1820s. The town is also cited in the 1825 version of the United States Official Postal Guide (page 92).[205]
Thus, Joseph would have to have either seen the names in maps and modified both a bit to get Morianton and Teancum or seen them in the Late War (or perhaps, by some weird chance, he saw one from both). The problem with the first theory is that the names would come from basically two different maps--one from the U.S. and the other from Canada. Additionally, there is no evidence that Joseph was looking at these maps prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. The problem with the second theory is that Tecumseh and Moravian Town are separated both physically and thematically in Hunt's book (See pp 115, 118). Additionally, there is no evidence Joseph saw this work. The simplest explanation for the names would be Joseph's story.
More information on the name "Morianton" may be found here.
More information on the name "Teancum" may be found here.
Morin = Moron (did not exist)
According to Wikipedia, Morin Township, Quebec, was formed in 1852. This would be 22 years after the Book of Mormon was published.
(Click to enlarge) Geography as proposed by Vernal Holley (1983). Z = proposed city of Zarahemla site. Bright blue line is the model's "River Sidon." Names in red represent towns not in existence at the time of the Book of Mormon's publication. Note that the maps available at Mazeministries contain the following errors: 1) Jerusalem and Jacobsburg are too far apart; 2) Alma is too far to the east; 3) Mount Ephrim should be north-east, not north-west of Sherbrooke.(Click to enlarge) An illustration of some of the geographical errors present in the version of the Holley geography that is used in "A Letter to a CES Director"
More information on the name "Moron" may be found here.
Noah Lakes = Noah, Land of
The name "Noah" is from the Bible. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
Another reviewer of this criticism noted:
These don’t show up on any of Holley’s maps, but the only two options I can find are Lake Noah in Summit County, Ohio, and Lake Noah in St. Joseph County, Michigan. Unfortunately for Holley, Lake Noah in Summit County is not natural. It was likely made when they put in the nearby Nimisila Reservoir in 1936. An 1874 map of Green Township in Summit County shows what the area looked like before the reservoirs were put in. As for the lake in Michigan, it also seems to have been affected by human activity. On an 1872 map of Lockport Township in St. Joseph County all you see is a tiny unnamed pond on the property of a Mr. J. George Ott where Google now places Noah Lake, and it’s nowhere near the size of what maps show today.[206]
More information on the name "Noah" may be found here.
Oneida = Onidah (existed)
See "Oneida Castle".
Oneida Castle = Onidah, Hill (existed)
Oneida Castle, New York is located at 43°4′42″N 75°38′0″W. The town has existed since the 18th century.
More information on the name "Onidah" may be found here.
Omer = Omner (did not exist)
We cannot find "Omer" on any modern map of Pennsylvania, New York or Canada.
More information on the name "Omner" may be found here.
Rama = Ramah
Holley speculates that Joseph obtained the name "Rama" from the Rama Indian Reservation or Rama Township, noting that
"Today, south by southeast from Lake Superior (Waters of Ripliancum?), near Lake Simcoe in Ontario, Canada, is the Rama Indian Reservation, [61] located within the boundaries of Rama Township. [62] The Book of Mormon Ramah was [relatively near] the Waters of Ripliancum in the "land northward," and, similarly, the modern day Rama Indian Reservation is located [relatively near] several place names with a "Ripple" designation, in Canada (the north country)."[207]
The Rama Indian Reservation did not exist as such until 1836, when the Chippewas of Lake Simcoe and Huron were forced to move and purchased the land in Rama Township in 1836. However, the town was named in 1820 and it does appear on an 1826 map of Canada.
The name "Ramah" is listed 34 times in the Old Testament. According to the Book of Mormon Onomasticon with regard to the name "Ramah":
RAMAH is given in Ether 15:11 as the name of the hill where CORIANTUMR encamped before his final battle as well as the name of the place where MORMON hid the sacred records. Given the close association of the location with both events, the name RAMAH may well be of NEPHITE, rather than JAREDITE, origin, and may be derived from the HEBREW rāmāh, "elevation, height;"
It is significant that the Book of Mormon frames Ramah as a "hill" rather than simply a location. Thus the argument should perhaps be more about the way the name is used rather than the simple existence of it in the Book of Mormon narrative.
Ripple Lake = Ripliancum, Waters of
Holley speculated that "Waters of Ripliancum may have been Lake Superior, the largest of the five Great Lakes. On or near the north shore of Lake Superior are Ripple Bay, Ripple Creek, Ripple Reef, and Ripple Lake—names surprisingly similar to the "Waters of Ripliancum." [208] However, Ripple Lake is so small that it is difficult to locate on modern day maps, and it is one of more than 250,000 lakes in Ontario. Are we to assume that Joseph selected this one location amongst many, and then converted the name "Ripple Lake" to "Ripliancum?"
More information on the name "Ripliancum" may be found here.
Sodom = Sidom
The name "Sodom," of course, is well known from the Bible. That is the only context it is used in the Book of Mormon as well. It is only mentioned when Nephi quotes Isaiah (2 Nephi 13:9; Isaiah 3:9; 23:19; 13:19). Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places.
More information on the name "Sidom" may be found here.
More information on the name "Sidon" may be found here.
Shiloh = Shilom (did not exist); Shiloh = Shilom (biblical)
There is a Shiloh, Pennsylvania on modern maps (which Holley claimed to have relied on), however, it is a Census Designated Place (CDP) consisting of 4.2 square miles [209] that was established only for statistical purposes. As such, a town named "Shiloh" does not appear on any maps in Pennsylvania either now or on maps contemporary with Joseph Smith's time. It also should be noted that the name "Shiloh" is a biblical name.
Land of Midian = Land of Midian
The name "Land of Midian" is from the Bible and it is located in Egypt. Joseph would not have needed to look at a map for this one, unless one accepts Holley's assertion that the Holley map is supposed to show the geographical locations of Book of Mormon places. We are unable to locate a "Midian" or "Land of Midian" on any modern map of Pennsylvania.
Question: Are the names on the Holley Map in the correct locations relative to one another?
Not only are the names claimed to be similar to those in the Book of Mormon, but also that the locations of those names are similar. In addition, since some of these names could have easily been taken from the Bible instead of the surrounding region, one must assume that their inclusion on the map also implies that their geographical locations relative to one another are important.
Looking at the geography, it is clear from Holley's map that a number of locations have been selected to make the names match the existing geography. Some examples:
The map places Jacobugath, site of "King Jacob's" dissenters far in the land southward, when the Book of Mormon has it far in the land northward (3 Nephi 7:9-12; see also 3 Nephi 9:9).
The map places the land of first inheritance [land of Lehi-Nephi] is on the eastern coast of the United States, while the Book of Mormon is clear that Lehi and his group landed on the western coast.
The City of Morianton should be by the eastern seashore, near the city of Lehi (Alma 50:25).
"Ramah" is the Jaredite name for the Hill Cumorah (Ether 15:11). The Hill Cumorah is not in Canada.
Response to claim: "There was a book published in 1791 by John Walker entitled, A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names"
The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking (July 2014) make(s) the following claim:
Before I get to those, however, I’d like to discuss additional evidence of similarities between the “345 Book of Mormon names” and a contemporaneous book available in Joseph’s time and backyard. Aside from FairMormon not sharing that many, if not most, of the “345 Book of Mormon names” are also biblical names, many of the names unique to the Book of Mormon are…well, not so unique.
There was a book published in 1791 by John Walker entitled, A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names. In this book are a number of future Book of Mormon names, which appeared within alphabetized lists. This book was a common household reference in young Joseph Smith’s time and place. According to Larry Porter, “Walker’s Dictionary” was suggested for the curriculum in the Colesville, New York schools by the local commissioners in the fall of 1826.
This link does a side by side comparison between Book of Mormon names and Walker's Key Dictionary.
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Most of the names in the list come from the Old and New Testaments. Some are listed as Greek and Latin names but onomastic research has shown that they have plausible etymologies with the languages proposed by the Book of Mormon. This argument is textbook parallelomania. The arguments against names should not be just about the presence of the names. With the advancements in onomastic research, the argument should now be about both the presence of the names and how they are used.
Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize John Walker’s "Key to Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names"?
There is no evidence that Joseph saw this work.
As with most Book of Mormon plagiarism accusations, there is no evidence that Joseph saw this dictionary nor even knew of it. It is unlikely that he turned to such specific sections of the dictionary to rob names from it, even less likely that he was able to employ the names in ways that correspond to the ancient world. This will be discussed in our analysis.
The critic who proposes this theory uses a flawed methodology for the parallels.
Rick Grunder in his book attempts to show names that Joseph may have used when translating the Book of Mormon and restoring the Books of Moses by citing John Walker’s “A Key to Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names”. Grunder cites his methodology as follows:
I have selected the following list of names and terms which I find similar to, resonant with, or identical to Book of Mormon names. On page 79 alone appear not only the three eldest male members of the leading Book of Mormon family (Lehi, ‘Lah’man’ and Lemuel), but the Book’s first villain as well (Laban), plus two notable Master Mahan/secret combination protagonists in Joseph Smith’s 1830 Book of Moses (chapter 5): Lamech and Irad. Walker’s Key also provides the unusual reference to the Apocryphal name Nephi, p. 81. Of additional interest is a pronunciation rule to which ‘Ne´ phi’ is here referenced, showing the same pronunciation that is used by Mormons today.
In preparing this list, I have excluded a number of the most famous biblical names shared or recalled by Book of Mormon people, as well as the names of exclusively biblical locations referred to in the Book of Mormon (primarily in 2 Nephi). Names which I place in LARGE & SMALL CAPITAL LETTERS, (not followed by comparison names in parentheses) are identical to names in the Book of Mormon. Names which I signal with an asterisk (*) occur in Walker’s Key with added prominence by appearing first or last in a page column.
Most of the names associated with the Book of Mormon are verbatim from the Old and New Testament.
Grunder lists 1-5 names from Walker’s work and then associates them with names in the Book of Mormon that he cites to the right of the last name in each list. It should first be noted that most of the names come from the Old and New Testament as Walker informs us. Some names match up perfectly between the Old and New Testament such as the name “Boaz.” It need not be surprising to find these names in the Book of Mormon as the Book of Mormon claims to be the record of an Israelite people. We might expect to find names that come from the Old Testament—especially those that predate the Lehites departure from Jerusalem.
Some names are not found in the Old or New Testament because they are simply other Latin or Greek names
Walker also tells us in the title that we will find Latin and Greek Names in the dictionary, yet those that we do find do not correlate well with the Book of Mormon. These will be pointed out below.
There are two positions that we might take when viewing these names:
As critics, we might assume that Joseph simply lifted the names that match verbatim from these names to fit into the Book of Mormon narrative, twisted the names that don’t correlate perfectly, and obtained the other names from other outside sources.
As believers, that Joseph translated authentic names from an ancient record.
From this analysis, the second position seems more likely. Like the pendant names mentioned before, some names hold remarkable ancient parallels or follow very specific and fascinating patterns. These will be described below when a name does not come from either the Old or New Testament. For names that Grunder associates with Jaredite names, we cannot offer any such study on the names seeing that the language of the Jaredites is not known. Some names have been studied and offer some fascinating insights such as the name “Deseret” in Ether 2:3. For most others, we cannot offer any such study. For those name that are exact matches that occur in the Old or New Testament, we will likewise offer no such study as they are obviously Semitic names. The studies on these names come from the Book of Mormon Onomasticon project done by Brigham Young University and the FairMormon Book of Mormon Evidence page. Like many other Semitic and Egyptian evidence in the Book of Mormon, they are especially fascinating considering that, according to documented evidence, Joseph did not undertake any academic study of the any language until March 1835. He did not study Hebrew until 1836 under Joshua Seixas nor did he attempt to perform any study of the Egyptian language until after the completion of the Book of Abraham in 1842.
Nearly all of these names have authentic etymologies and were employed in the Book of Mormon in an authentic way. Some etymologies have still not been offered for a select few. We encourage the reader to visit the following pages to research these names and for positive evidence against this claim:
A-bin´ a-dab (cf. Abinadi)—The name "Abinadab" occurs 11 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Abinadi" may be found here.
2 Samuel 6:3
1 Samuel 16:8
1 Chronicles 8:33
1 Samuel 7:1
1 Samuel 17:13
A-bin´ o-am (cf. Abinadom)—The name "Abinoam" occurs 4 times in the Old Testament (Book of Judges).
Judges 4:12
Judges 5:1
Judges 5:12
Judges 4:6
A-bish´ a-i (cf. Abish)—The name "Abishai" does not occur in the Bible. The name "Abish" is a great potential evidence for the Book of Mormon. See here for more information.
A´ chish (cf. Akish)—The name "Achish" occurs 18 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Akish" may be found here.
1 Samuel 28:2
1 Samuel 21:10
1 Samuel 21:12
1 Samuel 21:14
1 Samuel 27:2
1 Samuel 27:6
1 Samuel 27:9
1 Samuel 27:12
1 Samuel 29:2
1 Samuel 28:1
1 Samuel 21:11
1 Samuel 27:3
1 Samuel 27:5
1 Samuel 27:10
1 Samuel 29:8
1 Samuel 29:9
1 Kings 2:39
1 Samuel 29:3
p. 72:
Æ´ nos (cf. Enos)—the name “Enos” can be found 6 times within the Old Testament and 1 time in the New Testament. The use of the name "Enos" is a great potential evidence for the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. More information on that may be found here.
Genesis 4:26
Genesis 5: 6
Genesis 5:7
Genesis 5:9
Genesis 5:10
Genesis 5:11
Luke 3:38
A´ HAZ – the name “Ahaz” occurs 41 times in the Old Testament. It occurs only in the Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon
Al´ mon Dib-la-tha´ im [and,] – the name “Almon- diblathaim” occurs 2 in the Old Testament
Numbers 33: 46,47
Al´ na-than, - the name “Alnathan” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament
Al´ pha, - the name “Alpha” occurs 4 times in the New Testament. This name is always used to describe the Savior in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon e.g. Alpha and Omega
Revelation 1: 8, 11
Revealtion 21: 6
Revelation 22:13
A´ mal, - the name “Amal” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament
1 Chronicles 7:35
A-mal´ da (cf. Alma) – the name Amalda does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament. The name "Alma" is a great potential evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. See here for more information regarding it.
Am´ a-lek (cf. Amaleki) – the name “Amalek” can be found 25 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Amaleki" may be found here.
Genesis 36: 12, 16,
Exodus 17: 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16
Numbers 24: 20 (twice)
Deuteronomy 25: 17, 19
Judges 3: 13
Judges 5:14
1 Samuel 15: 2, 3, 5, 20
1 Samuel 28: 18
2 Samuel 8: 12
1 Chronicles 1: 36
1 Chronicles 18:11
Psalm 83:7
AM´ A-LEK-ITES – the tribal name “Amalikite[s]” can be found 29 times in the Old Testament.
Genesis 14:7
Numbers 13:29; 14:25, 43, 45
Judges 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12; 12:15
1 Samuel 14:48; 27:8
2 Samuel 1: 1,8, 13,
1 Chronicles 4: 43
A-MIN´ A-DAB – the name “Aminadab” occurs 3 times in the New Testament while recounting the Davidic genealogy. He is 33 generations separated from Jesus. The name "Amminadab" occurs 9 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Aminadab" may be found here.
Exodus 6:23
Numbers 1:7
Numbers 2: 3
Numbers 7:12
Numbers 10:14
Ruth 4:20
1 Chronicles 2:10 (twice)
1 Chronicles 6:22
1 Chronicles 15:10
Matthew 1: 4 (twice)
Luke 3:33
AM´ MON – the name “Ammon” occurs 95 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Ammon" may be found here.
Am´ o-rites (cf. Amoron) the tribal name “Amorite[s]” occurs 92 times in the Old Testament. For more information on the name "Amoron" see this link and the other links found there.
An-a-ni´ ah (cf. Ammonihah) – the name “Ananiah” can be found 2 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Ammonihah" may be found here.
Nehemiah 3: 23; 11: 32
An´ ti-och (cf. Antion) – the name “Antioch” occurs 19 times in the New Testament. More information on the name "Antion" may be found here.
An-ti´ o-chus (cf. Antionum) – “Antiochus Epiphanes” is the name of a King of Syria who ruled between 175-164 B.C. at a time when Palestine was a Syrian province. His name does not occur in the Bible. More information on the name "Antionum" may be found here.
AN´ TI-PAS – the name “Antipas” occurs 1 time in the New Testament. Since this is a greek name and occurs after the arrival of the Mulekites (who may have retained greek names), this shouldn't be a concern. More information on greek names and their plausibility in the Book of Mormon may be found here. More information on the name "Antipas" from the Book of Mormon Onomasticon (and a plausible Semitic etymology) may be found here.
Revelation 2: 13
An to´ ni-a (cf. Antionah) – The name “Antonia” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament. The Castle Antonia was built in the stead of the temple at Jerusalem when taken by Herod under the Macabees. More information on the name "Antionah" may be found here.
Ar-che-la´ us (cf. Archeantus) – the name “Archelaus” occurs 1 time in the New Testament. More information on the name "Archeantus" may be found here.
p. 74:
BO´ AZ — the name "Boaz" occurs 24 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Boaz" may be found here.
Ruth 2:1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 23.
Ruth 3:2, 7
Ruth 4:1 (twice), 5, 8, 9, 13, 21 (twice).
1 Kings 7:21
1 Chronicles 2:11,12
2 Chronicles 3:17
p. 75:
Che´ mosh (cf. Chemish) – the name “Chemosh” occurs 8 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Chemish" may be found here.
Numbers 21: 29
Judges 11: 24
1 Kings 11: 7, 33
2 Kings 23: 13,
Jeremiah 48: 7, 13, 46
Che´ sed [and,] - the name “Chesed” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament
Genesis 22: 22
Che´ sil, - the name “Chesil” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament.
Joshua 15: 30
Che´ sud, - the name “Chesud” does not occur in the Old or New Testament.
Che´ zib (cf. Shez) - the name “Chezib” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. The name “Shez” is a Jaredite name and no study of its etymology exists.
Genesis 38: 5
Con-o-ni´ ah (cf. Cumenihah) – the name “Cononiah” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. See here for more information on the name "Cumenihah".
2 Chronicles 31: 12,13
p. 76:
Em´ mer [and,] - the name “Emmer” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament
E´ mor (cf. Emer) – the name “Emor” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament. More information on the name "Emer" may be found here.
ES´ ROM – the name “Esrom” occurs 3 times in the New Testament. That name stems from the Old Testament "Hezron" which occurs 8 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Esron" and a plausible ancient etymology for it may be found here.
Matthew 1: 3 (twice)
Luke 3: 33
E´ tham (cf. Ethem) – the name Etham occurs 4 times in the Old Testament. The name “Ethem” is a Jaredite name. No study of its etymology exists.
Exodus 13: 20
Numbers 33: 6
E´ THER – the name “Ether” occurs 2 in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Ether" may be found here.
Joshua 15: 42; 19:7
E-ZI´ AS – the name “Ezias” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament. There is, however, more to the story. See here for more information regarding this name.
Ez´ ron (cf. Ezrom) – the name “Ezron” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament. More information on the name "Ezrom" may be found here.
Ga´ di (cf. Gad, Gadianton) – the name “Gadi” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Gad" may be found here. More information on the name "Gadianton" may be found here.
2 Kings 15: 14, 17
Ga-ze´ ra [and,] – the name “Gazera” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament.
Gaz´ zam (cf. Gazelem) – the name “Gazzam” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Gazelem" may be found here.
Ezra 2: 48
Nehemiah 7: 51
Ger´ shon (cf. Jershon) – the name “Gershon” occurs 18 times in the Old Testament. The name "Jershon" is a great potential evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. See here for more information.
Gid-e-o´ ni (cf. Giddianhi) – the name “Gideoni” occurs 5 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Giddianhi" may be found here.
Numbers 1: 11; 2: 22; 7: 60, 65; 10:24
GIL´ E-AD – the name “Gilead” occurs 134 times in the Old Testament. References will not be listed for convenience. This is a Jaredite name and no study of an etymology exists. However, since this is listed so many times in the Old Testament and close to the time of the Jaredites (e.g. Genesis 31:21, 23) it is almost certain that this name could have been preserved with them.
GIL´ GAL – the name “Gilgal” occurs 42 times in the Old Testament. References will not be listed for convenience. This name could have also been preserved by the Jaredites. See here for more information.
GO-MOR´ RAH (cf. Cumorah, both sites of massive destruction of the wicked) – the name “Gomorrah” occurs 21 times in the Old Testament. The name "Cumorah" is a great potential evidence for the Book of Mormon. See here for more information.
Hag´ gith (cf. Hagoth) – the name “Haggith” occurs 5 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Hagoth" as a potential evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity may be found here.
2 Samuel 3: 4
1 Kings 1: 5; 2: 13
1 Chronicles 3: 2
HE´ LAM – the name “Helam” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Helam" may be found here.
2 Samuel 10:16
He´ man (cf. Helaman) – the name “Heman” occurs 17 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Helaman" may be found here.
Her´ mon-ites (cf. Hermounts) – the tribal name “Hermonite[s]” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Hermounts" may be found here.
Psalms 42: 6
Hesh´ bon [and,] – the name “Heshbon” occurs 38 times in the Old Testament. References will not be produced for convenience.
Hesh´ mon, - the name “Heshmon” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament
Joshua 15: 27
Heth´ lon (cf. Heshlon) – the name “Hethlon” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. The name “Heshlon” is Jaredite however, an etymology has been proposed. More information on the name "Heshlon" may be found here.
Ezekiel 47: 15; 48: 1
[I´ RAD - see Moses 5 (p. 79; - the name “Irad” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament and in the same context as the Book of Moses.
Genesis 4: 18 (twice)
ISH´ MA-EL, - the name “Ishmael” occurs 53 times in the Old Testament. References will not be produced for convenience. More information on the name "Ishmael" may be found here.
ISH´ MA-EL-ITES [p. 79] – the tribal name “Ishmaelite[s]” occurs 3 times in the Old Testament. See under "Ishmael" for more information regarding this name.
Judges 8: 24
1 Chronicles 27: 30
Psalms 83: 6
p. 78:
Ja´ kim (cf. Jacom) – the name “Jakim” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Jacom" may be found here.
1 Chronicles 8: 19; 24: 12
Ja´ num (cf. Jeneum) – the name “Janum” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. The name “Jeneum” appears to be a scribal misspelling of the name “Joneum”. More information on the name “Joneum” may be found here.
Joshua 15: 53
JA´RED – the name “Jared” occurs 5 times in the Old Testament and 1 time in the New Testament. More information on the name "Jared" may be found here.
Genesis 5: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Luke 3:37
Ja´ shen (cf. Jashon) – the name “Jashen” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Jashon" may be found here.
2 Samuel 23: 32
p. 79:
Jo´ tham (cf. Jothan) – the name “Jotham” occurs 26 times in the Old Testament. This appears to be a spelling mistake on the part of Grunder since the name “Jothan” does not occur in the Book of Mormon. The name “Jotham” occurs once in the Book of Mormon during the portions of Isaiah that are quoted.
Kib´ roth Hat-ta´ a-vah (cf. Kib) – the name “Kibroth-hattaavah” occurs 15 times in the Old Testament. The name “Kib” is Jaredite. No etymology has been suggested.
KISH – the name “Kish” occurs 22 times in the Old Testament. More information may be found here regarding the name.
Ko´ rah [and,] – the name Korah occurs 38 times in the Old Testament. References will not be produced for convenience.
Ko´ rah-ites, - the tribal name “Korahite[s]” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament
1 Chronicles 9: 19, 31
Ko´ rath-ites, - the tribal name “Korathite[s]” occurs 1 time in the Old Testamet
Numbers 26: 58
Kor´ hite, - the tribal name “Korhite[s]” occurs 4 times in the Old Testament
Exodus 6: 24
1 Chronicles 12: 6; 26: 1
2 Chronicles 20: 19
Kor´ hites, - see “Korhite”
Kor´ ites – the tribal name “Korite[s]” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament
Ko´ re (cf. Korihor, Corihor) – the name “Kore” occurs 4 times in the Old Testament. The name “Korihor” appears to be a Lehite adoption of the Jaredite name “Corihor”. More information may be found on the name "Korihor" at this link.
1 Chronicles 9: 19; 26: 1, 19
2 Chronicles 31:14
LA´ BAN – the name “Laban” occurs 60 times in the Old Testament. References will not be produced for convenience. More information on the name "Laban" may be found here.
La-cu´ nus (cf. Lachoneus) – the name “Lacunus” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament. For more information on the name "Lachoneus" see here.
Lah´ man (cf. Laman) – the name “Lahman” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament. More information on the name "Laman" may be found here.
[LA´ MECH - see Moses 5] – the name “Lamech” occurs 12 times in the Old Testament
LE´ HI * - the name “Lehi” occurs 4 times in the Old Testament. This name was primarily known as a place name. Evidence for the name “Lehi” as a personal name has only surfaced in recent years. See here for more information].
Judges 15: 9, 14, 17 (“Rameth-lehi”), 19
LEM´ U-EL * - the name “Lemuel” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. See here for more information regarding the name.
Proverbs 31: 1, 4
Lib´ nah (cf. Limnah) – the name “Libnah” occurs 18 times in the Old Testament. References will not be produced for convenience. More information on the name "Limnah" may be found here.
Lib´ ni [and,] – the name “Libni” occurs 5 times in the Old Testament
Exodus 6: 17
Numbers 3: 18
1 Chronicles 6: 17
Lib´ nites, (cf. Lib) – the tribal name “Libnite[s]” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Lib" may be found here.
Numbers 3: 21; 26: 58
p. 80:
Ma´ ha-lah (cf. Mahah) – the name “Mahalah” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Mahah" be found here.
1 Chronicles 7: 18
Ma´ ni (cf. Manti). According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Mani is a personal, Greek name: "MANI (PERSON) [Gk Mani]. The Gk reading in 1 Esr 9:30 fo the person the RSV harmonizes as Bani, based on the parallel text in Ezra 10:29. See BANI."[210] A copy of the Apocrypha was not owned by Joseph Smith until the Book of Mormon went to print. More information on the name "Manti" may be found here.
Me´ lech (cf. Melek) – the name “Melech” occurs 3 times in the Old Testament. It is combined with the name “Ebed” to form “Ebed-melech” 9 times in the Old Testament. The name "melek" is a strong potential evidence for the Book of Mormon. Information regarding it may be found here.
2 Kings 23: 11
1 Chronicles 8: 35; 9: 41
MID´ I-AN – the name “Midian” occurs 40 times in the Old Testament. References will not be produced for convenience. More information regarding the name may be found here.
Mo´ lech [and,] – the name “Molech” occurs 8 times in the Old Testament
Leviticus 18: 21; 20:2, 3, 4, 5
1 Kings 11: 7
2 Kings 23: 10
Jeremiah 32: 35
Mo ´ lek, - the name “Molek” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament
Mo´ loch, - the name “Moloch” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament and 1 time in the New Testament.
Amos 5: 26
Acts 7: 43
Mo ´ lok (cf. Mulek [italics in the original]) – the name Molok does not occur in the Old Testament or the New Testament. More information regarding the name "Mulek" may be found here.
Mo-ri´ ah (cf. Orihah, Mosiah) – the name “Moriah” occurs 2 in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Orihah" may be found here. More information regarding the name "Mosiah" may be found "Mosiah" may be found here.
Genesis 22: 2
2 Chronicles 3: 1
p. 81:
Na´ ham (cf. Nahom) – the name “Naham” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. The name "Nahom" is a strong evidence for the Book of Mormon. More information regarding it may be found here.
1 Chronicles 4: 19
Na´ hor (cf. Nehor) – the name “Nahor” occurs 17 times in the Old Testament. References will not be produced for convenience. More information regarding the name "Nehor" may be found here.
Na´ hum (cf. Nahom) – the name “Nahum” occurs 3 times in the Old Testament—all at the beginning of the Book of Nahum. The name "Nahom" is a strong evidence for the Book of Mormon. More information regarding it may be found here.
Ne´ ah (cf. Neas) – the name “Neah” occurs in the 1 in the Old Testament. More information regarding the plant name "Neas" may be found here.
Joshua 19: 13
Ne´ cho (designated a Book of Abraham mummy; see MP 49, Belknap) – the name “Necho” occurs 4 times in the Old Testament. It was the name of an Egyptian king.
2 Chronicles 35: 20; 36:4
Ne´ hum (cf. Neum) – the name “Nehum” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Neum" may be found here.
Nehemiah 7: 7
NE´ PHI * the name “Nephi” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament. The name Nephi is a remarkable name in the Book of Mormon--a way that was unlikely for Joseph to have known about. See here for more information regarding it.
NIM´ RAH – the name “Nimrah” occurs 3 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name may be found here.
Numbers 32: 3, 36.
O MER * - the name “Omer” occurs 6 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name may be found here.
Exodus 16: 16, 18, 22, 32, 33, 36
Om´ ri (cf. Omni) – the name “Omri” occurs 18 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Omni" may be found here.
Rab-bo´ ni (cf. Rabbanah) – the name “Rabboni” occurs 1 time in the New Testament. More information regarding the name "Rabbanah" may be found here.
John 20: 16
Ra´ ma, or RA´ MAH – the name “Rama” occurs 1 time in the New Testament. The name “Ramah” occurs 36 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Ramah" may be found here.
Rib´ lah (cf. Riplah) – the name “Riblah” occurs 11 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Riplah" may be found here.
Numbers 34: 11
2 Kings 23: 33; 25: 6, 20, 21
Jeremiah 39: 5, 6; 52: 9, 10, 26, 27
Sa´ mi (cf. Sam) – the name “Sami” does not occur in the Old or New Testament. More information regarding the name "Sam" may be found here.
Sar-a-i´ ah (cf. Sariah) – the name “Saraiah” does not occur in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Sariah" may be found here.
p. 83:
Se´ nir (cf. Senine) – the name “Senir” occurs 2 times in the Old or New Testament. More information regarding the monetary name "Senine" may be found here.
1 Chronicles 5: 23
Ezekiel 27: 5
Sha´ lem [and,] – the name “Shalem” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament
Genesis 33: 18
She´ bam (cf. Sheum) – the name “Shebam” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Sheum" may be found here.
Numbers 32: 3
She-re´ zer (cf. Shazer, Sherrizah) – the name “Sherezer” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Shazer" may be found here. More information regarding the name "Sherrizah" may be found here.
Zechariah 7: 2
Shib´ bo-leth (cf. Shiblom) – the name “Shibboleth” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Shiblom" may be found here.
Judges 12: 6
Shim´ hi [and,] – the name “Shimhi” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament
1 Chronicles 8: 21
Shi´ mi, - the name “Shimi” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament
Exodus 6: 17
Shim´ ites (cf. Shim) – the tribal name “Shimite[s]” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Shim" may be found here.
Numbers 3: 21
Shi´ za (cf. Shiz) – the name “Shiza” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. The name "Shiz" is a Jaredite name for which no etymology has been suggested.
1 Chronicles 11: 42
Shu´ lam-ite (cf. Shule) – the tribal name “Shulamite[s]” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Shule" may be found here.
Song of Solomon 6: 13
Shu´ math-ites (cf. Shum) – the tribal name “Shumathite[s]” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Shum" may be found here.
1 Chronicles 2: 53
p. 84:
Si´ ba (cf. Sebus) – the name “Siba” does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament. More information regarding the name "Sebus" may be found here.
Sid´ dim (cf. Sidom) – the name “Siddim” occurs 3 times in the Old Testament
Genesis 14: 3, 8, 10
SI´ DON – the name “Sidon” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament and 12 times in the New Testament. More information regarding the name "Sidon" may be found here.
Genesis 10: 15, 19
Matthew 11: 21, 22; 15: 21
Mark 3: 8; 7: 24, 31
Luke 4: 26; 6: 17; 10: 13
Acts 12: 20; 27: 3
Sir´ i-on (cf. Siron) – the name “Sirion” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Siron" may be found here.
Deuteronomy 3: 9
Psalm 29: 6
[THUM´ MIM - in Abraham 3:1, 4, and later applied, with URIM, to Book of Mormon interpreters; see MP 414 (Stanford)] – the names “Urim” and “Thummim” occur 10 times in the Old Testament
Exodus 28: 30 (both)
Leviticus 8: 8 (both)
Deuteronomy 33: 8 (both)
Ezra 2: 63 (both)
Nehemiah 7: 65 (both)
p. 85:
Tu´ bal Cain (cf. Tubaloth) – the name “Tubal-cain” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Tubaloth" may be found here.
Genesis 4: 22 (twice)
[U´ RIM - see THUMMIM, above] – see “Thummim” above.
Zem-a-ra´ im [and,] - the name “Zemaraim” occurs 2 in the Old Testament
Joshua 18: 22
2 Chronicles 13: 4
Zem´ a-rite, - the tribal name “Zemarite” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament
Genesis 10: 18
1 Chronicles 1: 16
Ze-mi´ ra, - the name “Zemira” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament
Zeph-a-ni´ ah, - the name “Zephaniah” occurs 11 times in the Old Testament. Once as the title of the Book of Zephaniah.
2 Kings 25: 16
1 Chronicles 6: 36
Jeremiah 21: 1; 29: 25, 29; 37: 3; 52: 24
Zephaniah 1: 1; 6: 10
Zer-a-hi´ ah (cf. Zemnarihah) – the name “Zerahiah” occurs 5 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Zemnarihah" may be found here.
1 Chronicles 6: 6 (twice), 51
Ezra 7: 4; 8: 4
Ze´ nas (cf. Zenos) – the name “Zenas” occurs 1 time in the New Testament. More information regarding the name "Zenos" may be found here.
Titus 3: 13
Ze-or´ im [and,] – the name “Zeorim” does not occur in the Old Testament or the New Testament
Ze´ rah (cf. Zeram, Zeezrom) – the name “Zerah” occurs 20 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Zeram" may be found here. More information regarding the name "Zeezrom" may be found here.
Ze´ phi, or Ze´ pho (cf. Zenephi) – the name “Zephi” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. The name “Zepho” occurs 2 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Zenephi" may be found here.
Zephi - The name "Zephi" occurs 1 time in the Old Testament.
1 Chronicles 1: 36
Zepho – Genesis 36: 11, 15
Ze´ rah (cf. Zeram) – the name “Zerah” occurs 20 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Zeram" may be found here.
Zer-a-hi´ ah (cf. Zarahemla) – the name “Zerahiah” occurs 5 times in the Old Testament. More information regarding the name "Zarahemla" may be found here.
1 Chronicles 6: 6 (twice), 51
Ezra 7: 4; 8: 4
Ze´ ri (cf. Zerin) – the name “Zeri” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Zerin" may be found here.
1 Chronicles 25: 3
Ziph (cf. Ziff) – the name “Ziph” occurs 10 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name of the material denominated "Ziff" may be found here.
Joshua 15: 24, 55
1 Samuel 23: 14, 15, 24; 26: 2 (twice)
1 Chronicles 2: 42; 4: 16
2 Chronicles 11: 8
Zo´ rah (cf. Zoram) – the name occurs 8 times in the Old Testament. More information on the name "Zoram" may be found here.
Joshua 19: 41
Judges 13: 2, 25; 16: 31; 18: 2, 8, 11
Zo´ rath-ites [and,] – the tribal name “Zorathite[s]” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament
1 Chronicles 4: 2
Zo´ rites (cf. Zoramites) – the tribal name “Zorite[s]” occurs 1 time in the Old Testament. More information regarding the tribal name "Zoramites" may be found here.
1 Chronicles 2: 54
Additional reading and video content
Benjamin McGuire reviews the rest of Grunder's work in Mormon Parallels in these two articles published by Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship.
[The author of the Letter to a CES Director] uses Vernal Holley, who relied on the Solomon Spalding theory of the Book of Mormon, which has been exploded, detonated so many times, that its exasperating to see it keep coming back. I’ve mentioned, I think, here before that Hamblin and I have wanted to do a film that we call tentatively, “Bill and Dan’s Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell.” The idea is that these just keep coming back. I mean, you shoot them between the eyes and they don’t stop because there’s no brain in there, right? And, I see the Spalding manuscript theory just keep coming and coming, but the methodological problems with Vernal Holley’s maps are multitudinous..."
Response to claim: "FairMormon’s strawman that these towns/cities were discovered only through maps may not be...how Holley found some of the towns"
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:
Vernal Holley is dead. We can’t contact him to find out exactly where he got his sources. FairMormon’s strawman that these towns/cities were discovered only through maps may not be FairMormon as to (sic) how Holley found some of the towns. He may have used letters, newspapers, post office records, obituaries, local city/county library records, etc. in which records and books are not accessible online. We do not know.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
The author's claim is false based upon Vernal Holley's own claims: We do know that Holley used modern maps, because Holley himself told us. Holley may be dead, but the book he wrote in which he proposed his theory is available online. Vernal Holley, in his book Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look[211], states explicitly that he does use "modern names" and "modern maps" to make his comparison. This is particularly evident in his comparisons of the names "Angola" and "Tecumseh," both of which Holley states he has taken from modern maps or locations, and neither of which existed under those names at the time that the Book of Mormon was published.
Logical Fallacy: Burden of Proof—The author assumes that the burden of proof is not his or her responsibility, but rather the responsibility of someone else who must disprove the claim.
This is a feeble attempt to "debunk" the FairMormon response to Holley by throwing in a list of possibilities with no supporting evidence.
Question: Does Vernal Holley rely on modern maps to create his comparison of actual place names with Book of Mormon names?
Holley claims to have obtained his names from gazetteers that were available in Joseph Smith's time, however he uses "modern maps" and "modern place names" as the basis for his comparison
One critic of Mormonism challenges the idea that Vernal Holley obtained his place names from modern maps:
Vernal Holley is dead. We can’t contact him to find out exactly where he got his sources. FairMormon’s strawman that these towns/cities were discovered only through maps may not be...how Holley found some of the towns. He may have used letters, newspapers, post office records, obituaries, local city/county library records, etc. in which records and books are not accessible online. We do not know.[212]
However, Holley himself claims to have used modern maps and modern place names in his comparison. Holley claims that "The following modern place names are actually located in the area of Spaulding's Manuscript Story setting. All but a few can be found in gazetteers published prior to the Book of Mormon." [213] Holley does not list the gazetteers that he used. Holley indicates that he is comparing "Modern Maps" against the "Book of Mormon."
An image of a transcription of Vernal Holley's book Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look hosted on Dale Broadhurst's site http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/vernP3.htm#pg6061
Holley states that he is using modern maps and locations in his comments regarding the cities of Angola and Tecumseh: both are names that weren't assigned to those locations until many years after the Book of Mormon was published
Holley points out that the present day city of Angola, New York is a possible match for a Book of Mormon location. He notes the location of the city on "modern maps". Holley states,
The present day city of Angola, New York, is located west of the Genesee (Sidon?) River and south ["in the borders"] of the proposed land of Zarahemla. This is another example of the many actual locations in the Great Lakes area that can be located on modern maps by following geographical information in the Book of Mormon. [213]
However, when one looks up the Wikipedia entry for Angola, New York, it becomes evident that the name "Angola" was not established until approximately 1854, twenty-four years after the Book of Mormon was published. Wikipedia notes,
The community was previously called "Evans Station." In 1854 or 1855, a post office was established there, bearing the name Angola. [214]
Holley makes the same error in relying on modern maps with the city of Tecumseh, Canada. In his book Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look, Holley claims,
Teancum, a Book of Mormon city located in a land called Desolation, within the north country, was "in the borders by the seashore" (Mormon 4:3). It was named after Teancum, who fought and died in the land Desolation while helping the Nephite military commander, Moroni, contain the Lamanites who were trying to gain access to the "land northward" (Alma, Chapters 50-62).
The modern city of Tecumseh [Tenecum] is located in Canada (the land to the north), by "the borders" of Canada and the United States, and by "the seashore." It was named after the great Shawnee Indian chief, who fought and died as a military commander under the British in the War of 1812, while helping their forces contain the Americans, who were trying to gain access to British territory in Canada. [213]
Once again, a check of the city's history on Wikipedia reveals that the name "Tecumseh" wasn't assigned to the area until 1912, eighty-two years after the Book of Mormon was published.
In 1792, Tecumseh, then known as Ryegate Postal Station, had only three families. In 1912. Ryegate Postal Station was renamed Tecumseh in honour of Tecumseh, leader of the Shawnee Tribe who was killed at battle in the War of 1812. [215]
Response to claim: "The largest city and capital of Comoros (formerly 'Camora')? Moroni"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
The largest city and capital of Comoros (formerly 'Camora')? Moroni.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
In addition to the capital city "Moroni," one of the islands in the Comoros archipelago has an anchorage named "Meroni."
Question: Could Joseph Smith have acquired the names "Moroni" and "Cumorah" from a map of the Comoro archipelago off the coast of Africa?
Comoros is a small nation made up of three islands off the southeast coast of Africa. Prior to French occupation it was named "Camora". Its capital city is Moroni and Moroni is located on the largest island of Comoros named Grand Comore.
Some have argued that Joseph Smith cribbed and spun names from stories about Captain Kidd, a famous pirate and treasure-hunter, to get Cumorah and Moroni in the Book of Mormon.
Some have claimed that Joseph Smith, motivated by and fascinated by the stories of Captain Kidd, created the Book of Mormon names Cumorah and Moroni by cribbing them from a map of the Comoros islands in which Kidd is known to have ventured.
Some have argued even still that, besides the Captain Kidd stories and the maps, that Joseph could have heard stories of Moroni and Cumorah from American whalers who passed through Palmyra.
The stories of Captain Kidd do not mention Camora/Comoro/Comoros Islands nor Moroni/Maroni/Meroni. Thus, the argument is one from silence. Those who propose that Joseph obtained the names "Cumorah" and "Moroni" from stories of Captain Kidd fail to cite any sources and then demonstrate that Joseph had access to them. For more detail on this claim, see: Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd and the Comoro archipelago.
The settlement of "Moroni" was first established in the 12th or 13th century AD. It did not become the capital city of the Comoros Islands and Comore until 1876 (32 years after Joseph's death and 47 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon). The possibility of Joseph seeing the names on a map is remote at best. It has not even been proved that Joseph ever saw the names, or that any source available to him linked them. We do find that the island of Joanna aka Anjouan (another island within the archipelago) has a port named "Meroni" which Joseph could have utilized. However, the connection fails when we recognize that Joseph's only real motivation for looking at such maps would be spurned by the mention of them in the Captain Kidd stories. Additionally, in order to connect the mention of both names in some form, two maps would need to be utilized. One would be an 1810 map that contains the name Camora to refer to the islands. A second map of Anjouan (which three maps existed of during the 18th century) would have to be located and consulted to find the tiny mention of the anchorage of "Meroni" in the Northwest part of Anjouan. It's a lot of steps to take to find two names and spin them into Moroni and Cumorah and they remain without motivation if one excludes the Captain Kidd stories from considerations during argument. Some have taken the majority printing of "Camorah" in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon to further bolster their position of Joseph using the name "Camora" from the 1810 map to create the name. But the argument is significantly weakened when one notes that Oliver Cowdery claimed that this was a printing error and his statement is supported by the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon in which it is spelled "Cumorah" six times, "Camorah" once, and "Comorah" twice.
The argument about whalers is yet another argument from silence and/or appeal to probability. Just because American whalers were in the vicinity of Joseph, doesn't mean that he spoke to them. Indeed, there is no evidence that moves Joseph into the vicinity of one of these professionals and puts him in conversation with one of them.
Question: Were the names "Moroni" and "Cumorah" available on maps accessible to Joseph Smith?
Modern map of the Comoros Islands
The Comoro archipelago consists of the islands of Grande Comore (Great Comoro), Anjouan (also known as Johanna), Mohilla (Mohely), and Mayotte (Mayotta). They are located at the head of the Mozambique Channel off the coast of Africa. The current capitol, shown on modern maps, is the city of Moroni.
This claim, like many efforts to explain away the Book of Mormon, commits the logical fallacy of the Appeal to probability. This fallacy argues that because something is even remotely possible, it must be true.
When the facts are examined, the possibility of Joseph seeing Comoros and Moroni recedes; the idea becomes unworkable. The following gazetteers from Joseph's era were consulted:
Title
Relevant Contents
Mucullock's Universal Gazateer, 2 vols (1843-4)
2257 pages of double columned miniscule print, with no reference to Comoros Islands or Moroni.
Morris' Universal Gazateer (1821)
831 pages, no mention of Comoros or Moroni
Brookes Gazateer
1794 edition
Comora on p. 400, no mention of Moroni
1819 edition
Comora, no mention of Moroni
1835 edition
Comoro on p. 214, no mention of Moroni
1843 edition
Comoro, no mention of Moroni
There is no evidence that Joseph saw these maps, or any other, but if he had they would have provided little help.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that any source would have contained the name of "Moroni." That settlement did not become the capital city until 1876 (32 years after Joseph's death and 47 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon), when Sultan Sa'id Ali settled there. At that time it was only a small settlement. Even a century later, in 1958, its population was only 6500.
The name "Meroni" on the Comoros island of Anjouan
As previously noted, it is unlikely that any map of the Comoro Archiplego available to Joseph Smith would have contained the name of "Moroni." The capitol city of Moroni was unlikely to have been present on early maps of the Comoros Islands in the 1700's. However, the name "Meroni" actually did appear in a different location on one of the other Comoros Islands on maps dated to 1748, 1752 and 1755. The following 1748 map of the island of Anjouan (also known as Nzwani) has been noted by critics to contain the name "Meroni" or "Merone".[216]
The following map of Anjouan, dated to 1748, also contains the name "Merone."
It is unlikely that Joseph would have seen this, since the name "Comoro" on maps always appears to be associated with the main island "Grande Comore", while the settlement of "Meroni" on Anjoun is too small to appear on such maps showing all four islands. For example, the following 1749 maps of the Comoros clearly labels the main island as "Comore," but the scale of the island of Anjouan obscures the names of any settlements there. In order for Joseph to obtain the name "Meroni" or "Merone" from Anjouan, he would have been required to consult the Anjouan map directly make this connection, since it lists the name "Comore" at the top.
McGuire: "Anjouan, one of the Comoro islands, with an indicated anchorage identified as Meroni"
Ben McGuire:
Additionally the capitol city Moroni has not yet been found on any early map showing the Comoro Islands. Grunder notes in his discussion of the first map that “the Encyclopædia Britannica records volcanic eruptions beginning in 1830 on the island of Great Comoro (Grande Comore) where Maroni, the capitol of this territory (not shown on the map discussed here or on other period maps which I have examined), is located (Encyclopædia Britannica eleventh ed., 6:794–95, ‘Comoro Islands’)” (2008, p. 63). More recently, Mike Reed located an eighteenth century map of Anjouan, one of the Comoro islands, with an indicated anchorage identified as Meroni. Although this is adjacent to an entirely different island than the one with the city Moroni, it does demonstrate that if all we are concerned with is identifying homonyms, eventually we will find what we are looking for.74
The interesting corollary is that while we find this rather small location indicated on this map, the present day capitol of Comoro, Moroni, has yet to be found on any maps contemporary with the publication of the Book of Mormon, and while this isn’t a guarantee that it won’t be found (it wouldn’t surprise me if it were), it does indicate that its importance was far less than it is today. [217]
Question: Could Joseph Smith have heard the names "Moroni" and "Cumorah" from American whalers?
There is another speculation put forth non-Mormons regarding how Joseph Smith might have heard the names "Moroni" and "Cumorah" that is not related to Captain Kidd. The assumption made on one website is that he "heard about these exotic places from stories of American whalers." [218] The website notes that "The Comoro islands were visited by a large number of American whaling ships beginning before the appearance of The Book of Mormon. Sailors aboard these ships, when they returned to the whaling ports of New England, told of their adventures in the western Indian Ocean and by the time The Book of Mormon first appeared in the 1820s, both Moroni and Comoro were words known to some Americans living in the eastern United States."[218] One would have to assume, however, that Joseph came into contact with "some Americans living in the eastern United States" who were familiar with the names. Such a connection is simply pure conjecture.
On the other hand, the same website also provides a useful background on the meaning of the names:
It should be first noted that the word, 'moroni', has a meaning. The word is from the group of languages spoken in the Comoro Islands and found in Swahili, as well. Translating into English, it means "at the place of fire." It is constructed of the root 'moro,' which means "fire" or "heat" and the locative '-ni,' which has the meaning "at the place of". Thus, constructed from the morphemes of the local languages ‘Moroni’ reflects the fact that it is located at the base of one of the world’s largest active volcanos. It should also be noted that the name, 'Moroni', is found on European maps as early as the middle of the 18th century and noted by travelers as the capital of a Sultan on the island of Ngazidja. The name, 'Comoro', also has a similar meaning in the local languages. It is composed of an old Swahili locative 'ko-' and the word 'moro' meaning "the place of fire." This name has been around since ancient times and can be found on Arabic maps published over a thousand years ago. [218]
This supports the idea that the names "Moroni" and "Comoro" are of authentic ancient origin. See also the entries under cumorah, and moroni from the Book of Mormon Onomasticon.
Response to claim: "the uniform spelling for Hill Cumorah in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is spelled as 'Camorah'"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
the uniform spelling for Hill Cumorah in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is spelled as 'Camorah'.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
Oliver Cowdery acknowledged this as a spelling error. Changing the spelling to "Cumorah" actually made the name consistent with other Book of Mormon names.
Question: Why was the name "Cumorah" originally spelled "Camorah" in the 1830 Book of Mormon?
Oliver Cowdery stated that this was an error in spelling
In order to more closely associate the Book of Mormon with the Comoros Islands, Grant Palmer and other critics note that "Cumorah" is spelled "Camorah" in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. Recall that the Comoros were most often called "Camora" prior to French occupation in the 1840s. The name "Cumorah" figures 9 times in the Book of Mormon text, all within the book of Mormon.
1830 Book of Mormon showing the spelling "Camorah"
By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the book of Mormon you will read Mormon's account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped round this hill Cumorah. (It is printed Camorah, which is an error.)
This assertion from Oliver matches evidence from the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon where the name is spelled "Camorah" once, "Cumorah" seven times, and "Comorah" twice.[219] The portion of the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon containing the book of Mormon is no longer extant. There were three scribes for the Printer's Manuscript: Oliver Cowdery, and unknown scribe, and Hyrum Smith.[220] The unknown scribe is the one that copied this portion of the book of Mormon from the Original Manuscript to the Printer's Manuscript. This unknown scribe may have been Martin Harris.[221] Royal Skousen argues persuasively that Oliver Cowdery likely meant to spell it "Cumorah" all nine times in the original manuscript and that Harris (when copying the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript) and the typesetter for the Book of Mormon, John Gilbert (when setting the type for the Book of Mormon), thought that some of Cowdery's uses of the letter "u" looked like uses of the letter "o" and "a". Cowdery also sometimes actually did write the wrong letter.[222] These may be the result of Oliver mishearing the pronunciation of Book of Mormon names by Joseph Smith as he dictated the text of the Book of Mormon.
Further, the use of "Cumorah" brings the name into greater parallel with other names in the Book of Mormon including:
CUMENI
CUMENIHAH
CUMOMS
KISHKUMEN
KUMEN
KUMENONHI
PACUMENI
RIPLIANCUM
TEANCUM
We don't have a Book of Mormon name that includes "cam" or "kam" in its spelling. All names have a u.
There are "com" names in the Book of Mormon such as:
COM
COMNOR
JACOM
But, again, the textual evidence documented by Royal Skousen above argues against the name being Comorah first and then changed later to Cumorah.
Response to claim: "'Camora' and settlement 'Moroni' were common names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
'Camora' and settlement 'Moroni' were common names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd (a pirate and treasure hunter) which many 19th century New Englanders – especially treasure hunters – were familiar with.
FAIR's 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
The spin: This connection is an extrapolation by critics based upon the known fact that Kidd operated in the vicinity of the Comoros archipelago, with no supporting evidence.The facts: Actually, the names "Camora" and "Moroni" and their variants do not appear to be accessible in pirate and treasure hunting stories about Captain Kidd.
Question: Could Joseph Smith have acquired the names "Moroni" and "Cumorah" from stories of Captain Kidd that he read in his youth?
Captain William Kidd is known to have operated in the vicinity of the Comoro archipelago. One author notes that "During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Comoros, and especially Anjouan, were popular as both a hunting ground and headquarters for Indian Ocean pirates." [223]
Ex-Mormon Grant Palmer asserts that Joseph Smith acquired the names "Cumorah" and "Moroni" by reading stories of Captain Kidd in his youth. Palmer concludes that it is "reasonable to assert that Joseph Smith's hill in the "land of Camorah" [Comorah/Cumorah], "city of Moroni," and "land of Moroni/Meroni," is connected with the ilhas [islands] de Comoro"/"Camora," the Moroni/Meroni settlements, and these pirate adventures. [224]
Critic Ronald V. Huggins asserts that Captain Kidd was "hanged for crimes allegedly committed in the vicinity of Moroni on Grand Comoro." [225]
The primary inspiration for stories about Captain Kidd, A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates, fails to mention the names "Comoro" and "Moroni/Meroni/Maroni"
The primary inspiration for Captain Kidd stories and legends, Charles Johnson's 1724 book A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates, fails to mention the names "Comoro" and "Moroni/Meroni/Maroni" in conjunction with Kidd's exploits. It is the responsibility of those who make this claim to produce some sort of documentary evidence that these names existed in stories that were available to Joseph Smith.
Positive evidence against this claim
The Book of Mormon Onomasticon project done through Brigham Young University gives compelling etymologies for the names Moroni and Cumorah.
"Other Mormon scholars who have written on this..."
It is claimed by some critics that "For some Mormon apologists, the evidence is so compelling [that Captain Kidd stories influenced these names] that they have suggested that Lehi and his family may have encountered the Comoros islands on their initial voyage from the Arabian Peninsula to the western hemisphere, and that the Nephite civilization therefore may have retained a collective knowledge of the names of "Comoros" and "Moroni".[226]
This is in line with a Wikipedia article that states the following:
Alternative origin of the name
Close-up of 1808 map of Africa with the small Comoros islands labelled "Camora" (near center, just below marked line of latitude)
Grant H. Palmer has theorized that Smith created the name "Cumorah" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd, because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands (known by the Arabic name, Camora, prior to being occupied by the French in 1841). Previous to announcing his discovery of the Book of Mormon, Smith had spent several years employed as a treasure seeker. Since the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon printed the name "Cumorah" as "Camorah," it has been suggested that Smith used the name of the islands and applied it to the hill where he found buried treasure—the golden plates. Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the name of a settlement in the Comoros—Moroni—and applied it to the angel which led him to the golden plates.
Others posit that this line of argument commits the logical error of appeal to probability. They also point out that it is highly unlikely that Smith had access to material which would have referred to the then-small settlement of Moroni, particularly since it did not appear in most contemporary gazetteers. However, other Mormon authors have suggested that the ancestors of the Nephite people may have encountered the Comoros islands on their initial voyage from the Arabian Peninsula to the western hemisphere, and that the Nephite civilization therefore may have retained a collective knowledge of the names "Comoros" and "Moroni".[227]
Notice the very odd language from Wikipedia that seems to be trying to apply evidence from Mormon authors accepting the Capitan Kidd theories and stating that the Lehites may have stopped in this port to resupply. We go to the footnote for more information that reads:
One Mormon author suggests that Lehi and his family may have re-supplied at Moroni during the voyage: W. Vincent Coon, Choice Above All Other Lands, pg. 68; see also “How Exaggerated Setting for the Book of Mormon Came to Pass” and “A Feasible Voyage”. This position reflects the argument of others that the tradition that Lehi and his company voyaged across the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and finally the Pacific Ocean is "extreme" and non-authoritative: May, Wayne N., THIS LAND: They Came from the East, Vol. 3, pp. 12–15; Olive, P.C., The Lost Empires & Vanished Races of Prehistoric America, p. 39.
The first thing we can rule out with all confidence is that these men have connected the Capitain Kidd stories to the Book of Mormon. They're both still faithful and don't believe that Joseph plagiarized anything for the Book of Mormon. The next thing we need to learn is why they believe that the "tradition that Lehi and his company voyaged across the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean, and finally the Pacific Ocean is "extreme" and non-authoritative...". W. Vincent Coon and Wayne May are researchers for the Book of Mormon that believe that the Book of Mormon took place in the Heartland geography (which encompasses primarily the Eastern to Mid United States). They were trying to find evidence that the Lehites were able to sail southward, away from the Arabian peninsula, around Africa, and then come from the east, through the Atlantic Ocean, to the Florida Peninsula, and used this as evidence of that assertion. From the post cited by Wikipedia written by Coon:
One possible location where they may have re-supplied is the island of Grand Comore; about 200 miles off the eastern coast of Africa. The capitol port city of the island, by the way, has a Semitic name – "Moroni".[228]
This says nothing that could support a critical theory that the Capitan Kidd stories are supported by these men. It only says that there is a city, in Comore, with the name Moroni. And to reiterate, there are still no contemporary sources that tie Moroni and Comore in the same map. Critics that would like to argue that the men are using this as supporting critical assertions about the Capitan Kidd stories are seriously misreading their sources.
Question: What is the relationship between Captain Kidd and the Comoro archipelago?
Captain Kidd operated in the vicinity of the Comoro archipelago
One possibility advanced by critics is that Joseph learned the names "Comoro" and "Meroni" from stories of Captain Kidd. One author notes that "During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Comoros, and
especially Anjouan, were popular as both a hunting ground and headquarters for Indian Ocean pirates." [229] The island of Anjouan contained an anchorage named "Meroni." Typically, those that that claim that Camora and Moroni were "common names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd," do not cite a single source supporting their assertion that can be checked.
Pomeroy Tucker: "The stories of Stephen Burroughs and Captain Kidd, and the like, presented the highest charms for his expanding mental perceptions"
References to Joseph Smith being interested in the adventures of Captain Kidd come from some of his contemporaries years after the publication of the Book of Mormon. For example, Pomeroy Tucker in his 1867 book Origin, rise, and progress of Mormonism (37 years after the Book of Mormon was published and 23 years after Joseph's death), portrayed the Smith family as an "illiterate, whiskey-drinking, shiftless, irreligious race of people" and Joseph Smith, Jr. as the "laziest and most worthless of the generation." [230]:16 Tucker offers this insight regarding the young Joseph Smith and Captain Kidd:
Joseph, moreover, as he grew in years, had learned to read comprehensively, in which qualification he was far in advance of his elder brother, and even of his father; and this talent was assiduously devoted, as he quitted or modified his idle habits, to the perusal of works of fiction and records of criminality, such for instance as would be classed with the "dime novels" of the present day. The stories of Stephen Burroughs and Captain Kidd, and the like, presented the highest charms for his expanding mental perceptions. As he further advanced in reading and knowledge, he assumed a spiritual or religious turn of mind, and frequently perused the Bible...[230]:17
Noted here is that the first “dime novel” did not appear until 1860. See Wikipedia article "Dime novel" off-site
Given the common belief that Captain Kidd had hidden treasure somewhere on the east coast, it is not unreasonable to assume that Joseph was familiar with the stories
We would, of course, dispute Tucker's late portrayal of the Smith family as lazy and shiftless, as would the contemporaneous historical records (which are more reliable than late, hostile testimony obviously designed to discredit the Smiths).
However, knowing that Joseph was involved in treasure seeking, and that the great motivation for much of the treasure seeking being performed at the time was the result of a common belief that Captain Kidd had hidden treasure somewhere on the east coast of the United States, it is not unreasonable to assume that Joseph was familiar with the stories.
The legend of Captain Kidd and his buried treasure was, in great part, inspired by Charles Johnson's 1724 book A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates, which does not mention "Comoros" or "Moroni"
The legend of Captain Kidd and his buried treasure was, in great part, inspired by Charles Johnson's 1724 book A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates.[231] The book recounted the exploits of a number of well known pirates, including Captain Kidd. Johnson's book is said to have contributed to a number of fictionalized stories about Captain Kidd that became popular during Joseph Smith's time. However, the section of this book dealing with Captain Kidd offers little information regarding Comoro or Meroni. In fact, when referring to Kidd's interaction with the Comoros, it only refers to the individual islands by name without mentioning the name "Meroni" or "Maroni" at all. As an example from Johnson’s book:
It does not appear all this while that [Captain Kidd] had the least design of turning Pirate; for near Mahala and Joanna both he met with Indian ships richly laden, to which he did not offer the least violence.[232]
So here we have a reference to Joanna or Anjouan, this has been claimed to be a "direct connection" to Meroni[233] however it is hardly such.. The name "Joanna" refers to one of the islands in the Comoros Archipelago. In fact, "Joanna" (or "Johanna") is the island of Anjouan, upon which the anchorage "Meroni" is located. Charles Johnson's book, however, would not offer the reader one detail: the names "Comoro" and "Meroni" are never even mentioned. If Joseph Smith learned these names from fictional stories relating the tales of Captain Kidd recounted in novels inspired by Johnson's book, how would such stories even contain these names? Where is the "dime novel"? These questions need to be answered. Since the names aren't included in the stories, the critics often have to do some story-telling and combine a few separate arguments to make the case. The argument usually proceeds as follows.
Premise 1: Joseph was likely familiar with the stories of Captain Kidd who operated in the vicinity of the the Comoro Archipelago and... (see premise 2)
Premise 2: Joseph may have been inspired by the stories so much to look at maps of these places where Captain Kidd had sailed and been inspired by the names Comore which is the name of the main island of the archipelago and perhaps Moroni which is its capital.
Premise 3: If Joseph did not get the name Moroni from the island of Comore, then he probably turned to maps of the island of Anjouan in the comoro archipelago which had a small anchorage named "Meroni" and combined the names.
Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that Joseph had access to and used these names in his "creation" of the Book of Mormon.
So, where do we (as apologists) differ in our assessment?
Premise 1: It isn't unreasonable to assume that Joseph was familiar with the stories of Captain Kidd. However, to date, no evidence has arisen that A) The stories of Captain Kidd themselves contained these names B) The source for which the stories are inspired contain these names. So at this point it's more than unlikely that he goes to maps to look for these names. If a critic had both the presence of names in the stories then the theory about the maps works better. Since we don't have that, there's a big explosion in the theory right here.
Premise 2 and 3: Appeals to probability framed like this are only as good as the documentation that can be provided to move a character towards a particular place at a given time. The claim that Joseph "may" have looked at these maps is smoke in mirrors. There needs to be some source to make this anything more than a smoke screen--meant to distract or add to a shotgun list of claims rather than be honest and coherent in argumentation. There needs to be something that actually connects or comes close to connecting Joseph with these maps. So this argument is flawed by only appeals to probability at best or flawed by the appeal to probability and an argument from silence at worst. Even if he did find these maps, they would have provided little help. But let's assume now that Joseph saw the maps. He would have had to have A) Seen a map of the Comoros archipelago with the Grand Comore island and Moroni as capital city (Moroni as capital city cannot be found as capital of Grand Comore until a few decades after the death of Joseph Smith) or, after looking at this map that supposedly would have the name Comoro and Comore, he would have to have B) Chosen the island of Anjouan out of the four islands in that archipelago, where the name "Meroni" is but a small anchorage at the Northeast corner of the Island, and found a map that contained that name. He has to either see both names on the map of the Comoro Archipelago or have combined the names from separate maps of the entire archipelago and the island of Anjouan. The first option is nearly impossible and the second is very improbable.
Premise 4: As stated for premise 2 and 3 an appeal to probability in this case is only as good as the documentation that can move the character towards a particular objective at a given time. There needs to be evidence that can at least put Joseph close to these people to make the argument compelling.
Conclusion: The argument is full of too many appeals to probability and arguments from silence that the idea is unlikely at best and completely unworkable at worst. Additionally, there is positive evidence against this claim in the form of compelling etymologies (found here, here, and, oddly enough, from a critical website, a citation from which can be found here.)
Question: Was Captain Kidd "hanged for crimes allegedly committed in the vicinity of Moroni on Grand Comoro?"
Kidd was hanged for the murder of his ship's gunner...This act occurred at sea in the vicinity of the Comoro archipelago, not at "Moroni on Grand Comoro"
Was Captain Kidd, as Ronald Huggins asserts, "hanged for crimes allegedly committed in the vicinity of Moroni on Grand Comoro?" Technically, one could answer "yes" - he was certainly "in the vicinity" of the Comoros at the time. However, Kidd was hanged for the murder of his ship's gunner, William Moore, during a mutiny. Kidd was declared a pirate only after he seized the ship Quedah Merchant in 1698. This act occurred at sea in the vicinity of the Comoro archipelago, not at "Moroni on Grand Comoro." None of these actions related to the city of Moroni. The association of these events with "Moroni on Grand Comoro" is an unsupported assertion by the author Huggins, and these specific names have nothing to do with Kidd's execution. This seems to be an attempt by Huggins to more closely tie Kidd's execution with Joseph Smith and Mormonism.
Response to claim: "'View of the Hebrews' compared to the Book of Mormon"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
'View of the Hebrews' compared to the Book of Mormon
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
The two books are so different that BYU actually republished it so that it could be made more widely available to those who wanted to compare them.
Criticisms related to View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon
It is claimed that a 19th century work by Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews, provided source material for Joseph Smith's construction of the Book of Mormon.
Some also postulate a link between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, since both men lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended at the time that View of the Hebrews was being written.
Many of the criticisms proposed are based upon B. H. Roberts' list of parallels, which only had validity if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon
The View of the Hebrews theory is yet another attempt to fit a secular origin to the Book of Mormon. Many of the criticisms proposed are based upon B. H. Roberts' list of parallels, which only had validity if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon. There are a significant number of differences between the two books, which are easily discovered upon reading Ethan Smith's work. Many points that Ethan Smith thought were important are not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon, and many of the "parallels" are no longer valid based upon current scholarship.[234]
Advocates of the Ethan Smith theory must also explain why Joseph, the ostensible forger, had the chutzpah to point out the source of his forgery. They must also explain why, if Joseph found this evidence so compelling, he did not exploit it for use in the Book of Mormon text itself, since the Book of Mormon contains no reference to the many "unparallels" that Ethan assured his readers virtually guaranteed a Hebrew connection to the Amerindians.
Question: Was the View of the Hebrews theory of Book of Mormon origin advanced during the lifetime of Joseph Smith?
The theory the Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews was never advanced during Joseph Smith's lifetime
The theory the Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews was never advanced during his lifetime. The prevailing theory of the day was the Spalding Theory, which quickly lost credibility upon the discovery of an actual Spalding manuscript in 1884 which bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. There are no records which indicate that Joseph Smith came into contact with the View of the Hebrews during the period of time that he was translating the Book of Mormon. The View of the Hebrews theory was in fact first proposed by I. Woodbridge Riley in 1902, 58 years after the death of the prophet.[235]
Joseph Smith quoted View of the Hebrews as supporting the Book of Mormon
There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon:
If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.][236]
It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?
Question: What did B.H. Roberts say about View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?
B.H. Roberts was playing "devil's advocate" when he examined View of the Hebrews, and showing what a critic might do
The View of the Hebrews theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled Book of Mormon Difficulties and A Parallel. Roberts, who believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. Roberts stated,
[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[237]
Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, that View of the Hebrews could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a limited geography theory is considered. The acceptance of the View of the Hebrews theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the Book of Mormon. In order to promote View of the Hebrews as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the Book of Mormon.
Roberts rejected the idea that the Book of Mormon was not divine
In 1985, Roberts' manuscripts were published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book is used by critics to support their claim that B. H. Roberts lost his testimony after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the Book of Mormon until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.
Question: What are the similarities and differences between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?
Examples of parallels and differences
Some parallels do exist between the two books. For example, View of the Hebrews postulates the existence of a civilized and a barbarous nation who were constantly at war with one another, with the civilized society eventually being destroyed by their uncivilized brethren. This has obvious similarities to the story of the Nephites and the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon.
"Parallels" that actually aren't parallels
Many of the "parallels" that are discussed are not actually parallels at all once they are fully examined:
Both speak of...
View of the Hebrews
Book of Mormon
...the destruction of Jerusalem...
...by the Romans in A.D. 70.
...by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
...Israelites coming to the American continent...
...via dry land across the Bering Strait.
...via the ocean on board a ship.
...colonists spread out to fill the entire land...
...from the North to the South.
...from the South to the North.
...a great lawgiver (whom some assume to be associated with the legend of Quetzalcoatl)...
...who is identified as Moses.
...who is identified as Jesus Christ.
...an ancient book that was preserved for a long time and then buried...
...because they had lost the knowledge of reading it and it would be of no further use to them. [238]
...in order to preserve the writings of prophets for future generations.
...a buried book taken from the earth...
...in the form of four, dark yellow, folded leaves of old parchment.[239]
...in the form of a set of gold metal plates.
...the Egyptian language, since
...an Egyptian influence is present in hieroglyphic paintings made by native Americans.[240]
...a reformed Egyptian was used to record a sacred history.
Parallels that are everywhere
Some "parallels" between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews are actually parallels with the Bible as well:
The Book of Mormon
View of the Hebrews
The King James Bible
The Book of Mormon tells the story of inspired seers and prophets.
View of the Hebrews talks of Indian traditions that state that their fathers were able to foretell the future and control nature.
The Bible tells the story of inspired seers and prophets.
The Book of Mormon was translated by means of the Nephite interpreters, which consisted of two stones fastened to a breastplate, and later by means of a seer stone, both of which were later referred to by the name "Urim and Thummim" three years after the translation was completed.
View of the Hebrews describes a breastplate with two white buttons fastened to it as resembling the Urim and Thummim.
The Bible describes the Urim and Thummim as being fastened to a breastplate (Exodus 28:30).
This highlights the fact that general parallels are likely to be found between works that treat the same types of subjects, such as ancient history. In what ancient conflict did one side not see themselves as representing light and civilization against the dark barbarism of their enemies?
"Unparallels"
Critics generally ignore the presence of many "unparallels"—these are elements of Ethan Smith's book which would have provided a rich source of material for Joseph to use in order to persuade his contemporaries that the Book of Mormon was an ancient history of the American Indians, and that they were descended from Israel. Yet, the Book of Mormon consistently ignores such supposed "bulls-eyes," which is good news for proponents of the Book of Mormon's authenticity, since virtually all of Ethan's "evidences" have been judged to be false or misleading.
The lack of such "unparallels" is bad news, however, for anyone wanting to claim that Joseph got his inspiration or information from Ethan Smith.
Scripture use in View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon
If the View of the Hebrews served as the basis for the Book of Mormon, one would think that the Bible scriptures used by Ethan Smith would be mined by Joseph Smith for the Book of Mormon. Yet, this is not the case.
No contemporary critic of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon pointed out the supposedly "obvious" connection to the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. It is only with the failure of the Spaulding theory that critics began seeking a new naturalistic explanation for Joseph's production of a 500+ book of scripture. As Stephen Ricks notes:
Beyond these "unparallels," there is a further question that must be answered by proponents of the View of the Hebrews hypothesis: why do none of the early critics of the Book of Mormon mention Ethan Smith in their attacks on it? If the parallels are so evident, why weren't they noticed by individuals who were not only acquainted with Ethan Smith's book, but were also existentially interested in its claims? Why wasn't it prominently mentioned as a source for the Book of Mormon until the beginning of the twentieth century, when the book itself had only an antiquarian interest and its contents were no longer so widely a part of popular discussion? My suspicion is that what appear today to be "distinctives" of View of the Hebrews, eschatological and otherwise, seemed less so in the early part of the nineteenth century, when these ideas flowed freely in published and unpublished forums.[241]
Question: Has the book View of the Hebrews been readily available?
Because availability was limited, BYU's Religious Studies Center re-published the 1825 edition of View of the Hebrews in 1996
The View of the Hebrews theory became more popular as the availability of the book itself diminished. The best evidence that argues against View of the Hebrews as the primary source for the Book of Mormon is a reading of the text itself, yet the ability to access that text had become more difficult over the years. In order to provide the interested reader with the ability to decide for themselves, BYU's Religious Studies Center re-published the 1825 edition of View of the Hebrews in 1996.[242] It is also available at wikisource.
Question: Is there a link between Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews, and Oliver Cowdery?
Both Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended
Critics postulate a link between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, since both men lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended at the time that View of the Hebrews was being written. Beyond speculation based upon this circumstantial evidence, there is no indication of a connection between View of the Hebrews, Oliver Cowdery, and the Book of Mormon.
This article from BYU Studies shows that the type of connection that critics align with Oliver and Ethan almost certainly did not exist.
Testimony from Lorenzo Saunders
At least one critic has attempted to place Oliver Cowdery on the Joseph Smith farm beginning in 1826 based on the testimony of one Lorenzo Saunders to strengthen the supposed connection between Ethan Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and the origins of the Book of Mormon.[243] Dan Vogel writes:
On 19 Janaury 1885, Thomas Gregg of Hamilton, Hancock County, Illinois, wrote to Lorenzo Saunders living near Reading, Michigan, requesting information about Mormon origins. Gregg's letter, as reproduced by Charles A. Shook reads as follows:
Charles A. Shook wrote an expose of Mormonism in 1914 called The True Origin Of The Book of Mormon. He quoted this letter from Lorenzo (brother-in-law to Sally and Willard Chase —the same Chases who had trouble with Joseph) as a means of placing Oliver close to Joseph Smith in years before the publication of the Book of Mormon. However, as Vogel himself writes as commentary in a footnote to this letter:
4. Saunders' claim that Cowdery first came to Palmyra and Manchester in the summer of 1826 is not corroborated in any other source. However, it is known that Cowdery's brother Lyman was in the area as early as 1825 and possibly taught school in Manchester prior to Oliver's arrival for the 1828-1829 winter term. This is another example of Saunders' tendency to remember things in conformity with the demands of his interviewers, which should be considered when assessing his statements regarding Rigdon's appearances in the Palmyra/Manchester area (see note 10 below).[244]
Thus we have:
A late source as the letter comes a little more than 5 decades after Saunders was supposed to have seen Saunders on the farm.
A more than plausible alternative for this supposed presence of Oliver on the Smith farm in 1826 which Saunders can easily misremember or remember in conformity with the demands of the situation which, as Vogel notes, is something he was wont to do.
This source is nearly worthless in establishing anything of value in the historical record. Any claims of the evidence being "inconclusive" for Oliver's presence on the Smith farm or meeting Joseph before 1829 based upon this source are of the the same value.
Response to claim: "'They borrowed from early 19th century Methodist evangelical camp meetings and the Second Great Awakening in Joseph's 'burnt over district' backyard."
The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking (Debunking FairMormon) (20 July 2014 Revision) make(s) the following claim:
"The evidence does not support that Joseph & Co. copied everything from one single source. The evidence supports that Joseph & Co. borrowed a few things here and a few things there...They borrowed from early 19th century Methodist camp meetings and the Second Great Awakening in Joseph's 'burnt over district' backyard."
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
1) The evidence does not support this assertion made by critics from time to time that Joseph was present at these meetings 2) The similarities between these camp meetings and details in the Book of Mormon are superficial 3) There are ancient parallels that may provide positive evidence against this claim
Question: Was Bishop M'Kendree, a Methodist revivalist preacher, the model for King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon?
The parallels between the Methodist camp meeting at which M'Kendree appeared and King Benjamin's speech are general, sometimes manufactured, and likely coincidental
It is claimed by some who believe that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon on his own, that Bishop M'Kendree—a Methodist revivalist preacher in Joseph Smith's era—was the model for "King Benjamin" in the Book of Mormon. An account by from Benjamin Paddock is usually cited in support of this claim. M'Kendree appeared at a Methodist camp meeting that was held one mile from Palmyra, New York, on 7 June 1826.
The parallels between the Methodist camp meeting and King Benjamin's speech are general, sometimes manufactured, and likely coincidental.
There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was even in the area in which the conference occurred.
The critics confuse and combine different events and do not accurately report those events.
The critics misreport the events in ways that seem calculated to make them seem more like the Book of Mormon than they were.
The matter for which the conference was talked about had nothing to do with the matter which the critics try to make the source for the Book of Mormon.
As with many of Grant Palmer's comparisons, once one takes the time to look at the comparison that he makes, and the actual sources he uses, one finds that the argument is not as compelling as Palmer believes it to be. This is not to say that there aren't some parallels, but let us first look at matters which Palmer must address before we can give much weight to his claim.
Historical background of the Methodist Camp meeting and M'Kendree's participation in it
Here is the historical background from Palmer:
Protestant concepts appear to abound in his discourses and experiences. For example, a Methodist camp meeting was held one mile from Palmyra, New York, on 7 June 1826 - a pivotal time in Joseph's life. Preparations for a camp meeting included leasing and consecrating the ground. Thus the "ground within the circle of the tents is considered sacred to the worship of God, and is our chapel." The Methodists referred to these "consecrated grounds" as their "House of God" or temple. The Palmyra camp meeting reportedly attracted over 10,000 people. Families came from all parts of the 100-mile conference district and pitched their tents facing the raised "stand" where the preachers were seated, including one named Benjamin G. Paddock (fig. 20). This large crowd heard the "valedictory" or farewell speech of their beloved "Bishop M'Kendree [who] made his appearance among us for the last time." He was the Methodist leader who "had presided" over the area for many years. The people had such reverence for this "sainted" man "that all were melted, and ... awed in his presence." In his emaciated and "feeble" condition, he spoke of his love for the people and then delivered a powerful message that covered "the whole process of personal salvation." Tremendous unity prevailed among the crowd, and "nearly every unconverted person on the ground" committed oneself to Christ. At the close of the meeting, the blessings and newly appointed "Stations of the Preachers" were made for the Ontario district.[245]
We can see where he wants to put emphasis for our easy comparison. Palmer's primary source is the memoir of this Benjamin G. Paddock. This book is available on-line.
It is unlikely that Joseph would have made the trip back to Palmyra to attend this event
The material cited by Palmer is on pages 177–181. A complete copy of this text is available in the wiki here (so that readers can examine it easily in its original context). Palmer actually seems far more concerned about making his parallels than he is about accuracy. Perhaps he believed that using an obscure source would allow him to be a little loose with the details. Here are three major problems with this particular little bit of text written by Palmer:
While Joseph Smith's home is in Palmyra in June of 1826, Joseph himself is boarding with his future Father-in-law Isaac Hales, in Harmony Pennsylvania in 1826. It seems unlikely that Joseph would have made the trip back to Palmyra to attend this event.
Can be seen from reading the full text, there are two concurrent events: The first is a Conference (an annual Conference for this religious group, much like LDS General Conference). For that event, there is a stage set up, the leading preachers are up on the stage, and some of them speak. The second is the camp meeting, which is associated with this first event. The camp meeting was held at the same time as the Conference, but it wasn't the same thing—and as Benjamin Paddock's memoir relates, "A great camp-meeting was held in connection with it. The ground was only about a mile from the village, so that members of the Conference not immediately and specially employed could take part in its services. At that early day, and previously, meetings of the kind were not unfrequently held in the neighborhood of our Annual Conferences; but the present one was exceptionally large." In other words, there was a camp that was often set up near the conference, and those who weren't tied up with the conference itself would go and preach to the crowd at the camp-meeting. The reason why this is interesting is that the camp meeting wasn't the reason why Bishop M'Kendree was there. And there isn't any indication that Bishop M'Kendree attended the camp meeting.
Palmer says that Bishop M'Kendree gives a farewell speech. The reports are conflicted. Paddock tells us (referring to the Conference) that: "He was too feeble to preside, and occupied the chair only once or twice, and then only for a few minutes at a time. Still, however, at the urgent request of Bishop Hedding and leading members of the Conference, he signed the Journals at the close of the session as one of its presiding officers. Brethren were anxious to secure at least his signature as a memorial of his visit." So, here, it isn't mentioned as a farewell speech, although he does get up once or twice it notes.
The other account comes from George Peck's 1860 book Early Methodism within the bounds of the old Genesee Conference from 1788 to 1828: or the first forty years of Wesleyan evangelism in northern Pennsylvania, central and western New York, and Canada on pages 509-510:
1826. The conference met at Palmyra, 7th of June. Bishops M'Kendree and Hedding were present.
This session of the conference is noticeable as the one in which Bishop M'Kendree made his appearance among us for the last time. He was at the first session and signed the journal. He had presided at the sessions up to the year 1816, inclusive, since which he had not paid us a visit. He came to take leave. He opened the first session, made an instructive address in the the form of an exposition upon the lesson read from the Scriptures, and finally gave us his valedictory. In the journal for Monday it is recorded that
Bishop M'Kendree delivered a very appropriate address to the members of this conference, which he supposed to be his valedictory." It did not prove to be, as he supposed, his valedictory! He appeared in the conference on the last day of the session, as the following record shows:
Bishop M'Kendree having addressed the conference on the importance of missionary exertions and Sunday schools, therefore,
Resolved, That this conference heartily concur in the sentiments expressed by the bishops, and pledge themselves to use their influence to promote the cause of missions and of Sunday schools throughout their respective circuits and stations."
So where does all of the stuff in Palmer's book come from about this farewell speech about "the whole process of personal salvation"?
So where does all of the stuff in Palmer come from about this farewell speech about "the whole process of personal salvation"? Well, that comes from Paddock's description of the camp meeting (not the conference) when on the Sabbath, five of the participants at the conference gave sermons at the camp meeting:
But the Sabbath was the great day of the feast. Beginning in the morning at eight o'clock, five sermons were preached before the services closed in the evning. Bishop Hedding and Dr. Bangs took the two appointments nearest the meridian of the day, and preached with even more than their ordinary freedom and power. At about five in the afternoon the stand was assigned to the Rev. Glezen Fillmore, then in the vigor of mature manhood, now - for he still lives, a blessing to the Church and the world - trembling on the extreme verge of time. The sermon was in his best stule - more carefully prepared and more effectively delivered than were his discourses generally. The latter part of it contemplated the whole process of personal salvation, from its incipiency to its consummation in the world of light."
So, according to the sources, it's not this Bishop M'Kendree who speaks on personal salvation, It is a Reverend Glezen Fillmore
So, it's not this Bishop M'Kendree who speaks on personal salvation, it's not even Benjamin Paddock (who it seems never addressed either the conference or the camp meeting - having only been in the ministry for two years at this point). It is a Reverend Glezen Fillmore, who wasn't feeble or old, but rather was in the prime of his life according to Paddock (he was actually 37 years old at the time), and he was preaching in Rochester in 1826 when he came to the conference.
Nowhere in either account is this man (Bishop M'Kendree) delivering a sermon on personal salvation
On top of all of this, Paddock describes an event at the conference which he calls remarkable:
The sermon was in his best style - more carefully prepared and more effectively delivered than were his discourses generally. The latter part of it contemplated the whole process of personal salvation, from its incipiency to its consummation in the world of light. Having traced the track of the believer, all along from the dawn of spiritual life till he had entered the land of Beulah, and was about to plume himself for his flight to the celestial city, the speaker paused as if struggling with irrepressible emotion, and, looking upward, exclaimed, "O God, hold thy servant together while for a moment he looks through the gates ajar into the New Jerusalem!"
To describe the effect would be quite impossible. A tide of emotion swept over the congregation that seemed to carry all before it. I was seated near Bishop Hedding, who, from fatigue, was reclining upon a bed under and a little to the rear of the stand. It had been noticed before that he was much affected by the sermon; but when the sentence given above was uttered, the tears almost literally spurted from his eyes, and his noble form shook as if under the resistless control of a galvanic battery. The Rev. Goodwin Stoddard exhorted, and invited seekers within the circle of prayer in front of the stand. Hundreds came forward; some said nearly every unconverted person on the ground. In the spring of 1828, when I was pastor in Rochester, the delegates from New England, on their way to the General Conference in Pittsburgh, called and spent the Sabbath with me. Almost the first thing they said after we met was, "Where is that brother that wanted God to hold him together while he looked into heaven a moment?" It seems that the good Bishop had reported the sermon in more circles than one, for others from the east made a similar inquiry.
This is the event for which this Conference with its camp-meeting was best remembered. So, nowhere in either account is this man (Bishop M'Kendree) delivering a sermon on personal salvation. His role in the community has been overstated by Palmer (he hasn't attended the previous seven conference between 1816 and 1826). Yes there are some similarities that can be drawn—but these are nothing but coincidental. Palmer is misrepresenting his sources to make the parallels seem much stronger (trying to make the platform stage of the conference resemble King Benjamin's tower, for example).
And, finally, this would have been more interesting if Joseph Smith had likely been present. But he probably wasn't, and what he would have heard about the conference might have been the remarkable event that Paddock refers to that was talked about for quite some time.
Question: Why would "camp meeting" elements appear in the story of King Benjamin's temple speech in the Book of Mormon?
The same elements that the critics consider 19th century attributes in the Book of Mormon are also evidences of ancient Israelite origin
Terryl Givens notes,
[A]lthough the content of the Alma conversion story suggests to some the influence of contemporary conditions, the account as narrated in the Book of Mormon exhibits a complex structure of inverted parallelism or chiasmus that has been persuasively connected to ancient Old World forms....The same story, in other words, is invoked as telling evidence of both nineteenth-century composition and authentically ancient origins. [Blake] Ostler sees an example of such divergent readings in King Benjamin's great temple speech (Mos 2-6), that incorporates elements common to Methodist camp meetings, but at least as convincing are more than a dozen formal elements of Israelite covenant renewal festivals contained in the speech.[246]
Response to claim: "'They borrowed from anti-Masonic sentiments of Joseph's time."
The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking (Debunking FairMormon) (20 July 2014 Revision) make(s) the following claim:
"The evidence does not support that Joseph & Co. copied everything from one single source. The evidence supports that Joseph & Co. borrowed a few things here and a few things there...They borrowed from anti-Masonic sentiments of Joseph's time."
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The author is referring to how it is claimed that the phrase "secret combinations" was used exclusively to refer to Freemasons in Joseph's day and how there are a few elements that critics believe suggest a relationship to the Book of Mormon. This is not true. The phrase was used to refer to other organizations as well before, during, and after the publication of the Book of Mormon. There are many reasons to believe that these elements did not come from anti-Masonic sentiments. Along with the articles listed below, we recommend the reader see this page from Book of Mormon Central and the cited scholarship which shows all the counter evidence to this claim.
Question: Are the Gadianton robbers in the Book of Mormon actually references to the anti-Masonic panic of Joseph Smith's era?
Joseph's contemporaries did not embrace the allegedly obvious link between the Book of Mormon and masonry
Some claim that the Gadianton robbers are thinly disguised references to the anti-Masonic panic of Joseph Smith's era. However, Joseph's contemporaries did not embrace the "obvious" link between the Book of Mormon and masonry. Proponents or opponents of Masonry simply tended to blame their opponents for Mormonism.
Given Joseph Smith's long family involvement with the institution of Freemasonry and the fact that he would, in 1842, become a Mason himself, it seems unlikely that anti-Masonry was the "environmental source" of the Gadianton robbers found in the Book of Mormon. The members of his day likewise had little enthusiasm for anti-Masonic sentiments.
Any similarities in language between some anti-Masonic agitators and the Book of Mormon are more plausibly explained by the fact that similar words can be—and were—used to describe a variety of different tactics and organizations.
The claim that "secret combinations" was always used to refer to Masons is clearly false.
Question: Does the Book of Mormon contain anti-Masonic language?
It would seem unlikely that Joseph would be using anti-Masonic language and terms, given his family's close connection and association with the institution of Freemasonry
Many have speculated that the supposed use of anti-Masonic language in the Book of Mormon is 'proof' of 19th century authorship. The authors of these speculations fail to take into account four critical issues which discredit the association between the Gadianton robbers of the Book of Mormon and the anti-Masonry of the opening decades of the 19th century [1826 through 1845].
Joseph Smith grew up with and was surrounded by Freemasons in his home. Both his father, Joseph Smith, Sr., and his elder brother Hyrum Smith were Masons in New York. It would seem unlikely that Joseph would be using anti-Masonic language and terms, given his family's close connection and association with the institution of Freemasonry.
Joseph Smith, Jr. became a Mason himself
In 1842, Joseph Smith, Jr., became a Mason. Had Joseph intended to tie the Gadianton robbers to the Freemasons, it seems most unlikely that only 12 years later he would then join the very group which the critics' theories require that he oppose so vehemently in the Book of Mormon.
To credit the critics' theories, wrote anti-Mormon Theodore Schroeder, we must accept that
when the Book of Mormon was finished, Smith's 'obsession' [with anti-Masonry] suddenly and permanently disappears without any other explanation, and Joseph Smith himself became a Mason, in spite of this anti-Masonic obsession.[247]
The Book of Mormon is a translation, and its phrasing may sometimes reflect the time and place in which it was translated
Any similarity between the language of the anti-Masonic movement and Joseph's translation can better be explained by Joseph using the language of his time and place rather than by a deliberate connection to anti-Masonry.[248]
The phrase "secret combination" was not used exclusively in a Masonic context in Joseph Smith's day
Some have claimed that the phrase "secret combination" was used exclusively in a Masonic context in Joseph Smith's day. This is simply not the case, however. In 1788, during the debates at New York's state convention to ratify the federal constitution, Alexander Hamilton stated:
In this, the few must yield to the many; or, in other words, the particular must be sacrificed to the general interest. If the members of Congress are too dependent on the state legislatures, they will be eternally forming secret combinations from local views.[249]
And, in 1826, Andrew Jackson complained about Henry Clay's "secrete [sic] combinations of base slander."[250] Jackson was a prominent and well-known Mason, and his presidency was rich fodder for those who feared a Masonic conspiracy. Yet, despite the critics' claims that "secret combination" must refer only to Masons, a prominent Mason here complains about an attack on him in exactly those terms. Many other examples of the phrase being used in connection to other things besides masonry have been documented by Gregory L. Smith.[251]
Some have seen evidence of anti-Masonic rhetoric in the Book of Mormon and cite 2 Nephi 26:22 in support of this theory, since Satan leads sinners “by the neck with a flaxen cord.”
“Some have seen evidence of anti-Masonic rhetoric in the Book of Mormon and cite 2 Nephi 26:22 in support of this theory, since Satan leads sinners ‘by the neck with a flaxen cord.’ It is claimed that this is a reference to Masonic initiation rituals, which feature a thick noose called a cable-tow or tow-rope. Examining the broader rhetorical context of 2 Nephi demonstrates that the ‘flaxen cord’ more likely refers to something slight and almost undetectable. To test this hypothesis, [Gregory L. Smith has undertaken] a survey of the use of the phrase flaxen cord in 19th century publications. [He] also [has] examine[d] analogous phrases from the Bible. [He] examine[d] fifty examples, seven of which are excluded [from his study done in Interpreter] because they do not contain enough information to support either claim. Of the remaining 43 examples, a full two-thirds (67%) describe a cord that is trivial or easily snapped. Only 7% denote a thick, strong rope, and 17% describe a thin rope that is strong. Given (1) the rhetorical context of 2 Nephi, (2) an expression that usually refers to a cord of trivial thickness and strength, and (3) virtually all poetic, scriptural, or allegorical uses imply fragility, the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the anti-Masonic thesis.”[252]
Latter-day Saints saw the Book of Mormon's prophecies as fulfilled by the U.S. government
Furthermore, the Saints of the 19th century saw the Book of Mormon's prophecies of latter-day "secret combinations" fulfilled by the persecution which they received at the hands of American citizens and the U.S. government. They did not invoke the Masons, which suggests that those who knew Joseph Smith did not recognize anti-Masonic themes in the Book of Mormon.[253]
Gregory L. Smith, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (November, 28, 2014)
The Book of Mormon has been explained by some as a product of Joseph Smith’s 19th century environment. Advocates of this thesis have argued that the phrase secret combinations is a reference to Freemasonry, and reflects Joseph’s preoccupation with this fraternity during the Book of Mormon’s composition in 1828–29. It is claimed that this phrase is rarely, if ever, used in a non-Masonic context during 1828–29, and that a type of “semantic narrowing” occurred which restricted the term to Freemasonry. Past studies have found a few counter-examples, which are reviewed, but none from during the precise years of interest. This study describes many newly-identified counterexamples, including: anti-Masonic authors who use the term to refer to non-Masonic groups, books translated in the United States, legislature bills, grand jury instructions, and works which so characterize slave rebellions, various historical groups and movements, Biblical figures, and religious groups. These examples are found before, during, and after the critical 1828–29 period. Examples from 1832 onward likewise demonstrate that no semantic shift occurred which restricted secret combination to Masonry. This element of the environmental hypothesis has now been robustly disproven.
Gregory L. Smith, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (December 14, 2018)
Some have seen evidence of anti-Masonic rhetoric in the Book of Mormon and cite 2 Nephi 26:22 in support of this theory, since Satan leads sinners “by the neck with a flaxen cord.” It is claimed that this is a reference to Masonic initiation rituals, which feature a thick noose called a cable-tow or tow-rope. Examining the broader rhetorical context of 2 Nephi demonstrates that the “flaxen cord” more likely refers to something slight and almost undetectable. To test this hypothesis, I undertake a survey of the use of the phrase flaxen cord in 19th century publications. I also examine analogous phrases from the Bible. I examine fifty examples, seven of which are excluded because they do not contain enough information to support either claim. Of the remaining 43 examples, a full two-thirds (67%) describe a cord that is trivial or easily snapped. Only 7% denote a thick, strong rope, and 17% describe a thin rope that is strong. Given (1) the rhetorical context of 2 Nephi, (2) an expression that usually refers to a cord of trivial thickness and strength, and (3) virtually all poetic, scriptural, or allegorical uses imply fragility, the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the anti-Masonic thesis.
Question: Were anti-Mason's opposed to the Book of Mormon?
Even prior to the Book of Mormon's publication, anti-Masonic individuals were opposed to the book
The Palmyra Reflector noted the opposition of "anti-Masons" to the Book of Mormon:
We understand that the Anti-Masons have declared war against the Gold Bible.—Oh! how impious.[254]
Thus, those contemporaries most interested in anti-Masonic polemic were not impressed by the Book of Mormon. And, when some claimed that the Mormons were an "anti-masonic" religion, one newspaper editor shot back:
Our neighbor-in-law, Billy Perkins, says that Mormonism is the Antimasonic religion, because all who have embraced it are antimasons. This is quite a random shot, Billy. But your great eagerness to draw from any source, however filthy, a little help for the handmaid, has probably led you into this error. You appear not to be aware that some “zealous masons” and several “republican jacks,” have beset Jo Smith for “more light.”—And perhaps you have yet to learn that the Mormon bible was printed and sent forth to the world, from a masonic printing office, under a masonic, or some [other injunction, of secrecy. You may also discover a very striking resemblance between masonry and mormonism. Both systems pretend to have a very ancient origin, and to possess some wonderful secrets which the world cannot have without submitting to the prescribed ceremonies, and appropriating a portion or all of their property, as common stock. The secrets of masonry are kept from the world by blasphemous oaths, under a penalty of death—the secrets of mormonism by making the candidate believe that it will be violating the “express command of Heaven,” and the penalty is the eternal displeasure of God, and all “worthy and well qualified” mormons. Billy seems willing to encourage and support any thing that he thinks will be calculated to divert public attention from the iniquitous character of Freemasonry. Mormonism, Billy, will fail in doing it, unless you give it a hoist with your press, which it is rumored you are half inclined to do, as another Bible is in a state of forwardness,for the press (emphasis added) (italics in original).[255]
A similar claim earned a similar retort from another editor:
Antimasonic Religion.—The Mormon Bible is Antimasonic, and it is a singular truth that every one of its followers, so far as we are able to ascertain, are antimasons. Now, probably we are to know what is meant by “Church and State.”—Geauga Gazette.
The above is from the Gazette of last week. We know of but one other pretence of a like nature, equally ridiculous—and that is, that Masonry is the “Handmaid of Religion.”[256]
Another paper argued that Mormonism was actually attacking anti-masonry
The Morning Courier and New-York Enquirer:
A new excitement—Mormonism versus Anti-masonry.—An elegant new excitement recently started up, like Jonah’s gourd, in the anti-masonic district of Ohio, which is marching like a giant, and attacking the very citadels of anti-masonry itself. It is called “Mormonism.” It is already making great progress in the Ohio Reserve, and possesses more fanaticism than even anti-masonry itself.[257]
Response to claim: "Joseph’s father having the same dream in 1811 as Lehi’s dream"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
Joseph’s father having the same dream in 1811 as Lehi’s dream
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
The dream of Joseph Smith, Sr. was recorded only long after the Book of Mormon was published.
The details of Joseph's father's dream were written long after the Book of Mormon was published
Critics point to similarities between a dream Joseph Smith's father had and Lehi's dream of the tree of life as evidence that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon based on his own experiences. Significantly, none of Joseph's family regarded the similarities as evidence that Joseph Jr. was engaging in a forgery.
The details of the dream were written long after the Book of Mormon was published. Lucy's account is (at the very least) influenced in its verbiage by the Book of Mormon. Either Joseph Sr. had a remarkably similar dream, or Lucy used the material in the Book of Mormon to either bolster her memory, or it unwittingly influenced her memory.
There are three potential explanations for the similarities
Joseph Smith plagiarized Joseph Sr.'s dream when he wrote the Book of Mormon. This is the stance adopted by the critics.
Joseph Sr. had a dream that was similar to the dream experienced by Lehi, and this was a sign to the Prophet's family that he was translating a real record that came from God. This is certainly possible, though it is impossible to prove or disprove by historical techniques, and so will not be elaborated on. It remains, however, a viable option.
Lucy Mack Smith's account of the dream (which she recorded many years after the fact, when the Book of Mormon account was well-known and published) may have influenced how she remembered and/or recorded her account of Joseph Sr's dream.
Details of Joseph Smith, Sr.'s dream of the tree of life
According to Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, Senior, the father of the Prophet, had the following dream in 1811 when the family was living in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Joseph Smith, Junior, would have been 5 years old at the time.
I thought...I was traveling in an open, desolate field, which appeared to be very barren. As I was thus traveling, the thought suddenly came into my mind that I had better stop and reflect upon what I was doing, before I went any further. So I asked myself, "What motive can I have in traveling here, and what place can this be?" My guide, who was by my side, as before, said, "This is the desolate world; but travel on." The road was so broad and barren that I wondered why I should travel in it; for, said I to myself, "Broad is the road, and wide is the gate that leads to death, and many there be that walk therein; but narrow is the way, and straight is the gate that leads to everlasting' life, and few there be that go in there at."
Traveling a short distance farther, I came to a narrow path. This path I entered, and, when I had traveled a little way in it, I beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west. Of this stream I could see neither the source nor yet the termination; but as far as my eyes could extend I could see a rope running along the bank of it, about as high as a man could reach, and beyond me was a low, but very pleasant valley, in which stood a tree such as I had never seen before. It was exceedingly handsome, insomuch that I looked upon it with wonder and admiration. Its beautiful branches spread themselves somewhat like an umbrella, and it bore a kind of fruit, in shape much like a chestnut bur, and as white as snow, or, if possible whiter. I gazed upon the same with considerable interest, and as I was doing so the burs or shells commenced opening and shedding their particles, or the fruit which they contained, which was of dazzling whiteness. I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description. As I was eating, I said in my heart, "I can not eat this alone, I must bring my wife and children, that they may partake with me." Accordingly, I went and brought my family, which consisted of a wife and seven children, and we all commenced eating, and praising God for this blessing. We were exceedingly happy, insomuch that our joy could not easily be expressed.
While thus engaged, I beheld a spacious building standing opposite the valley which we were in, and it appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of doors and windows, and they were filled with people, who were very finely dressed. When these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us, and treated us with all manner of disrespect and contempt. But their contumely we utterly disregarded.
I presently turned to my guide, and inquired of him the meaning of the fruit that was so delicious. He told me it was the pure love of God, shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him, and keep his commandments. He then commanded me to go and bring the rest of my children. I told him that we were all there. "No," he replied, "look yonder, you have two more, and you must bring them also." Upon raising my eyes, I saw two small children, standing some distance off. I immediately went to them, and brought them to the tree; upon which they commenced eating with the rest, and we all rejoiced together. The more we ate, the more we seemed to desire, until we even got down upon our knees, and scooped it up, eating it by double handfuls.
After feasting in this manner a short time, I asked my guide what was the meaning of the spacious building which I saw. He replied, "It is Babylon, it is Babylon, and it must fall. The people in the doors and windows are the inhabitants thereof, who scorn and despise the Saints of God because of their humility."
I soon awoke, clapping my hands together for joy.[258]
There are many obvious connections between this dream and Lehi's vision of the tree of life
There are many obvious connections between this dream and Lehi's vision of the tree of life recorded in 1 Nephi 8:
A desolate field representing the world (8:4).
A narrow path (8:20).
A river of water (8:13).
A rope running along the bank of the river (similar in function to the rod of iron in 8:19, 24).
A tree with dazzling white fruit (8:10–11).
Joseph, Sr. desires that his family should partake of the fruit also (8:12).
A spacious building filled with people who are mocking those who eat the fruit (8:26–27).
Joseph, Sr. and his family ignore the mocking (8:33).
The fruit represents the love of God (11:22).
The building represents the world (11:36; 12:18).
The source of the dream is Lucy's manuscript for which she dictated in the winter of 1844–45, 15 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon
The source of the dream is Lucy's manuscript for Joseph Smith, The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations, which she dictated to Martha Jane Coray in the winter of 1844–45. Note the date of Lucy's dictation: more than 15 years after Joseph Smith, Junior, dictated the Book of Mormon.
Dreams are notoriously ephemeral. It is difficult for most people to remember the details of a dream, and those details quickly fade in the first few minutes after awaking.
The amount of detail Lucy records and the second-hand nature and late date of her testimony have led many to the conclusion that Lucy's recollection was strongly influenced by what she read in the Book of Mormon. That is, it is difficult to establish how much Joseph Sr.'s original dream had in common with the Book of Mormon, since the details which we have are only available after the fact, when Lucy's memory would have been affected by what she learned in the more detailed Book of Mormon account (even as it stands, the Book of Mormon account is far more detailed and lengthy than the material from 1844-45).
Thus, it seems plausible that there is a relationship between the Book of Mormon and Lucy's text--but, we cannot know in what direction(s) that influence moved.
Response to claim: "Elder B.H. Roberts came to the following conclusion: 'Did Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon?'"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
Elder B.H. Roberts came to the following conclusion: 'Did Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon?'
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: The critic fails to note what B.H. Roberts' actual conclusion was, as quoted in Studies of the Book of Mormon p. 58.The facts: B.H. Roberts said the following about his examination of critical approaches to the Book of Mormon, later published under the name Studies of the Book of Mormon:
Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.[259]
Truman Madsen: "Among readers who came to the Book of Mormon with hard, skeptical assumptions, B.H. Roberts is notable"
Truman G. Madsen:
Among readers who came to the Book of Mormon with hard, skeptical assumptions, B.H. Roberts is notable. He was capacitated by temperament and equipped by study for penetrating analysis. Moreover, at many junctures of his life he had profound personal reasons and emotional and spiritual stresses which might have led a man of lesser integrity to discard wholesale his religious heritage. But on his other side was his capacity for constant, patient study. This he brought (for more than a half century) to the Book of Mormon as he did to his work in history, never letting go, never fully satisfied with what he had written or said, and never unwilling to consider afresh the latest spate of difficulties.[260]
Question: Did B.H. Roberts lose his faith in the Church and the Book of Mormon?
An excellent argument against the claim that B.H. Roberts abandoned the Book of Mormon can be found in his last book, which he considered his masterwork
Critics charge that the 'problems' with the Book of Mormon made Brigham H. Roberts (an early LDS apologist and member of the First Quorum of Seventy) lose his faith in the its historicity. The primary source upon which this criticism is based originates with Roberts' manuscripts detailing his critical study of the Book of Mormon, which was published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon years after his death.
An excellent argument against the claim that B.H. Roberts abandoned the Book of Mormon can be found in his last book, which he considered his masterwork. [B. H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology, edited by John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Studies, 1994).] Given Roberts' clear respect for the Book of Mormon in this volume, there can be little doubt that he continued to believe in and treasure it.
Ironically for the critics, many of the issues which drew Elder Roberts' attention have now been solved as more information about the ancient world has become available. He expressed faith that this would be the case, and has been vindicated:
We who accept [the Book of Mormon] as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph.[261]
Roberts was an able scholar, and he was not afraid to play 'devil's advocate' to strengthen the Church's defenses against its enemies
In a presentation on some potential Book of Mormon 'problems' prepared for the General Authorities, Roberts wrote a caution that subsequent critics have seen fit to ignore:
Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.[262]
Roberts felt that faith in the Book of Mormon was a given, and so did not consider any 'negative' points to be of ultimate concern
Roberts felt that faith in the Book of Mormon was a given, and so did not consider any 'negative' points to be of ultimate concern, though he did seek for better answers than he then had. The critics have often published his list of of "parallels" between the Book of Mormon and Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, without informing modern readers that Roberts did not consider the problems insoluable, or a true threat to faith in the Book of Mormon. They also do not generally cite the numerous other statements in which, to the end of his life, he declared the Book of Mormon to be a divine record.
Roberts' studies also made him willing to modify previous conceptions, such as when he concluded that the Book of Mormon was not a history of the only immigrants to the New World.
In 1930, he enthused about the Book of Mormon a century after the Church's organization:
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for God hath spoken. ... The Record of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim, the Book of Mormon, has been revealed and translated by the power of God, and supplies the world with a new witness for the Christ, and the truth and the fulness of the Gospel.[263]
Other witnesses by B.H. Roberts of truth of the Church and the Gospel
The book Discourses of B.H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy, compiled by Ben R. Roberts (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company 1948) contains the last seven discourses delivered by Elder Roberts: four in Salt Lake City, one in San Francisco (on the radio), and the last two at the World Fellowship of Faith in Chicago, in August-September 1933. He died three weeks after the last discourse. Roberts had returned from a lengthy illness, which made him realize how precious life is. He determined to leave his testimony, especially for the youth of the church.
It has always been a matter of pride with me, in my more than fifty years of ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that it was no trivial thing which called this Church of the New Dispensation into existence. It was not founded upon the idea that men differed in relation to how baptism should be administered, whether by sprinkling or pouring, or immersion; or whether it was for the remission of sins, or because sins had been forgiven. I always rejoice that it had a broader foundation than whether the form of church government and administration should be Episcopal or Congregational, or the Presbyterian form of government; or any other minor [23] difference of theologians. It went to the heart of things, and astonished the world, and at the same time, of course, aroused its opposition.
When the Prophet of the New Dispensation asked God for wisdom, and which of the many churches about him he should join, he was told to join none of them, for they were all wrong; their creeds were false; they drew near to the Lord with their lips, but their hearts were far removed from him; they had a form of godliness but denied the power thereof; that the Christian world, especially, had, in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy, transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, and had broken the everlasting covenant (Isaiah 44), of which the blood of the Christ was the blood of that everlasting covenant. He promised the incoming of a New Dispensation of the Gospel of Christ, which would link together and unite all former dispensations, from Adam down to the present time, the great stream of events speeding on towards an immense ocean of truth in which it would be united with all truth. It was a world movement. To lay the foundations of a greater faith, it brought forth the American volume of scripture, the Book of Mormon. In time the authority of God, the holy priesthood was restored, the minor phase of it, through John the Baptist; and later Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the kingdom of heaven, bestowed upon them by the Christ, appeared to the Prophet Joseph and Oliver Cowdery, and the divine and supreme authority from God was conferred upon them. By this authority and under the power of it they organized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, outlined its doctrines, and established it firmly in the earth.
That is how the New Dispensation began—not whether baptism should be by immersion, or for the forgiveness of sins. The rubbish of accumulated ages was swept aside, the rocks made bare, and the foundations relaid” (22-23).
Roberts then refers to a statement in David Whitmer, To All Believers in Christ, about the translation of the Book of Mormon being interrupted due to some problems between Joseph and Emma:
He [Joseph] took up the divine instrument, the Urim and Thummim, tried to translated but utterly failed. Things remained dark to his vision. David Whitmer tells how Joseph left the translating room and [26] went to the woodslot on the Whitmer farm, and there corrected himself, brought himself into a state of humiliation and of exaltation at the same time. He went back to the house, became reconciled to Emma, his wife, came up to the translating room, and again the visions were given and the translation went on. But he could translate only as he was in a state of exaltation of mind and in accord with the Spirit of God, which leads to the source of hidden treasures of knowledge” (25-6).
Roberts then refers to the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, which was revealed shortly after the Church was organized, in June 1830:
It goes further than we have come, this knowledge by faith. After the Prophet had translated the Book of Mormon he began to receive the revelations which today make up the Book of Moses, the translation of [27] which began to be published about six months after the Book of Mormon had been translated” (26-7).
I admire the achievements of the men of science and hold them in honor…. But what am I to think of the Prophet of God, who speaking a hundred years before him, and speaking by the knowledge that comes by faith, revealed the same truth—viz., that as one earth shall pass away, so shall another come, and there is no end to God’s work? This gives to the Church of the New Dispensation the right to voice her protest against a dying universe—its death blows to the immortality of man.
Oh, ye Elders of Israel, this is our mission, to withstand this theory of a dying universe and this destruction of the idea of the immortality and eternal life of man. We have this knowledge revealed of God, and it is for us to maintain the perpetuity of the universe and the immortal life of man. Such was the mission of the Christ, such is ours” (29).
I am one of the special witnesses of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, made so by the office I hold, and I want to begin a return to my ministry in this pulpit by exercising my duty as a special witness for the Lord Jesus Christ. Here it is: Jesus Christ is the very Son of God, the incarnation of all that is divine, the revelation of God to man, the Redeemer of the world; for as in Adam all die, so shall they in Christ be brought forth alive. Also Jesus is the Savior of individual man, through him and him alone comes repentance and [30] forgiveness of sins, through which the possibility of unity with God comes. As his witness I stand before you on this occasion to proclaim these truths concerning the Christ, not from scientific knowledge or book learning, but from the knowledge that comes by faith” (29-30)
Roberts' general conference addresses between January 1922 and his death in September 1933 evince no show of doubt in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon
Roberts gave his findings on criticisms of the Book of Mormon to top Church leaders in a series of meetings between January to May 1922. One way to test the possibility of his losing faith in the Book of Mormon is to look at his public discourses and the words he uses to describe the Book of Mormon after he presented these findings. Upon careful examination of the historical record, one finds that Elder Roberts presented no doubts in the authenticity and veracity of the Book of Mormon.[265]
In the October 1922 conference, Roberts discussed the prophetic promises of the Book of Mormon concerning the land of promise and Zion in the latter-days. “The Lord made certain promises in ancient times concerning the land of Zion—North and South America,” Roberts said in his address. “That is the information we get from our Book of Mormon.”
In the April 1923 conference, Roberts expounded on the title page of the Book of Mormon. “[N]otwithstanding all these testimonies of the New Testament scriptures,” said Roberts in his sermon, “God brings forth a new volume of scripture, the Book of Mormon, which we are learning to call the American scripture, the word of God to the ancient inhabitants of this land of America.”
Six months later, in the October 1923 conference, Roberts focused some of his remarks of the Book of Mormon. “The great outstanding thing in the Book of Mormon is the fact of the visit of the Redeemer to the inhabitants of this western world, and the message of life and salvation that he delivered here; the Church which he brought into existence, the divine authority which he established here in the western world.” As Roberts went on to explain, “This is what makes the Book of Mormon of so much importance—it is a new witness for God and Christ and the truth of the gospel. These things being true, makes the advent of the Book of Mormon into the world the greatest literary event of the world since the writing of the Decalogue by the finger of God, and bringing it forth by the great Prophet Moses; or the collection and the publication of the testimony in the New Testament that Jesus is the Christ.”
In the April 1924 conference, Roberts used the Book of Mormon to combat what he feared were the creeping influences of secular biblical scholarship. Referring to Nephi’s “very great visions concerning the life and the mission of the Christ, before he came in the flesh” (1 Nephi 11–15), Roberts named “the Book of Mormon, the record of the Nephite people, and the revelations of God in this new dispensation, clearly recognized in the Doctrine and Covenants, and also in the Pearl of Great Price” as “records [which] would establish the truth of the record of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb of God” (that is, the New Testament).
In the October 1925 conference, Roberts delivered an address in which he focused on “three great utterances constitute the message of ‘Mormonism’ to the world” on the nature of God and humankind’s relationship with the divine. “The first comes from a fragment of the teachings of the prophet Moses, found not in musty tomb or ruined temple, but revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith before this Church of ours was six months old [Moses 1]. The second comes from a revelation from God to him, in the year 1833 [D&C 93]. The third contribution comes from our Book of Mormon, and is the contribution of sleeping nations once inhabiting the American continents, a message through their prophet leader to the modern world, and a contribution to the modern world for its enlightenment. How splendid all that is!” (This talk would go on to be republished in January 1926.7)
In the October 1926 conference, Roberts exulted over the recent purchasing of the David Whitmer farm. “I rejoice that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is gradually gathering into its control the sacred places where great historical events happened,” said Roberts at the time. In his remarks, which were republished later in the Improvement Era (see below), Roberts thrice referred to the Book of Mormon as a “translation” or having otherwise been “translated” by Joseph Smith, spoke at length on the importance of the Book of Mormon witnesses, and told of his experience interviewing David Whitmer in 1884.
In the April 1927 conference, Roberts reported on his missionary work in the eastern United States. In his report, Roberts spoke of his interactions with a Messianic Jew and stressed the importance of the Book of Mormon (which he called a “translation”) as a witness to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ (see below). He expounded on the doctrinal importance of the book’s title page, which, he reminded his audience, was “not [Joseph Smith’s] composition” but rather was “engraven on the title page of the gold plates.” Regretting that he had “taken more time than [he] should have done” with his lengthy sermon, Roberts nevertheless considered “these matters of sufficient importance to have entered upon the record of this conference. . . . I cannot but regard the opening that has come to us in the Eastern States to furnish material by which we may approach our cousin Judah with the message of the Book of Mormon, as an opening of the way by the inspiration and power of the Spirit of the Lord.
Later that same year, in the October 1927 conference, Roberts recalled “the pleasure” he took in “standing upon the summit of the Hill Cumorah in company with President [Heber J.] Grant.” He remarked, “Being there upon that height of land, which so splendidly commands a view of the whole surrounding country, I could not refrain from recalling the time when Moroni stood upon the crown of that hill with the evidence of the ruins of the civilization of his people about him.” Roberts continued, “And this warning, written in the Book of Ether, let me say, in closing, comes from the prophet of God who was also the historian of the great Jaredite nation, by abridging and translating their history into the Nephrite language. This warning comes, then, from the historian of one civilization that had perished about the Hill Cumorah; it came also from the same man who was a witness of the destruction of the civilization of his own people at the same place. I hold that he was competent to speak upon this question, and it is most fitting, and is one of the evidences of inspiration, in this Book, that one so competent to speak in warning should be chosen to be God’s mouthpiece in warning this great Gentile nation, holding dominion over the land in our day, to beware of their course lest they, too, forfeit their rights to the pride of place they occupy among the nations of the earth. For great as our nation is, it is not above the powers of destruction if it observes not the conditions upon which it may hold its position upon this land.”
In a lengthy April 1928 conference address, Roberts spoke on the important teachings preserved in the Book of Mormon; teachings that, according to Roberts, “would have been lost to the world but for the bringing forth of the Nephite scriptures, the American volume of scriptures.” This included, most importantly, “the testimony of the scriptures of the western continents—the Book of Mormon—in relation to the resurrection of Christ. What a wonderful testimony that book contains for the thing that is celebrated this day throughout Christendom, namely, the resurrection from the dead of our Lord the Christ!” In this same sermon Roberts also gave his endorsement Anthony W. Ivins’ comments on the Book of Mormon—calling them “a very important contribution, not only to this conference, but to the literature of the Church”—and recalled his youthful debates with a sectarian critic of the Church in which he, Roberts, defended the book.
In the October 1928 conference, Roberts expanded on “a number of the early revelations that were given in the Church about the time of its organization and the publication of the Book of Mormon,” including those which had been “given . . . to brethren who had rendered some assistance to the Prophet in bringing forth the Book of Mormon.”
In an April 1929 conference address (the same address, mind you, that Brigham D. Madsen claims somehow shows signs of Roberts backsliding on his faith in the Book of Mormon), Roberts provided commentary on the ninth Article of Faith, which stresses the importance of ongoing revelation in the Church of Jesus Christ. Within this specific context Roberts began his sermon, “One of the things that has greatly delighted me in this conference has been the prominence given to the Book of Mormon and to the importance of it as a means of acquainting the world with that system of truth for which we stand. But the passage from our articles of faith just repeated reminds me that the Book of Mormon is only one out of very many things that may aid us in this work of making God’s message known to the world.” Roberts then related how as a missionary in the South he worked with a confused investigator who did not know how to make up her mind about the Book of Mormon because she was being fed anti-Mormon literature by her local pastor. (A tale as old as time.) But, Roberts related, once she gained a testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants, she was able to make up her mind about the Book of Mormon being inspired. Roberts concluded his anecdote by affirming, “The Book of Doctrine and Covenants stands unquestioned as to its authorship, and I wish to express a belief that there is evidence of inspiration in it equal to that of the Book of Mormon.” Incidentally, Roberts also took the opportunity in this sermon to affirm the value and inspiration of the Pearl of Great Price. “If the world but had the Pearl of Great Price, and the knowledge it conveys, it would shed a penetrating light upon all the scriptures that our Christian friends acknowledge, and make known the truth of God.” Contrary to Madsen’s bizarre misreading of this sermon, Roberts made it clear that “[t]he Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are prized by [the Latter-day Saints] above all other books.”
On the centennial anniversary of the founding of the Church, in the April 1930 conference, Roberts affirmed his testimony of the Restoration, in part, thus: “The Church of Jesus Christ has again, and for the last time, been set up and made the depository of God’s truth and the fulness of it and has been given the mission of proclaiming that truth and the fulness of it to every nation and kindred and tongue and people. . . . The Record of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim, the Book of Mormon, has been revealed and translated by the power of God, and supplies the world with a new witness for the Christ, and the truth and the fulness of the Gospel.”
In his final address delivered before his death in the April 1933 conference, Roberts referred to the Book of Mormon as “that precious volume of scripture” which spoke of “[the] word of the Lord from the Nephite race” that America was a choice land (quoting Ether 13:2). “This is recorded in the Book of Ether,” Roberts remarked, “which Moroni translated and added to the compilation made by his father.” Besides this, Roberts drew his listeners’ attention to “two great prophecies in the Book of Mormon,” namely: (1) “the witness which the Book of Mormon bears to the divinity of the Christ, affirming that he is the Son of God, . . . affirming that he is the Savior of the world, and . . . bearing witness to the truth of the Gospel”; and (2) “prophecies concerning the great Gentile nation that should rise and which would scatter the children of Israel upon the face of the land, and yet, afterwards, be touched by the spirit of pity and concern which would lead them to seek the preservation of the inhabitants of the land; that the seed of Joseph, so wonderfully gathered here and developed into a multitude of nations, should not be utterly destroyed, but should be preserved, and that, too, by this great nation that should be such an instrument in scattering them in the earth.” These, Roberts affirmed, makes the Book of Mormon a “new American witness for God” and “one of the most valuable books that has ever been preserved, even as holy scripture.”
Keep in mind that these are Roberts’ General Conference addresses and sermons that specifically touched on the Book of Mormon. In other talks that he delivered in the 1920s and early 1930s (such as his October 1929 and April 1932 addresses), Roberts also spoke glowingly of both current Church leadership and Heber J. Grant’s prophetic predecessors.
It is difficult to see these as the words of one who has lost his faith in the Church, the Book of Mormon, or Joseph Smith.
Roberts published other works that take as granted the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon
Roberts published other works between the early 1900s to his death that take the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, the divine calling of Joseph Smith, and the truthfulness of the Church as a given. These works include:
New Witnesses for God
Outlines of Ecclesiastical History
The Truth, The Way, The Life
Comprehensive History of the Church
The "Falling Away"
Rasha–The Jew
Response to claim: "The staggering parallels and similarities" of The Late War "to the Book of Mormon are astounding"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:
The staggering parallels and similarities to the Book of Mormon are astounding. This outstanding web page outlines very clearly and simply just how devastating the Late War is to the Book of Mormon and its claims....
Devices of “curious workmanship” in relation to boats and weapons.
A “stripling” soldier “with his “weapon of war in his hand.”
“A certain chief captain…was given in trust a band of more than two thousand chosen men, to go forth to battle” and who “all gave their services freely for the good of their country.”
Fortifications: “the people began to fortify themselves and entrench the high Places round about the city.”
Objects made “partly of brass and partly of iron, and were cunningly contrived with curious works, like unto a clock; and as it were a large ball.”
“Their polished steels of fine workmanship.”
“Nevertheless, it was so that the freeman came to the defence of the city, built strong holds and forts and raised up fortifications in abundance.”
Three Indian Prophets.
“Rod of iron.”
War between the wicked and righteous.
Maintaining the standard of liberty with righteousness.
Righteous Indians vs. savage Indians.
False Indian prophets.
Conversion of Indians.
Bands of robbers/pirates marauding the righteous protagonists.
Brass plates.
“And it came to pass, that a great multitude flocked to the banners of the great Sanhedrim” compared to Alma 62:5: “And it came to pass that thousands did flock unto his standard, and did take up their swords in defense of their freedom…”
Worthiness of Christopher Columbus.
Ships crossing the ocean.
A battle at a fort where righteous white protagonists are attacked by an army made up of dark-skinned natives driven by a white military leader. White protagonists are prepared for battle and slaughter their opponents to such an extent that they fill the trenches surrounding the fort with dead bodies. The surviving elements flee into the wilderness/forest.
Cataclysmic earthquake followed by great darkness.
Elephants/mammoths in America.
Literary Hebraisms/Chiasmus.
Boats and barges built from trees after the fashion of the ark.
A bunch of “it came to pass”
FAIR's 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
The "staggering" parallels aren't so "astounding" once you take a closer look at them. The critic scours a book in order to extract similar phrases, then declares that this proves that this book was a source for the Book of Mormon.
Logical Fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter—The author located some pattern in the data that he or she believes was the cause of something else, despite the lack of any supporting connection, and asserted that this was, in fact, the actual cause.
In this case, the critic scours a book in order to extract similar phrases, then declares that this proves that this book was a source for the Book of Mormon.
Response to claim: "Another fascinating book published in 1809, The First Book of Napoleon, is shocking"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (March 2015 revision) make(s) the following claim:
Another fascinating book published in 1809, The First Book of Napoleon, is shocking....The following are a side-by-side comparison of the beginning of The First Book of Napoleon with the beginning of the Book of Mormon:
The First Book of Napoleon:
Condemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Napoleon…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…their inheritances their gold and silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of their hearts…small in stature…Jerusalem…because of the perverse wickedness of the people.
Book of Mormon:
Condemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Nephi…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…his inheritance and his gold and his silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of his heart…large in stature…Jerusalem…because of the wickedness of the people.
FAIR's 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
The spin: It is only "shocking" if you look at the heavily edited paragraphs presented by the critic.The facts: One has to examine over 25 pages in The First Book of Napoleon in order to assemble these phrases, including pulling phrases from the Table of Contents and the first three chapters. This is hardly the "beginning" of the First Book of Napoleon.
Logical Fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter—The author located some pattern in the data that he or she believes was the cause of something else, despite the lack of any supporting connection, and asserted that this was, in fact, the actual cause.
In this case, the critic scours a book in order to extract similar phrases, then declares that this proves that this book was a source for the Book of Mormon.
Question: Was the beginning of the Book of Mormon derived from The First Book of Napoleon?
Some critics of Mormonism postulate that the first part of the Book of Mormon was derived from The First Book of Napoleon, a 19th century book that was written in Biblical style
Another fascinating book published in 1809, The First Book of Napoleon, is shocking....The following are a side-by-side comparison of the beginning of The First Book of Napoleon with the beginning of the Book of Mormon:
The First Book of Napoleon:
Condemn not the (writing)...an account...the First Book of Napoleon...upon the face of the earth...it came to pass...the land...their inheritances their gold and silver and...the commandments of the Lord...the foolish imaginations of their hearts...small in stature...Jerusalem...because of the perverse wickedness of the people.
Book of Mormon:
Condemn not the (writing)...an account...the First Book of Nephi...upon the face of the earth...it came to pass...the land...his inheritance and his gold and his silver and...the commandments of the Lord...the foolish imaginations of his heart...large in stature...Jerusalem...because of the wickedness of the people.
Note 1: The rendition above of phrases from the First Book of Napoleon is incorrect. The correct version follows:
The First Book of Napoleon:
Condemn not the (writing)...an account...the First Book of Napoleon...upon the face of the earth...it came to pass...the land...their inheritances, their gold and silver...the commandments of the Lord...the foolish imaginations of their hearts...small in stature...Jerusalem...the wickedness and perverseness of the people
Note 2: The first phrase in the Book of Mormon list is not referring to "writing" as indicated above. The phrase is:
Book of Mormon:
wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.
Not so "shocking": In order to make these paragraphs look similar, you have to go through the first 25 pages of The First Book of Napoleon (extracted text is highlighted in blue)
The locations in the First Book of Napoleon from which the critics extract their text in an attempt to make it appear similar to the Book of Mormon
ELIAKIM’S ADDRESS TO HIS READERS.
Charitable and Gentle Reader! To thee the Author of this book has little to say, thy attributes being the godlike virtues of meekness and charity.
Pious and Religious Reader! Let not thy feelings be offended, and withhold thy censure, until thou shalt find in these pages a single sentiment inconsistent with the spirit and principles of that holy religion which thou professes; and condemn not the feebly imitative manner of writing therein occasionally employed, until thou canst point out a language more impressive, or more appropriate, than that in imitation whereof these chapters are framed.
Readers in general! Take warning from the awful examples, and profit by the whole-
Some admonitions therein contained, and believe that they are truly intended for you good and welfare. Napoleon if, peradventure, this little volume should ever reach thee, may its truths sink deep into thine heart, and remember in the midst of the torrents of blood thy guilty ambition is shedding, and the ruin and desolation it is spreading far and wide, that thou are a mortal man; and one day, perhaps ere long, thy soul shall be required of thee, and an account of all thy deeds, by that omnipotent, unerring, and upright Being, who, as he made and governeth, so in like manner shall he judge the world.
King of the Albions! Of whom mention is made in thee pages, be assured, that the effusions of loyalty to thy person, and admiration of thy virtues, which they contain, are those not of the author only, but of a brave, affectionate, and dutiful people.
ELIAKIM
Contents of The First Book of Napoleon.
Chap. I
1. Appearance of an Evil Spirit on the face of the earth, being the forerunner of the Tyrant.-2. It seizeth upon the inhabitants of the land of Gaul.-3. Its progress.-4. The Idolatry of the Gauls.=5. Description and signs of the Beast, or Idol, which this people worshipped. Page 1
Chap. II.
1. The Evil Spirit increaseth.-2. The corrupt tree, and its fruits.-3. It is a cumberer of the ground, and doth not prosper therein; but is cast down, and destroyed. 14
Chap. III.
1. The birth-place of the Tyrant Napoleon.-2. He professeth himself to be a worshipper of the idol.-3. He goeth into the land of Egypt, wageth war, and sojourneth for sometime there.-4. He threateneth Palestine and Jerusalem.-5. He returneth suddenly from thence, destroyeth the first Idol, and putteth himself at the head of the armies of the Gauls.-6. He becometh a mighty Conqueror, powerful in war, and overwhelmeth many of the Kings and Princes of the earth.-7. He is a punishment unto the nations for the wickedness of their ways.-8.- The oppressed cry aloud unto the Lord for relief from the oppressor; but for a season he listeneth not unto them, and hardeneth the Tyrant’s heart, because fo the perverse wickedness of the people. Page 19
Chap. IV.
Character of Napoleon 26
Chap V.
1. Description of the land of Albion, and of the good king that reigneth over the same. – 2. His Throne.-3. Description also of the Tree which had grown and flourished in this Land for many generations, and of the goodly fruits thereof 32
Chap VI.
1. How the people of Albion resisted the temptations of the idol.-2. Are hated by the Gauls, and the tyrant Napoleon, who plotteth their destruction, and sweareth vengeance against them, and their good king Albanus 39
Chap VII.
1. The threats of the Gauls, and of the Tyrant, come to the ears of the Albions, who accordingly make mighty preparations to resist their foes.-2. The people of Albion cleave to their King and native land, and rise as one man to oppose the Tyrant and his hosts, who dread the sea, and the valour of the Albions, by sea and land 46
Chap VIII.
1. The ships of war which carried the army of the Gauls into Egypt, are destroyed in a dreadful battle, by a captain of the navy of King Albanus.-2. The armies of the Albions thereafter defeat those of the Gauls wheresoever they meet.-3. The Albions rescue the land of Egypt from from the Gauls.-4. The chief of the army of the Albions falls in battle.-5. The Gauls are afterwards defeated by the Albions in the land of Calabria 52
Chap. IX.
1. The dominion of the Tyrant extendeth itself upon the face of the earth.-2. He continueth to deceive the Kings and Princes thereof, and the people over whom they reigned.-3. Some are overthrown by open force, others soothed and beguiled, until a convenient season arriveth for their complete and final destruction 56
Chap. X.
1. Wise Counsellors, and mighty Captains of host and of ships, with whom it pleased the Lord to bless King Albanus.-2. He is deprived of some of them by death.-3. Lamentations for their loss Page 65
Chap. XI.
1. The oak Albion.-2. He claimeth the sovereignty of the Wood and of the Flood 72
Chap. XII.
1. The kings and Princes of the earth are warned of the craft and subtleties of the Tyrant.-2. Virtue is recommended as the only secure foundation of the kingdoms of this earth.-3 The solidity of the Empire of Almighty God ascribed, amongst other things, to the sense felt by created existence of the purity and holiness of the Great Governor of all things 75
Chap. XIII.
1. The People of Albion are told of their increasing wickedness and licentiousness, and are admonished accordingly.-2. Their manners are inveighed against, and they are summoned to repentance and amendment of life 82
Chap. XIV.
1. A mighty storm ariseth.-2. The vessel of the State is in danger of perishin.-3. A wise and good Counsellor pilots the vessel and weathers the storm.-4. The vessel is brought into a safe harbor; but the pilot therof dieth, through his endeavours to save the vessel Page 90
Chap. XV.
1. Mode of reforming the Commonwealth recommended.-2. Warnings against violent and dangerous changes.-3. Admonitions to the people of Albion in regard thereto 95
Chap. XV.
1. Mode of reforming the Commonwealth recommended.-2. Warnings against violent and dangerous changes.-3. Admonitions to the people of Albion in regard thereto 95
Chap. XVI.
1. The parable of the Bear and the Monkey.-2. The Monkey is suddenly changed into a Tyger, which devoureth the Bear, and scattereth his flesh and his bones to the winds of heaven 100
Chap. XVII.
The Vision of Eliakim 104
Chap. XVIII.
The Vision Continued 108
Chap. XIX.
The End of the Vision 115
Chap XX.
The warnings and admonitions which the Angle gave in commission, to be delivered unto the King of Albion, and to his first born, and to all the sons and daughter of the King.-2. As also unto the Rulers and Counsellors of the land, and the Judges thereof, and unto all the people who dwell therein Page 120
Chap. XXI.
Admonitions and Warnings to the Priests and Nobles of the land.-2. To the Representatives and Counsellors of the people.-3 To Judges and Magistrates 127
Chap. XXI.
Admonitions to the Matrons and Daughters of Albion. 134
Chap. XXIII.
General admonitions to the people of Albion 140
Conclusion 145
NAPOLEON
THE TYRANT
BOOK I.
CHAP. I.
1. Appearance of an Evil Spirit on the face of the earth, being the forerunner of the Tyrant-2. It seizeth upon the inhabitants of the land of Gaul.-3. Its progress.-4. The idolatry of the Gauls.-5. Descripton and signs of the Beast, or Idol, which this people worshipped.
And behold it came to pass, in these latter days, that an evil spirit arose on the face of the earth, and greatly troubled the sons of men.
And this spirit seized upon, and spread amongst the people who dwell in the land of Gaul.
Now, in this people the fear of the Lord had not been for many generations, and they had become a corrupt and perverse people; and their chief priests, and the nobles of the land, and the learned men thereof, had become wicked in the imaginations of their hearts, and in the practices of their lives.
And the evil spirit went abroad amongst the people, and they raged like unto the heathen, and they rose up against their lawful king, and slew him, and his queen also, and the prince their son; yea, verily, with a cruel and bloody death.
And they moreover smote, with mighty wrath, the king’s guards, and banished the priests, and nobles of the land, and seized upon, and took unto themselves, their inheritances, their gold and silver, corn and oil, and whatsoever belonged unto them.
Now it came to pass, that the nation of the Gauls continue to be sorely troubled and vexed, and the evil spirit whispered unto the people, even unto the meanest and vilest thereof, that all men being born equal, were free to act, each one according to the imaginations and devices of his own heart, without the fear of God, or the control of the lawful rulers of the land.
And lo! This foolish and wicked counsel of evil designing men, being seemly, and well-pleasing in the sight of the multitude, they raged furiously against all principalities and powers; and having slain the good king whom the Lord had appointed to rule over them, and to administer justice unto them; they moreover sought to overthrow and destroy the kings and rulers over the other nations of the earth, and made war upon them; and stirred up the people of those nations in like manner to wage war against the lawful rulers of the lands, wherein they had been appointed to dwell.
Now, it so happened, that the evil spirit stirred up every one to seek his own exaltation, by humbling and debasing those whom God had made superior to him, in mind, body, and estate.
And while this spirit raged in Gaul, the curse of God was upon the land, and bloodshed, murder, and rapine, and all manner of blasphemy, wickedness, and uncleanness, prevailed amongst the people thereof.
And they not only despised the commandments of the Lord, but also blasphemed the name of the only true and living God, and they made idols and false gods to themselves, and fell down and worshipped them.
And lo and behold, the chief idol, which this wicked and perverse people set up and worshipped, was like unto a beast, although made somewhat after the image of a man.
And out of the head of the beast there arose three horns, and upon each of the horns there were written these words, SEDITION, PRIVY CONSPIRACY, and REBELLION; and on the forehead of the beast, and under the horns, there were written, in letters of blood, the words TREASONS and CRIMES.
And from the eyes of the beast there proceeded flashes of devouring fire, and its jaws and throat were like unto the mouth of hell, and from its tongue there issued cursings and blasphemings.
And upon the breast of the beast, there were written these words, IRRELIGION, INFIDELITY, and TUMULT.
And in its right hand, it held an emblem of fire and sword, and in its left, an emblem of rapine and murder.
And upon the feet of the beast, there were brazen sandals, like unto those worn by men, and upon the sandal of the right foot, there was engraven, in letters of brass, TERROR and DISMAY; and upon the sandal of the left foot, BLOOD and FAMINE, signifying, that wheresoever the beast established itself, or trode, those direful evils would afflict the land.
And behold, the name of the idol was called LICENTIOUSNESS.
And lo! A loud and warning voice, proceeding as it were from the heavens on high, was heard upon the earth beneath, saying, “Beware, O man, of the exceeding great vileness and abominations of the beast or idol herein described, for upon the followers and worshippers thereof, there shall descend justice, and divers and direful judgments.”
CHAP. II
1. The evil spirit increaseth.-2. The corrupt tree, and its fruits.-3. It is a cumberer of the ground, and doth not prosper therein: but is cast down, and destroyed.
And the evil spirit continued to spread itself amonst the nations of the earth, and they were sorely afflicted, and troubled therewith.
And the idolatry of the beast in like manner prevailed among the sons of men, and it pleased the Lord to deliver the worshippers thereof into the hands of the Gauls.
Now the Gaul continued to rage as heretofore, with mighty ire, and waged war against all nations, people, and languages.
And the kings and ruler of the earth, beheld the raging of the storm, and combined together to quell the fury thereof.
But the power of the evil spirit, and of the multitude which it moved, was mighty great, and from amongst them there arose valiant captains, and men of war, and they overthrew those that waged war against them.
And lo! The tillers of the ground, and the labourers thereof, together with mechanics, artificers, and all manner of handicraftmen, left their sundry and peaceful occupations, and became lawmakers and lawgivers, and sought to rule over their superiors.
Now, it had pleased the Lord to darken the understandings of those foolish men; for they vainly imagined, that the laws and institutions may be forthwith made, like unto things of cunning device, or built in a season, or by models, like unto earthly habitations; whereas, they grow naturally and gradually after the manner of trees, and, like them, require to be trained and pruned by the wary hand of age and time.
Now, as good and wholesome laws and institutions, or, as they are called in these latter days, good constitutions, after the manner of trees, do not take root and grow but in good soils, and where they are well watered and sheltered; so, in like manner, as is known unto all husbandmen, the tree that springeth and flourisheth in one, and a good soil, decayeth and dieth in another, or bad soil.
As the dew of heaven, and the sun-beams thereof, water and cherish the earthly tree, so als, do the spirits of the departed patriots of a land, and the blood of the warriors thereof, foster and support the political tree, or constitution of the state.
But the Gauls were altogether a wicked and perverse people, and the tree which they had planted in the midst of them was a blasted tree, and lo and behold, it brought forth nothing but bad and forbidden fruit, and all manner of unrighteousness, such as pertaineth unto the idol of whom it is before-write, and whom they, in the foolish imaginations of their hearts, had vainly worshipped.
And this evil tree was planted in many and divers places; but the leaves and branches thereof decayed, and were blasted, and its roots rotted; because the sap which was in the tree, was poison, and all those who tasted of its fruit perished thereby; yea, even with a cruel and bloody death.
And behold the tree partook of the nature of the beast, of which it is before-written; for it had sprung from the rottenness and corruption thereof.
And when the Lord looked down from heaven, and beheld the perverse wickedness of the Gauls, he said, yea, verily, I will punish this people for the wickedness of their ways.
So the Lord spake by his prophets, and said unto the people of Gaul, O foolish people, ye have cast down and slain, with a cruel and ignominious death, the king whom I had appointed to rule over you, and whose fathers had reigned in the land for many generations; and ye have destroyed all principalities and powers, and have despised all holy things, and have imagined vain and wicked conceits, and have moreover troubled the peace of the world, and sworn enmity to the kings and rulers of the earth; but I will punish you, O people, for these evil doings; and lo and behold, a mean born stranger shall come from afar, and ye shall pay obeisance to him, and fear him, and lick the dust under his feet, and tremble under his crown, which, unto you, shall be a crown of iron.
And lo! The prophecy of the Lord was fulfilled, as will be made manifest from what is hereafter written in this book.
CHAP. III
1. The Birth-place of the Tyrant Napoleon.-2. He professeth himself to be a worshipper of the idol.-3. He goeth into the land of Egypt, wageth war, and sojourneth for some time there.-4. He threateneth Palestine and Jerusalem.-5. He returneth suddenly from thence, and destroyeth the first Idol, and putteth himself at the head of the armies of the Gauls.-6. He becometh a mighty Conqueror, powerful in war, and overwhelmeth many of the kings and princes of the earth.-7. He is a punishment unto the nations for the wickedness of their ways.-8. The oppressed cry aloud unto the Lord for relief from the oppressor; but for a season he listeneth not unto them, and hardeneth the Tyrant’s heart, because of the perverse wickedness of the people.
Now, in the land called Corsica, which is an island in the sea, there was a man born, and his name was NAPOLEON.
And this man, though small in stature, was nevertheless vast in spirit, and he not only conceived unto himself, great and marvelous designs, but was moreover wicked, and cunning in council, mighty in deeds, and powerful in war.
And he professed himself to be a true worshipper of the idol, and yet he hated the idol in his heart, and had made unto himself another idol, of the nature whereof it is hereafter written.
And he declared himself to be an enemy unto all principalities and powers, and the friend of freedom and equality amongst the sons of men, and he was appointed Captain over the armies of the worshippers of the idol.
And he commanded the hosts thereof, and went forth against the lawful rulers of the earth, and overthrew them, together with the mighty high priest, who for many generations had commanded the fear and veneration of men.
And lo this man went into the land of Egypt, with many ships and a mighty army; and having conquered the inhabitants thereof, he proceeded against Palestine, and threatened the city of Jerusalem.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how are the mighty fallen, and how nearly hadst thou been conquered, yet a second time, by the arm of an infidel.
But behold the progress of this man, in the land of Egypt, was stopped by a captain of the navy of good King Albanus, the King of the Albions, the history of whom is herein after written.
Now, this man Napoleon, after sojourning for many days in the land of Egypt, suddenly took his departure from thence, and returned unto the county of the Gauls, and overthrew like a whirlwind the rulers thereof, and put himself at the head of the armies of the multitude, and declared himself to be the governor of the nation, which he began to rule with a rod of iron.
And this man being a mighty man of war, and a great captain, put himself at the head of the host of the Gauls, and thirsted for glory, dominion, and power.
And he waged war against the surrounding nations, and overthrew one people after another.
And his hosts were in number like unto the sands of the sea, and in power to the thunders of the skies; for his deeds resembled in quickness the lightning of heaven, and in might they were likened unto the thunderbolts thereof.
And lo, the people of Gaul forgot their former idol, which is described in the beginning of this book, and fell down and worshipped this strange and new idol, the nature whereof differed from the former in manner and in kind.
For upon the crown of this idol, which being a man, was altogether after the likeness thereof, there were written DOMINION, PRINCIPALITIES, and POWER; and under the crown, which was an iron crown, and on the forehead of the man there was written AMBITION; and on his breastplate there were also written, COUNSEL, PROMPTITUDE, and DECEIT.
And the man Napoleon held in his right hand a sword of steel, whereon were engraven DEATH, VICTORY, and CONQUEST, and in his left a roll of parchment, and in the roll was written the DOMINION of the WORLD, and under the same the names of the nations which he had conquered, yea all people within the reach of his power.
And on the sandal of his right foot there was engraven, in letter of brass, OPPRESSION, and on that of his left, SLAVERY.
And his throne, which reached unto the clouds, was raised on the backs of fallen nations, once great and glorious, but now prostrate and humbled in the dust.
For he had overthrown, like a whirlwind, and in the twinkling of an eye, the armies of many of the kings and rulers of the nations of the earth; because they had become vile and polluted in all manner of sinful corruption, and would not be warned by the voice of wisdom, and combine firmly together, nor be true and faithful on to another; but listened to the suggestions of the evil spirit and of the idol, which had darkened their understandings, and prepared them for downfall and ruin.
Now, the sway of this man pervaded many lands, and many of the kings and princes of the earth were made tributary to him, and the nations thereof groaned under his feet.
And he now compelled the tillers of the ground, and the labourers thereof, and the husbandmen, and the handicraftmen, who, under the first idol, had met together to commune concerning superiorities and powers, and to make laws unto themselves, to leave their peaceful homes, their wives, children, and kindred, and their lawful occupations, and to go into distant lands, and there endure cold and hunger, and suffer long marches, and mix in direful and bloody battles, all to fill up the measure of this man’s boundless ambition.
And it pleased the Lord, as a punishment for the wickedness and perverseness of the people, to deliver into the hands of this man the dominion over many lands, that they might be ruled as with a rod of iron, and chastened for the iniquity and wickedness of their ways, and brought back from the paths of sin and licentiousness, and the idolatry of the beast, to those of justice, moderation, and truth, and the fear of the only true and living God.
And the people of the land of Gaul, and all the nations whom it had pleased the Lord to deliver into the hands of this strange man, groaned heavily, and cried unto the Lord in their hearts for freedom, forgiveness, and mercy.
But having forgot and despised the Lord their God, in the pride and wickedness of their hearts, he left them to reap the fruits of their evil ways, and for a season listened not unto them in their sufferings and distress.
Now behold, all the nations within the reach of this man Napoleon, groaned under the dominion of his power, and were sore afflicted in mind, body, and estate, for his ruled over them with a scepter of iron.
CHAP. IV.
Response to claim: "The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead"
The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:
The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The theory put forth by critics of Mormonism is that Joseph altered the Book of Mormon to match his changing view of the Godhead. It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed only the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others. In his follow up, the author attempts to lump the Lectures on Faith (whose authorship is now questioned and whose theology is certainly not trinitarian) and the JST into the supposed works in which Joseph held a trinitarian view of the Godhead. This is contradicted by history. Mormons frequently talk about how we believe in the unity of the Godhead in purpose and not substance. This interpretation holds under scrutiny in all works.
Question: Does the Book of Mormon support trinitarianism?
A case can be made against this with a couple of passages
The Book of Mormon begins (1 Nephi 1꞉8-10) with Lehi's vision of God on his throne. One [Christ] followed by twelve others descends from God to speak with Lehi--thus, Jesus and the Father are here both separate, and the role of Christ in giving instructions to the prophet while the Father looks on and approves is followed, just as it was in Joseph's First Vision. Here too, Lehi is described as praying to "the Lord," and yet has a vision of both God the Father and Christ.
Alma 11:45 makes clear that the resurrection is permanent and Mosiah 15:20 (along with several others) makes clear that the resurrection is brought about through Christ.
In Ether 3:16 tells us that the Savior appears to Ether in the form of a spirit body. This distinction of spirit is notable as it certainly differs from Trinitarian ideas about God. It also gives us the first inklings of the doctrine of pre-existence in Latter-day Saint thought. This verse, along with v 17 tell us that Christ ministered unto the Nephites with his own body and let them feel the prints in his hands and feet. This notion refutes (or at the very least greatly complicates) the common trinitarian talking point that the Savior shed his body upon his ascension into heaven in Acts 1 to become one in substance again with the Father. That the Savior's spirit body can be seen suggests that the Spirit is material rather than material. That he is material suggests that he exists within time.
In 3 Nephi 28:10 the Savior is speaking to the 3 Nephites. After declaring that they would never endure the pains of death he states:
“10 And for this cause ye shall have fullness of joy; and he shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fullness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;”
Since the verse is juxtaposed closely with not tasting death and the Savior stating that they would be even as he and the Father are, this verse may be used to argue for an embodied Christ and God (and likely an early conceptualization of deification) in the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, the phrase “fullness of joy” is used in D&C 93:33 (dated to 1833) to describe element (or man’s tabernacle as v. 35 expresses) and spirit inseparably connected.
This shift in 3 Nephi is notable. Most of the Book of Mormon is speaking about Christ in his unembodied form and with him as the God of the Israelites (Jehovah or Yahweh). He was also the God of the Nephites so it is no surprise that he may be referred to as "The Great Spirit" of Alma or that he would be referred to as the father and the son (more explanation of that below). Once the Savior appears in the New World, he emphasizes his risen, glorified, inseparable-from-spirit body that is equal with the father's i.e. "ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father".
2 Nephi 2:13-14; Mosiah 15 as Prima Facie Evidence of Modalism/Trinitarianism
Critics of the Book of Mormon have traditionally focused on a couple of passages that seem to them to explicitly support a modalist view or trinitarian view. Blake Ostler has provided an excellent response to this.[267] See also the video from Book of Mormon Central linked to the right.
Critics of Mormonism have given little attention to the theology represented by the original text, merely reading into the text modern ideas about trinitarianism
As for points of the text before the Savior’s physical advent, some critics assert that the original Book of Mormon text supports trinitarianism, and that Joseph Smith's edits to the book were attempts to change this. While critics tend to focus on changes made by Joseph Smith to the Book of Mormon, they have given little attention to the theology represented by the original text, merely reading into the text modern ideas about trinitarianism. Brant Gardner has pointed out, “The problem is that when we focus on the fact of the change, we automatically ask the wrong questions.” [268] Gardner goes on to explain:
our first obligation [is] to understand what this passage tells us about Nephite theology. Before we worry about how to explain the Book of Mormon to make it fit our current descriptions of God, we really should understand how the Nephites described and understood God. To do this, we must approach the question not only critically, but historically. [269]
In the original text, Nephi speaks of a Messiah who is “God,” (1 Nephi 11:18), “the Eternal Father,” (1 Nephi 11:21), “the everlasting God,” yet is “the Son of the most high God” (1 Nephi 11:6). This Messiah-God/Son of God (Most High) becomes a man, suffers, and even dies “for the sins of the world” (1 Nephi 11:33). Later Nephi would summarize, “the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men” (1 Nephi 19:10). In approaching these concepts critically and historically, as Gardner recommends, we need to understand how they might have been understood by an Israelite around 600 BC.
As scholars have explored the origins of Christianity, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is deeply rooted in the earliest forms of Israelite religion
According to Daniel Boyarin, a leading scholar of Judaism, that “in the very moments that we take to be most characteristically Christian as opposed to Jewish,” we actually find some of the earliest conceptions of Israelite religion. These include:
the notion of a dual godhead with a Father and a Son, the notion of a Redeemer who himself will be both God and man, and the notion that this Redeemer would suffer and die as part of the salvational process. At least some of these ideas, the Father/Son godhead and the suffering savior, have deep roots in the Hebrew Bible as well and may be among some of the most ancient ideas about God and the world the Israelite people ever held. [270]
These are, notably, the very ideas portrayed to Nephi in vision.
Margaret Barker has attempted to reconstruct the religion of the Israelites during the time-period before the Babylonian exile. According to her, Yahweh (Jehovah) was both the God of Israel, and also the son of the Most High God (El Elyon), and manifest on earth in human form as the Messiah. [271] Brant Gardner summarizes her reconstruction:
A Father-God, ’El who is also called el elyon or “Most High God.”
According to Barker, “The original temple tradition was that Yahweh, the Lord, was the Son of God Most High, and present on earth as the Messiah.” [273] Once again, these are the very concepts expressed in Nephi’s vision.
While being the son of El Elyon, Yahweh was the father of Israel through covenant. [274] This same kind of relationship is expressed in the Book of Mormon (e.g., Mosiah 3:7). As Brant Gardner explains, “Yahweh becomes the father as he acts in the vertical deity-to-mortal realm … the people’s covenant create a new relationship with God.” [275]
The explanation for this conflation of Father and Son cannot be found in post-Christian theologies of modalism or trinitarianism
The theological setting indicated by Boyarin, Barker, and Gardner provides a conceptual framework that explains how and why Nephi would refer to the Messiah both as God and as the son of the Most High God, and even as father. Gardner thus concludes:
The explanation for this conflation of Father and Son cannot be found in post-Christian theologies of modalism or trinitarianism. However, by reading these passages against the Nephite [i.e., ancient Israelite] cultural context, we can understand why Nephi could hold what appear, to modern readers, to be contradictory beliefs about God. [276]
The Book of Mormon presents the divine counsel motif which is not trinitarian
The Book of Mormon presents the divine counsel motif which is not trinitarian. The divine counsel is the counsel of divine beings that consult with a head deity. There are, in effect, other beings that are considered divine that take counsel with in this case El. Since the Book of Mormon presents this motif of a divine counsel, it cannot be considered strictly trinitarian and especially in a post 400 CE sense. Stephen Smoot, a Latter-day Saint scholar, has explored how the Book of Mormon presents the divine counsel in a paper published in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. Readers can gain access to Smoot's paper by following the link contained in the citation to the right of this sentence.[277]
Why did Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book"?
Joseph Smith: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth"
In the History of the Church, the following entry is recorded as having been made by Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841.[278]
Sunday, 28.--I spent the day in the council with the Twelve Apostles at the house of President Young, conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Brother Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent four years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.
Critics of the Church assert that the phrase "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth" means that the Prophet Joseph Smith was declaring the Book of Mormon to be without error of any kind. Since each edition of the printed Book of Mormon since 1829 (including editions published during the life of Joseph Smith) has included changes of wording, spelling, or punctuation, critics declare Joseph Smith's statement to have been demonstrably false, thus proving that he was a false prophet.
Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" because of the principles it teaches
When Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" on earth, he was referring to the principles that it teaches, not the accuracy of its textual structure.
Critics of the Book of Mormon have mistakenly interpreted "correct" to be synonymous with "perfect," and therefore expect the Book of Mormon to be without any errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity of phrasing, and other such ways.
But when Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the "most correct of any book," he was referring to more than just wording, a fact made clear by the remainder of his statement: He said "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." When read in context, the Prophet's statement refers to the correctness of the principles it teaches. The Book of Mormon is the "most correct of any book" in that it contains the fulness of the gospel and presents it in a manner that is "plain and precious" (1 Nephi 13:35,40).
Mormon said "And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men"
It should first be noted that the Book of Mormon itself does not claim to be free of errors. As Mormon himself stated in the introduction to the Book of Mormon:
And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ. (1830 Book of Mormon title page)
Moroni said "because of the imperfections which are in it"
Mormon's son Moroni also acknowledges that the record that has been created is imperfect:
And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you. Mormon 8꞉12
The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant
As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":[279]
The doctrine of inerrancy is internally incoherent. In my opinion, numerous insuperable problems dictate the rejection of inerrancy in general and inerrancy as promulgated in the Chicago Statement in particular. First, the Chicago Statement is self-referentially incoherent. One cannot consistently assert that the Bible is the basis of his or her beliefs and then assert that one must nevertheless accept biblical inerrancy as asserted in the Chicago Statement...This statement contains a number of assertions, propositions if you will, that are not biblical. Inerrancy, at least as recently asserted by evangelicals, is not spelled out in the Bible. Nowhere do the words inerrant or infallible appear in the Bible. Such theoretical views are quite alien to the biblical writers. Further, inerrancy is not included in any of the major creeds. Such a notion is of rather recent vintage and rather peculiar to American evangelicalism. Throughout the history of Christian thought, the Bible has been a source rather than an object of beliefs. The assertion that the Bible is inerrant goes well beyond the scriptural statements that all scripture is inspired or "God-breathed." Thus inerrancy, as a faith commitment, is inconsistent with the assertion that one's beliefs are based on what the Bible says. The doctrine of inerrancy is an extrabiblical doctrine about the Bible based on nonscriptural considerations. It should be accepted only if it is reasonable and if it squares with what we know from scripture itself, and not as an article of faith... However, it is not and it does not.
The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.[280]
No book of scripture is "perfect"
Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in scriptural inerrancy. We do not believe that any book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:
When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.[281]
So while the Book of Mormon has come down to us with fewer doctrinal errors and corruptions than the Bible, even it could be improved if we were ready to receive further light and knowledge.
Infelicities of language are also to be expected when produced by revelators with little education, said George A. Smith:
The Book of Mormon was denounced as ungrammatical. An argument was raised that if it had been translated by the gift and power of God it would have been strictly grammatical.... When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding.[282]
Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?
Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today
It is claimed that Latter-day Saint leaders diminish the Bible as untrustworthy.
Do the Latter-day Saints detract from the Bible? Do they criticize it? No more so than the majority of Biblical scholars.
Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today. Only those who completely reject modern biblical textual criticism would find LDS leaders' views radical or evil. In fact, LDS beliefs on the matter accord well with many other Christian denominations. Those who vilify LDS belief on this point tend to be at the extreme end of the debate about scriptural inerrancy, and would also reject a modern creedal, orthodox scholar's views.
The Latter-day Saints believe that the Bible is true. It is inspired and inspiring, having been inspired by God and written by prophets, apostles, and disciples of Jesus Christ.
In 1979, the Church produced its own King James Bible, complete with a set of footnotes and cross references, as well as translational notes and study helps
Prior to this publication, the Church purchased most of its King James Bibles from Cambridge University Press. Does this sound like an organization that is using the Bible merely as a public relations gimmick? If so, millions of members were never told. The Church and its members have a deep love and appreciation for the Word of God as found in the Bible.
The bold assertion that the LDS do not value the Bible is amusing. There is no presentation of statistics, only anecdotal claims that first, LDS members do not read the Bible and are not familiar with it, and second, that they constantly hear from their leaders that the Bible is less than trustworthy.
In a survey published in July 2001, Barna Research Group, Ltd. (BRG) made the following observations:
The study also revealed that barely half of all Protestant adults (54%) read the Bible during a typical week. Barna pointed out that Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants-even though most Mormons do not believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.[283]
BRG is not affiliated with the LDS Church, nor was the LDS Church involved in the survey. Members of the LDS Church likewise would not categorize their faith in this fashion—they do, in fact, regard the Bible as authoritative and the Word of God. Yet the survey indicated that they certainly do read the Bible consistently. Also, over the course of two years out of every four years, every member of the Church is asked to read and study the entire text of the Bible as part of the Church's Sunday School curriculum. Asked by whom? By the leaders of the LDS Church.
Early LDS study of biblical languages
One of the often-neglected events in LDS history happened in 1836. Joseph Smith arranged for a Hebrew scholar to come and teach Hebrew to the members of the LDS Church in Kirtland Ohio. The members of the Church had already been studying the Hebrew language, having purchased some grammars, a Hebrew Bible, and a lexicon, and had previously attempted to hire a teacher. The Hebrew scholar who came was Joshua Seixas. He spent several weeks instructing many of the members of the Church in Hebrew.[284] Why the interest in the Hebrew we might ask? Clearly it was to be able to (in the words of Pope Pius XII) 'explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern.'
What this shows is that not only were the early LDS aware of the challenges associated with the Bible, but that they were just as interested in going back to the original language and to the original texts (if possible) as was the rest of Christendom who were aware of these discrepancies. Despite the critics' unfounded assertions to the contrary, there has never been a leader of the LDS Church who has ever suggested that the Bible was not suitable for study and for learning the Gospel due to any shortcomings it may have.
The Book of Mormon on the Bible
Critics often discuss two of Nephi's statements regarding the Bible as found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's perspective is that of modern Latter-day Saints: The Bible contains truth from God. However, it is still the work of men, and is only as reliable as the men who wrote, translated and copied it.
It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.[285] Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.[286] This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.
Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 98. ( Index of claims )
↑Olson is co-author of a letter to Nature, in which he discusses these ideas in a more technical format. See Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans," 431 Nature (30 September 2004): 562–566. off-site Olson provides a "semi-technical" description of his findings here.
↑Steve Olson, "Why We're All Jesus' Children," slate.com (15 March 2006). Last accessed 12 October 2006 (emphasis added). off-site
↑For the history of the LGT, see Matthew Roper, "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 225–276. off-site
↑ 8.08.18.28.38.48.5John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture" (Part 1), Ensign (September 1984) off-site
↑ 9.09.1Matthew Roper, "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," The FARMS Review 16/2 (2004).
↑John E. Clark, “Evaluating the Case for a Limited Great Lakes Setting,” FARMS Review of Books 14/1–2 (2002): 28.
↑Matthew Roper, "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 225–276. off-site
↑Daniel C. Peterson, "Yet More Abuse of B. H. Roberts (Review of The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts: Five Questions That Forced a Mormon General Authority to Abandon the Book of Mormon)," FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 69–86. off-site
↑Rudi Paul Lindner, “Nomadism, Horses, and Huns,” Past and Present 92 (August 1981): 13, emphasis added.
↑Wade Miller, Science and the Book of Mormon (Laguna Niguel, CA: KCT & Associates, 2010) 11-2; 28-9. As Miller writes: “It should be realized if the Book of Mormon lands were actually in Mesoamerica, that the heat and humidity there would soon have destroyed items of iron and steel.”
↑Elizabeth J. Reitz and Elizabeth S. Wing, Zooarchaeology, (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 117-151; Terry O’Conner, The Archaeology of Animal Bones, (Sutton Publ., 2008), 19-28; E. Chaplin, The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeology Sites, (London and New York: Seminal Press, 1971), 14-19.
↑ Elizabeth J. Reitz and Elizabeth S. Wing, Zooarchaeology, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 118.
↑ Jacques Soustelle, The Olmecs: The Oldest Civilization in Mexico, trans. Helen R. Lane (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985).
↑ Michael D. Coe and Richard A. Diehl, In the Land of the Olmec: Volume 1, The Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980), 392.
↑ Simon J. M. Davis, The Archaeology of Animals (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), 23.
↑ Elizabeth J. Reitz and Elizabeth S. Wing, Zooarchaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 117–52; O’Connor, Archaeology of Animal Bones, 19–28; Chaplin Study of Animal Bones, 14–19
↑Wade Miller and Matthew Roper "Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives" BYU Studies 56:4 (December 2017)
↑S. L. Vartanyan, V. E. Garutt, and A. V. Sher, "Holocene Dwarf Mammoths from Wrangle Island in the Siberian Arctic,” Nature 362 (March 25, 1993): 337; Veronica Nystrom and others, “Temporal Genetic Change in the Last Remaining Population of Woolly Mammoth,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (March 31, 2010): 2331–37.
↑ Robert M. May, John H. Lawton, and Nigel E. Stork, “Assessing Extinction Rates,” in Extinction Rates, ed. John H. Lawton and Robert M. May (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 2.
↑James Haile and others, “Ancient DNA Reveals Late Survival of Mammoth and Horse in Interior Alaska,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (December 29, 2009): 22352.
↑ Edwin H. Colbert and Michael Morales, Colbert’s Evolution of the Vertebrates (New York: Wiley-Liss Publishers, 1991), 67.
↑ S. L. Vartanyan, V. E. Garutt, and A. V. Sher, “Holocene Dwarf Mammoths from Wrangle Island in the Siberian Arctic,” Nature 362 (March 25, 1993): 337; Veronica Nystrom and others, “Temporal Genetic Change in the Last Remaining Population of Woolly Mammoth,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (March 31, 2010): 2331–37.
↑ Douglas W. Veltre and others, “Patterns of Faunal Extinction and Paleoclimatic Chanage from Mid-Holocene Mammoth and Polar Bear Remains, Pribilof Islands, Alaska,” Quarternary Research 70 (July 2008): 40–50.
↑ Haile and others, “Ancient DNA Reveals Late Survival,” 22352–57.
↑ See Karl P. N. Shuker, The Lost Ark: New and Rediscovered Animals of the 20th Century (London: Blandford Publishing, 1993), 11.
↑For example, see Jonathan Adams, Species Richness: Patterns in the Diversity of Life (New York: Springer Publications, 2009), 14–15; R. D. E. MacPhee, “Insulae infortunatae: Establishing a Chronolgoy for Late Quaternary Mammal Extinctions in the West Indies,” in American Megafaunal Extinctions at the End of the Pleistocene, ed. Gary Haynes (New York: Springer Publications, 2009), 186; and Samuel T. Turvey, “In the Shadow of the Megafauna: Prehistoric Mammal and Bird Extinctions across the Holocene,” in Holocene Extinctions, ed. Samuel T. Turvey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 19–20.
↑Wade E. Miller, “Mammut Americanum, Utah’s First Record of the American Mastodon,” Journal of Paleontology 61 (January 1987): 168–83.
↑Victor Hernandez-Jayme, “2013 Maya Meetings Held at UT: New Temples, Fire Glyphs and Legends,” The Daily Texan, January 22, 2013, online at http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2013/01/22/2013-maya-meetings-held-at-ut-new-temples-fire-glyphs-and-legends (accessed October 12, 2018): “‘Truth is, we don’t know squat,’ said George Stuart, director for the Center for Maya Research and keynote speaker for the 2013 Maya Meetings. ‘There’s about 6,000 known Maya sites and we’ve only researched about 5 percent of them.’” Stuart was one of the leading authorities on the archaeology of the Maya before he passed away June 11, 2014. See also Mark Alan Wright, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 2 (2013): 6.
↑The following text was copied from this article on the FAIR Wiki.
↑John A. Tvedtnes, "Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 8–50.
↑John A. Tvedtnes, "Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 8–50. off-site
↑Matthew Roper, "Unanswered Mormon Scholars (Review of Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism Raised by Mormon Defenders)," FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 87–145. [{{{1}}} off-site]
↑John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 293-294.
↑For a discussion, see John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 298.
↑This chart has been criticized by some. Important to remember is that this chart was a random sampling taken by John Clark who compiled the list based on things that critics suggested did not exist during Joseph Smith's day. Clark used a careful methodology to determine how confirmed something was. He is one of the top Mesoamericanists working today.
↑Matt Roper and Kirk Magleby, "Time Vindicates the Prophet," (presentation, FairMormon Conference 2019, Provo, Utah).
↑Jay F. Kirkpatrick and Patricia M. Fazio, "The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses," LiveScience.com (July 24, 2008) off-site
↑S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267.
↑Paul R. Cheesman, The World of the Book of Mormon (Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publishers, 1984), 194, 181.
↑William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1. (1993). [161–197] link
↑John Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy” (unpublished, 1994), 29-30 (copy in Mike Ash’s possession); Benjamin Urrutia, “Lack of Animal Remains at Bible and Book-of-Mormon Sites,” Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, 150 (August 1982), 3-4.
↑"Horses in the Book of Mormon" (Provo: Utah, FARMS, 2000). off-site
↑ Clay E. Ray, “Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan,” Journal of Mammalogy 38:2 (1957), 278.
↑Mike Ash notes that this story was told at the Q&A session following Dr. Sorenson’s presentation, “The Trajectory of Book of Mormon Studies,” 2 August 2007 at the 2007 FAIR Conference; audio and video in author’s possession.
↑ John Clark during Q&A session following Dr. Clark’s presentation, “Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief,” 25 May 2004 at BYU; audio of Q&A in author Mike Ash's possession.
↑Anonymous, "Out of the Dust: Were Ancient Americans Familiar with Real Horses?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10/1 (2001). link
↑See Harry E. D. Pollock and Clayton E. Ray, "Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from Mayapan," Current Reports 41 (August 1957): 638; this publication is from the Department of Archaeology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. See also Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalogy 38 (1957): 278.
↑Henry C. Mercer, The Hill-Caves of Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man's Antiquity in the Caverns of Central America (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1896), 172.
↑Robert T. Hatt, "Faunal and Archaeological Researches in Yucatan Caves," Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bulletin 33, 1953. See Peter J. Schmidt, "La entrada del hombre a la península de Yucatan," in Orígines del Hombre Americano, comp. Alba Gonzalez Jacome (México: Secretaria de Educación Pública, 1988), 250.
↑Paul S. Martin, "The Discovery of America," Science 179 (1973): 974 n. 3.
↑Donald K. Grayson (Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195), "Deciphering North American Pleistocene Extinctions,"Journal of Anthropological Research, in press (2007 JAR Distinguished Lecture)
↑Bernardino de Sahagun, The War of Conquest: How It Was Waged Here in Mexico: the Aztecs' own story (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1978).
↑Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalology 38 (1957): 278; Harry E. D. Pollock and Clayton E. Ray, "Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from Mayapan," Current Reports 41 (August 1957): 638 (Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C., Dept. of Archaeology).
↑Folkbiology Douglas L. Medin, Scott Altran editors. MIT Press (1999) p. 131.
↑ 75.075.175.2Quoted in Hans Frädrich and Erich Thenius, "Tapirs," Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, ed. Bernhard Grzimek (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company), 13:19—30.
↑"Horses in the Book of Mormon," Neal A. Maxwell Institute.
↑Daniel C. Peterson and Matthew Roper, "Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons," The FARMS Review 16/1 (2004).
↑Daniel C. Peterson and Matthew Roper, "Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons," The FARMS Review 16/1 (2004).
↑John A. Tvedtnes, "Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 8–50.
↑John A. Tvedtnes, "Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 8–50. off-site
↑Matthew Roper, "Unanswered Mormon Scholars (Review of Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism Raised by Mormon Defenders)," FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 87–145. [{{{1}}} off-site]
↑John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 293-294.
↑John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 294.
↑Robert T. Hatt, “Faunal and archaeological researches in Yucatan caves.” Cranbrook Institute of Science 33 (1953), 1-42.
↑Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales and Oscar Polaco, “Caves and the Pleistocene vertebrate paleontology of Mexico.” In B. W. Schubert, J. I. Mead and R. W. Graham (eds.) Ice Age Faunas of North America (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2003), 273-291.
↑Pietro Martire d'Anghiera, De Orbe Novo: The Eight Decades of Peter Martyr d'Anghera (1912), 2:259.
↑C. Radulesco and P. Samson, Sur un centre de domestication du mouton dans le Mesolithique de grotte “La Adam, en Dobrogea,” Tierzüchlung und Züchtungsbiologic 76 (1962), 282-320.
↑E. Raymond Hall and Keith R. Kelson, The Mammals of North America,” (New York, Ronald Press, 1959).1
↑Valerius Geist, “Mountain Sheep: A Study in Behavior and Evolution,” (Chicago and London: University of Chicago press, 1971), 41.
↑Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 1985), 296-97.
↑"Ovis canadensis". Integrated Taxonomic Information System. Retrieved 18 March 2006.
↑Grubb, P. (16 November 2005). Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M, eds. Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. off-site
↑Wikiepdia article "Peccary" (accessed 8 January 2015). off-site
↑John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 290.
↑A. Starker Leopold, “Wildlife of Mexico: The Game Birds and Mammals,” (Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1959), 493-500.
↑S. T. Evans, “Ancient Mexico & Central America: Archaeology and Culture History,” (London, Thames & Hudson, Ltd., 2004).
↑Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales and Ticul Alverez, “A preliminary report of the late Quaternary mammal fauna from Loltún Cave, Yucatán, México,” In B. W. Schubert, J. I. Mead and R. W. Graham (eds.) Ice Age Faunas of North America (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2003), 266.
↑Robert T. Hatt, Faunal and Archaeological Researches in Yucatan Caves (1953), 1-42.
↑Wikipedia article "Mountain goat" (accessed 8 January 2015) off-site
↑ Jehuda. Felilks., “Animals of the Bible and Talmud,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (1996)3:8.
↑Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Ibid), 299; Roper, “Deer as `Goat’ and Pre-Columbian Domesticate,” Insights: An Ancient Window 26/6 (2006), 2-3.
↑S. L. Vartanyan, V. E. Garutt, and A. V. Sher, “Holocene dwarf Mammoths from Wrangle Island in the Siberian Arctic,” Nature 362 (1993),337-340.
↑David R. Yesner, Douglas W. Veltre, Kristine J. Crossen and Russell W. Graham, 5,700-year-old Mammoth Remains from Qagnax Cave, Pribilof Islands, Alaska. In L. D. Agenbroad and R. L. Symington (eds.), The World of Elepahants (Short Papers and Abstracts of the 2nd International Congress, 2005), 200-204.
↑James I. Mead and David J. Meltzer, “North American late Quaternary extinctions and the radiocarbon record, In P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein (eds.) Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, (Tucson, University of Arizona Press. 1984), 440-450.
↑ John R. Swanton, Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911), 355.
↑ 123.0123.1123.2 W. D. Strong, “North American traditions suggesting a knowledge of the mammoth,” American Anthropologist 36 (1934), 81-88.
↑ Ludwell H. Johnson, “Men and Elephants in America,” The Scientific Monthly 75 (1952), 220-221.
↑Juan de Torquemada, Monarchia Indiana (Mexico, 1943), 1:38; Jose de Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies (2002), 384.
↑Adrienne Mayor, Fossil Legends of the First Americans (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005), 97.
↑John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 184-185.
↑Jonathan D. Sauer, "The Grain Amaranths: A Survey of Their History and Classification," Missouri Botanical Garden Annals 37 (1950):561-632. George F. Carter, "Domesticates as Artifacts," in The Human Mirror: Material and Spatial images of Man, ed. Miles Richardson (Baton Rouge: Louisiana Stage University Press, 1974), pp. 212-13. (Sorenson, Chapter 5, endnote 65. Note: This is erroneously indicated in the text as endnote 64).
↑Careyn Patricia Armitage, "Silk production and its impact on families and communities in Oaxaca, Mexico," Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Iowa State University (2008) off-site References de Ávila Blomberg, A. (1997). Threads of diversity: Oaxacan textiles in context. In K. Klein (Ed.) The unbroken thread: Conserving the textile traditions of Oaxaca (pp.87-151). Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
↑John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 232. See also Sorenson, "Silk and Linen in the Book of Mormon,"Ensign (April 1992): 62.
↑A.P. Maudslay, trans. and ed. Bernal Diaz del Castillo: The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, 1517-1521 (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy, 1956), 24. (Note: Sorenson p. 232 note 52 corresponds to endnote 52, p. 382).
↑I.W. Johnson, "Basketry and Textiles," HMAI 10, part 1 (1971), 312. Matthew Wallrath in Excavations in the Tehuantepec Region, Mexico, American Philosophical Society Transactions, n.s. 57, part 2 (1967): 12, notes that wild silk was collected and spun in the isthmus area, and that the cloth had very high value. Clavigero also reported that fiber of the ceiba tree's pod was woven by Mexican Indians into fabric "as soft and delicate, and perhaps more so, than silk." C. Cullen, ed., The History of Mexico, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1817), 41. (Note: Sorenson p. 232 note 54 corresponds to endnote 53, p. 382)
↑Robert Maddin, James D. Muhly and Tamara S. Wheeler, “How the Iron Age Began,” Scientific American 237/4 [October 1977]:127. Cited by Matthew Roper, "Laban’s Sword of 'Most Precious Steel' (Howlers #5),"FairMormon Blog (17 June 2013)
↑John L. Sorenson, "Steel in Early Metallurgy," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 15/2 (2006). [108–109] link
↑Lenore O. Keene Congdon, "Steel in Antiquity: A Problem in Terminology," in Studies Presented to George M. A. Hanfmann, ed. David Gordon Mitten et al. (Cambridge: Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, 1971), 18–19.
↑Robert James Forbes, Metallurgy in Antiquity: A Notebook for Archaeologists and Technologists (Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1950), 402.
↑Harvey Harlow Nininger, Find a Falling Star (New York: Paul S. Erikson, 1972), 238.
↑Congdon, "Steel in Antiquity," 24–25; D. Davis et al., "A Steel Pick from Mount Adir in Palestine," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44/1 (1985): 42; and Muhly, "Mining and Metalwork," 3:1515.
↑Patrick E. McGovern, "The Innovation of Steel in Transjordan," Journal of Metals 40/7 (1988): 50; Jane C. Waldbaum, From Bronze to Iron: The Transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in the Eastern Mediterranean (Göteborg, Sweden: Paul Åström, 1978), 54; and Robert Maddin et al., "How the Iron Age Began," Scientific American 237 (1977): 122.
↑Tamara S. Wheeler and Robert Maddin, "Metallurgy and Ancient Man," in Coming of the Age of Iron, ed. Wertime and Muhly, 116.
↑John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 284.
↑H.H. Bancroft, The Native Races (of the Pacific States), vol. 2 (San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft and Co., 1882), pp. 407-8.
↑Rene Rebetez, Objetos Prehispanicos de Hierro Y Piedra (Mexico: Libreria Anticuaria, n.d.).
↑Sigvald Linne, Mexican Highland Cultures, Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Publication 7, n.s. (Stockholm, 1942), p. 132.
↑John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 285.
↑John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996 [1985]), 283.
↑Lynn M. Hilton and Hope Hilton, In Search of Lehi's Trail (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 21. ISBN 0877476306. Also published in Ensign 6 (September 1976): off-site and (October 1976): off-site. The Hiltons cite Nibley's 1950 Improvement Era articles.
↑See S. Kent Brown, "'The Place Which Was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen," JBMS 8/1 (1999): 66-68; and Warren P. Aston, "Newly Found Altars from Nahom," JBMS 10/2 (2001): 56-61.
↑See Burkhard Vogt, "Les temples de Ma'rib," in Y émen: au pays de la reine de Saba (Paris: Flammarion, 1997), 144; see also the preliminary report by Burkhard Vogt et al., "Arsh Bilqis"—Der Temple des Almaqah von Bar'an in Marib (Sana'a, Yemen, 2000).
↑Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002), 120.
↑Brown: "On these ancient laws, see Nigel Groom, Frankincense and Myrrh: A Study of the Arabian Incense Trade (London: Longman Group Ltd., 1981), 169–70, 181, 183–84. Concerning the taxation of incense and the gifts to the temples, see Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 12.32 ( §63)."
↑MormonThink.com and Mormon Curtain (accessed 4 June 2014). As of 18 October 2014, MormonThink has removed it, while it is still present on Mormon Curtain.
↑The claim still appears on Mormon Curtain as of 18 October 2014.
↑William J. Hamblin, message posted 20 October 2004 in thread, “Not So Easy? 2 BoM Challenge,” on FAIRboards.org off-site (accessed 10 April 2005). See also follow-up: William Hamblin, message posted 28 October 2004 in thread, “Not So Easy? 3” on FAIRboards.org off-site (accessed 10 April 2005).
↑William J. Hamblin, message posted 20 October 2004 in thread, “Not So Easy? 2 BoM Challenge,” on FAIRboards.org off-site (accessed 10 April 2005)
↑William J. Hamblin, message posted 28 October 2004 in thread, “Not So Easy? 2 BoM Challenge,” on FAIRboards.org off-site (accessed 10 April 2005).
↑William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1. (1993). [161–197] link
↑William G. Dever, “archaeology and the Bible: Understanding Their Special Relationship,” Biblical archaeology Review (May/June 1990) 16:3.
↑Daniel C. Peterson, "Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness (Review of Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon)," FARMS Review of Books 5/1 (1993): 1–86. off-site
↑Hamblin citing Joyce Marcus, Mesoamerican Writing Systems (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992), 212–220 and Linda Schele and David Freidel, A Forest of Kings (New York: William Marrow & Company, 1990), 440, n28.
↑ See Hamblin, posted 29 January 2004 in thread, “What Would Be Proof of the Book of Mormon,” on Zion’s Lighthouse Bulletin Board (ZLMB)off-site(accessed 10 April 2005).
↑William J. Hamblin (posting under the screen-name, “MorgbotX”), posted 29 January 2004 in thread, “What Would Be Proof of the Book of Mormon,” on Zion’s Lighthouse Bulletin Board (ZLMB) off-site(accessed 10 April 2005).
↑William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the AntiMormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993), pp.190-191.
↑ Matt Roper, "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," The FARMS Review 16/2 (2004).
↑For the history of the LGT, see Matthew Roper, "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 225–276. off-site
↑John E. Clark, “Evaluating the Case for a Limited Great Lakes Setting,” FARMS Review of Books 14/1–2 (2002): 28.
↑Matthew Roper, "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 225–276. off-site
↑Janne M Sjodahl, An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1927).
↑John L. Sorenson, "Addendum," to John Gee, "A Tragedy of Errors (Review of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri by Charles M. Larson," FARMS Review of Books 4/1 (1992): 93–119. off-site
↑Jeremy Runnells posting as "kolobot": "CrowdThought: CES Letter Book of Mormon Geography/Vernal Holley Maps...keep or remove?" (posted 2015 on exmormon subrreddit).
↑Vernal Holley, Book of Mormon Authorship (self-published, 1989)
↑T. Pownhall, A Topographical Description of Such Parts of North America as are Contained in the (Annexed) Map of the Middle British Colonies, &c. in North America, p. 40. (1776)
↑Map of Anjouan [Nzwani], one of the Comoro Islands[Bellin, Jacques Nicolas, 1703-1772]. Carte de L'Isle D'Anjouan / Kaart van 'T Eiland Anjuan. par le Cap. Cornwal. [Paris?: Bellin?, 1748?] Call number: G 9212 .A5 P5 1748 .B45 off-site
↑Royal Skousen, “Oliver Cowdery as Book of Mormon Scribe,” in Days Never to Be Forgotten: Oliver Cowdery, ed. Alexander L. Baugh (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 53.
↑ Barbara Dubins, "Nineteenth-Century Travel Literature on the Comoro Islands: A Bibliographical Essay," African Studies Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Sep., 1969): 138-146
↑Grant Palmer, "Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd, Cumorah, and Moroni," John Whitmer Historical Association vol. 34 no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2014): 50—7.
↑Ronald V. Huggins, "From Captain Kidd's Treasure Ghost to Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36 no. 4 (2003).
↑ See Jeremy Runnells "Debunking FairMormon; July 2014 Revision"
↑ See Wikipedia "Cumorah" under "Alternative origin of the name"
↑ Barbara Dubins, "Nineteenth-Century Travel Literature on the Comoro Islands: A Bibliographical Essay," African Studies Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Sep., 1969), pp. 138-146
↑The author's name is generally regarded as a pseudonym; some have credited Daniel Defoe as the actual author.
↑Charles Johnson, A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates (London: C. Rivington, 1724). The second edition of same year is A General History of the Pyrates : from their first rise and settlement in the Island of Providence, to the present time, The second edition with considerable additions (London: T. Warner, 1724), but contains no mention of Kidd.
↑Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, ed. Brigham D. Madsen (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1985).
↑View of the Hebrews: 1825 2nd Edition Complete Text by Ethan Smith, edited by Charles D. Tate Jr., (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996), 223. ISBN 1570082472. off-sitewikisource
↑Stephen D. Ricks, "Review of The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters," FARMS Review of Books 4/1 (1992): 235–250. off-site
↑Andrew H. Hedges, "Review of: View of the Hebrews," FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 63–68. off-site
↑Jeremy Runnells, "Debunking FairMormon" under Witnesses. Last updated 4 June 2014
↑Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents 5 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1996-2003) 3:176-7
↑Terryl Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion, 173.
↑Theodore Schroeder, "Authorship of the Book of Mormon: Psychologic Tests of W. F. Prince Critically Reviewed," American Journal of Psychology 30 (January 1919): 70.
↑Paul Mouritsen, "Secret Combinations and Flaxen Cords: Anti-Masonic Rhetoric and the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [–77] link
↑Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, Together with the Journal of the Federal Convention, Luther Martin's Letter, Yates's Minutes, Congressional Opinions, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of '98-99 and other Illustrations of the Constitution, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1861), 318, emphasis added.
↑Robert V. Remini, Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union (New York and London: Norton, 1991), 340; cited in Daniel C. Peterson, "Secret Combinations Revisited," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1/1 (1992). [184–188] link
↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Notes on 'Gadianton Masonry'," Warfare in the Book of Mormon, eds. Stephen D. Ricks and William Hamblin (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 174–224.
↑The Reflector (Palmyra, New York) 1, no. 4 (23 September 1829): 14. off-site
↑“Antimasonic Religion,” Ohio Star (Ravenna, Ohio) (24 March 1831). off-site
↑“A new excitement: Mormonism versus Anti-masonry,” Morning Courier and New-York Enquirer (New York City, New York) 7, no. 1247 (21 May 1831). off-site
↑Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations, chapter 14
↑ B. H. Roberts to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, March 1923. (See Studies of the Book of Mormon (1992), p. 58. On page 33, note 65, the editor of this work states that the date on this letter should be 1922 rather than 1923.)
↑B. H. Roberts, "The Translation of the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era no. 9 (April 1906), 435–436.
↑ B. H. Roberts to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, March 1923. (See Studies of the Book of Mormon (1992), p. 58. On page 33, note 65, the editor of this work states that the date on this letter should be 1922 rather than 1923.)
↑Brigham H. Roberts, Conference Report (April 1930), 47.
↑B. H. Roberts, “Protest Against the Science-Thought of a ‘Dying Universe’ and no Immortality for Man: The Mission of the Church of the New Dispensation,” delivered SLC Tabernacle, Sunday, 23 January 1932; reproduced in Discourses of B.H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy, compiled by Ben E. Roberts (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company 1948), 11–30.
↑Jeremy Runnells, Letter to a CES Director (March 2015 revision).
↑See under "D. Two Scriptural Objections." in Blake T. Ostler, "Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity" Element: A Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology 1:1 (2005)off-site.
↑Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2007–2008), 1:214, emphasis in original.
↑Margaret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” in The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2006), 79.
↑Barker, The Great Angel, 4–10; Gardner, Second Witness, 1: 217-222.
↑Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 4:461. Volume 4 link
↑On the Chicago Statement, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–185.
↑Blake T. Ostler, "Bridging the Gulf (Review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation)," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 103–177. off-site (italics in original)
↑The full survey, entitled "Protestants, Catholics and Mormons Reflect Diverse Levels of Religious Activity," can be found at the Barna Web site at www.barna.org.
↑Perhaps as many as 120 members of the LDS Church studied under Seixas while he was in Kirtland.
↑See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.
Question: What changes were made to the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon?
Among the changes Joseph Smith made are these four in 1 Nephi 11 and 13
The earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God." Joseph Smith later changed some, but not all, of these to "the Son of God." It is claimed by some that this is evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity, claiming that Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine. However, this change was a deliberate editorial insertion by Joseph Smith to clarify four verses in 1 Nephi.
The second edition of the Book of Mormon was published in 1837 at Kirtland, Ohio. The typesetting and printing were done during the winter of 1836–37, with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taking an active part in the editing process.
In this edition numerous corrections were made to the text of the 1830 (first) edition to bring it back to the reading in the original and printer's manuscripts. Joseph Smith also made a number of editorial changes to the text, as was his right as the translator of the text.
Among the changes he made are these four in 1 Nephi 11 and 13:
& the angel said unto me behold the lam of god yea even the eternal father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw
& the Angel said unto me behold the Lamb of God yea even the <God> Father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw
And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?
And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?
& it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again saying look and i lookt & beheld the lam of god that he was taken By the People yea the ever lasting god was judgd of the world and i saw & bare record
& it came to pass that the Angel spake unto me again saying look & I looked & behold the Lamb of God that he was taken by the People yea the everlasting God was Judged of the world & I saw & bear record
And it came to pass the angel spake unto me again, saying, look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.
And it came to pass the angel spake unto me again, saying, look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.
& the Angel spake unto me saying these last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles shall establish the truth of the first which is <which are> of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb & shall make known the plain & precious things which have been taken away from them & shall make known unto all Kindreds Tongues & People that the Lamb of God is the <the son of> eternal Father & the saviour of the world & that all men must Come unto him or they cannot be saved
And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain the precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved;
And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain the precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved;
(The strikeouts and <insertions> in the printer's manuscript are in Joseph's hand, and were added by him during the preparation of the 1837 edition.)
Question: Why did Joseph Smith make changes to the Book of Mormon such as modifying "God" to read "the Son of God"?
These changes were made for the purpose of clarification, not doctrinal modification
These changes are clarifications that the passages are speaking of Jesus, not God the Father.
The terms "God," "Everlasting God," and "Eternal Father" are ambiguous since they could properly refer to either the Father or the Son. For example, "Eternal Father" refers to God the Father in Moroni 4:3, Moroni 5:2, and Moroni 10:4, but to God the Son in Mosiah 16:15 and Alma 11:38-39.
The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:
"And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself...as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up...and to be crucified...and to be buried in a sepulchre...." (1 Nephi 19:10)
"...he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." (Mosiah 7:27)
"Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father." (Mosiah 16:15)
"Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Alma 11:38-39)
It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others.[1]
Why did Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book"?
Joseph Smith: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth"
In the History of the Church, the following entry is recorded as having been made by Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841.[2]
Sunday, 28.--I spent the day in the council with the Twelve Apostles at the house of President Young, conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Brother Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent four years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.
Critics of the Church assert that the phrase "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth" means that the Prophet Joseph Smith was declaring the Book of Mormon to be without error of any kind. Since each edition of the printed Book of Mormon since 1829 (including editions published during the life of Joseph Smith) has included changes of wording, spelling, or punctuation, critics declare Joseph Smith's statement to have been demonstrably false, thus proving that he was a false prophet.
Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" because of the principles it teaches
When Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" on earth, he was referring to the principles that it teaches, not the accuracy of its textual structure.
Critics of the Book of Mormon have mistakenly interpreted "correct" to be synonymous with "perfect," and therefore expect the Book of Mormon to be without any errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity of phrasing, and other such ways.
But when Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the "most correct of any book," he was referring to more than just wording, a fact made clear by the remainder of his statement: He said "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." When read in context, the Prophet's statement refers to the correctness of the principles it teaches. The Book of Mormon is the "most correct of any book" in that it contains the fulness of the gospel and presents it in a manner that is "plain and precious" (1 Nephi 13:35,40).
Mormon said "And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men"
It should first be noted that the Book of Mormon itself does not claim to be free of errors. As Mormon himself stated in the introduction to the Book of Mormon:
And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ. (1830 Book of Mormon title page)
Moroni said "because of the imperfections which are in it"
Mormon's son Moroni also acknowledges that the record that has been created is imperfect:
And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you. Mormon 8꞉12
The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant
As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":[3]
The doctrine of inerrancy is internally incoherent. In my opinion, numerous insuperable problems dictate the rejection of inerrancy in general and inerrancy as promulgated in the Chicago Statement in particular. First, the Chicago Statement is self-referentially incoherent. One cannot consistently assert that the Bible is the basis of his or her beliefs and then assert that one must nevertheless accept biblical inerrancy as asserted in the Chicago Statement...This statement contains a number of assertions, propositions if you will, that are not biblical. Inerrancy, at least as recently asserted by evangelicals, is not spelled out in the Bible. Nowhere do the words inerrant or infallible appear in the Bible. Such theoretical views are quite alien to the biblical writers. Further, inerrancy is not included in any of the major creeds. Such a notion is of rather recent vintage and rather peculiar to American evangelicalism. Throughout the history of Christian thought, the Bible has been a source rather than an object of beliefs. The assertion that the Bible is inerrant goes well beyond the scriptural statements that all scripture is inspired or "God-breathed." Thus inerrancy, as a faith commitment, is inconsistent with the assertion that one's beliefs are based on what the Bible says. The doctrine of inerrancy is an extrabiblical doctrine about the Bible based on nonscriptural considerations. It should be accepted only if it is reasonable and if it squares with what we know from scripture itself, and not as an article of faith... However, it is not and it does not.
The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.[4]
No book of scripture is "perfect"
Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in scriptural inerrancy. We do not believe that any book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:
When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.[5]
So while the Book of Mormon has come down to us with fewer doctrinal errors and corruptions than the Bible, even it could be improved if we were ready to receive further light and knowledge.
Infelicities of language are also to be expected when produced by revelators with little education, said George A. Smith:
The Book of Mormon was denounced as ungrammatical. An argument was raised that if it had been translated by the gift and power of God it would have been strictly grammatical.... When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding.[6]
Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?
Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today
It is claimed that Latter-day Saint leaders diminish the Bible as untrustworthy.
Do the Latter-day Saints detract from the Bible? Do they criticize it? No more so than the majority of Biblical scholars.
Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today. Only those who completely reject modern biblical textual criticism would find LDS leaders' views radical or evil. In fact, LDS beliefs on the matter accord well with many other Christian denominations. Those who vilify LDS belief on this point tend to be at the extreme end of the debate about scriptural inerrancy, and would also reject a modern creedal, orthodox scholar's views.
The Latter-day Saints believe that the Bible is true. It is inspired and inspiring, having been inspired by God and written by prophets, apostles, and disciples of Jesus Christ.
In 1979, the Church produced its own King James Bible, complete with a set of footnotes and cross references, as well as translational notes and study helps
Prior to this publication, the Church purchased most of its King James Bibles from Cambridge University Press. Does this sound like an organization that is using the Bible merely as a public relations gimmick? If so, millions of members were never told. The Church and its members have a deep love and appreciation for the Word of God as found in the Bible.
The bold assertion that the LDS do not value the Bible is amusing. There is no presentation of statistics, only anecdotal claims that first, LDS members do not read the Bible and are not familiar with it, and second, that they constantly hear from their leaders that the Bible is less than trustworthy.
In a survey published in July 2001, Barna Research Group, Ltd. (BRG) made the following observations:
The study also revealed that barely half of all Protestant adults (54%) read the Bible during a typical week. Barna pointed out that Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants-even though most Mormons do not believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.[7]
BRG is not affiliated with the LDS Church, nor was the LDS Church involved in the survey. Members of the LDS Church likewise would not categorize their faith in this fashion—they do, in fact, regard the Bible as authoritative and the Word of God. Yet the survey indicated that they certainly do read the Bible consistently. Also, over the course of two years out of every four years, every member of the Church is asked to read and study the entire text of the Bible as part of the Church's Sunday School curriculum. Asked by whom? By the leaders of the LDS Church.
Early LDS study of biblical languages
One of the often-neglected events in LDS history happened in 1836. Joseph Smith arranged for a Hebrew scholar to come and teach Hebrew to the members of the LDS Church in Kirtland Ohio. The members of the Church had already been studying the Hebrew language, having purchased some grammars, a Hebrew Bible, and a lexicon, and had previously attempted to hire a teacher. The Hebrew scholar who came was Joshua Seixas. He spent several weeks instructing many of the members of the Church in Hebrew.[8] Why the interest in the Hebrew we might ask? Clearly it was to be able to (in the words of Pope Pius XII) 'explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern.'
What this shows is that not only were the early LDS aware of the challenges associated with the Bible, but that they were just as interested in going back to the original language and to the original texts (if possible) as was the rest of Christendom who were aware of these discrepancies. Despite the critics' unfounded assertions to the contrary, there has never been a leader of the LDS Church who has ever suggested that the Bible was not suitable for study and for learning the Gospel due to any shortcomings it may have.
The Book of Mormon on the Bible
Critics often discuss two of Nephi's statements regarding the Bible as found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's perspective is that of modern Latter-day Saints: The Bible contains truth from God. However, it is still the work of men, and is only as reliable as the men who wrote, translated and copied it.
It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.[9] Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.[10] This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.
Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 98. ( Index of claims )
Notes
↑Because of the significant number of Book of Mormon passages that speak of Jesus as God, the original readings in 1 Nephi are perfectly acceptable in their original form. Royal Skousen, editor of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, has recommended that they be restored to their original readings (Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon 4/1: 233).
↑Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 4:461. Volume 4 link
↑On the Chicago Statement, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–185.
↑Blake T. Ostler, "Bridging the Gulf (Review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation)," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 103–177. off-site (italics in original)
↑The full survey, entitled "Protestants, Catholics and Mormons Reflect Diverse Levels of Religious Activity," can be found at the Barna Web site at www.barna.org.
↑Perhaps as many as 120 members of the LDS Church studied under Seixas while he was in Kirtland.
↑See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.
Question: Were any of the changes to the Book of Mormon made in reaction to sectarian criticism?
Some changes may have been made to eliminate the Catholic-sounding phrase "the mother of God"
Another reason "the Son of" was introduced into 1 Nephi 11:18 could have been to eliminate the Catholic-sounding phrase "the mother of God" that had been objected to by early critics of the Book of Mormon. Oliver Cowdery, responding to an article by Alexander Campbell in the Baptist newspaper The Pioneer, wrote in 1835:
Again, this writer [Campbell] says: "The name of Jesus Christ, was declared to Nephi, 545 years before it was announced to Mary, and she, in true Roman phraseology, is called 'the mother of God.'"
∗ ∗ ∗
This "friend of truth" says that Mary was "called the mother of God."—The reader will please turn to the 25th page of the book of Mormon, and read: "And he [the angel] said unto me, behold, the virgin which thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."
Now, every man knows, who has read the New Testament, that Mary was called the Lord's mother; and beside we remember to have read a word or two of Paul's writings, where he says: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now, the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not."—See Gal. 1. Here we have it—the Lord Jesus was born of a woman, had a brother, and yet had no mother according to the flesh!![1]
Since this criticism of the Book of Mormon was fresh on Oliver's mind, and he was involved in the editing of the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, it is possible that the change in 1 Nephi 11:18 was inserted at his prompting.
Question: What does Lecture 5 of the Lectures on Faith say about the nature of God?
The Lectures did not have a trinitarian view of God—the Father and the Son were clearly distinct personages, united in mind by the Holy Spirit
Lecture 5 deals with the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Lecture 5.2 teaches:
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible; whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man—or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;(emphasis added.) [2]
Efforts to see this as evidence for an essentially 'trinitarian' view, are flawed
Efforts to see this as evidence for an essentially 'trinitarian' view, are flawed,[3] though at least one LDS missionary used this lecture to argue against the idea that God the Father and Christ "were two distinct personages, with similar bodies and minds." [4] Despite this claim, however, the question-and-answer section of the 5th Lecture on Faith include the following:
How many personages are there in the Godhead[?]
Two: the Father and Son.
Clearly then, as we will see below, this missionary's statement does not reflect the entirety of LDS thought on the Godhead up to that point. Ironically, his interlocutor's response harmonizes better with the Lecture's catechism and present-day LDS thought.[5] It is perhaps not surprising that the missionary let his critic have the last word, despite promising to address further issues! (This exchange provides an excellent lesson for apologists—when one makes a mistake or misstatement, one should admit it, and not try to salvage a bad argument.)
The role of the Holy Ghost was less clear at this point in time
The Lecture describes the "Only Begotten of the Father possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit" (emphasis added).
The exact nature of the relationship between the Spirit and the Father and the Son was not explicitly stated until 1843:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.D&C 130꞉22
Thus, the Lectures did not have a trinitarian view of God—the Father and the Son were clearly distinct personages, united in mind by the Holy Spirit.
The Lectures on Faith clearly taught that the Father and Son were "embodied," with visible forms having precise dimensions and position in space
After exploring the early evidence for Joseph's belief in an embodied Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (whether in flesh or spirit bodies), one author concluded:
What, then, shall be made of the lecture’s referring contrastingly to the Father as "a personage of spirit" and to the Son as "a personage of tabernacle"? Again, Webster’s 1828 dictionary is helpful. It lists "our natural body" as one use of the term tabernacle. Our natural body, I take it, is a body of flesh and bones. If so, the lectures affirm that God the Son has a flesh-and-bones body, humanlike in form, while God the Father has a spirit body, also humanlike in form. As mentioned, Joseph later knew that the Father, as well as the Son, has a glorious, incorruptible body of flesh and bone. No doubt, his understanding of the mode of the Father’s embodiment was enlarged and refined as he continued to receive and reflect on revelation.[6]
The Lectures on Faith clearly taught a separation of the Father and Son. They also clearly taught that the Father and Son were "embodied," with visible forms having precise dimensions and position in space. Evidence from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Church members, and the Church's antagonists all demonstrate that these doctrines go back to the earliest days of the Restoration. (This is not surprising, given that Joseph's First Vision would have made the separate nature of the Godhead crystal clear.)
Whether Joseph Smith understood at this point that the Father had a physical body (as distinct from a spirit body upon which man's body was patterned) is not entirely clear, although some, such as Bruce R. McConkie, believe there is a basis for such in the Lectures on Faith. One thing is for certain, Joseph clearly did not believe in the non-embodied God of classical trinitarianism. Nor did Joseph teach of a Father and Son "of one substance" as the trinitarian creeds of his day defined them.
Additional Evidence for an Embodied God
Returning to the quote we read at the end:
The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man—or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;(emphasis added.) [7]
The close juxtaposition of Christ as a personage of tabernacle and man being made in his image and likeness with mention of Christ as being the express image and likeness of the Father may argue for an embodied God.
The use of “fullness” in this passage seems to hearken back strongly (since the word used in connection to both father and son is only used in this context) to how it is used in D&C 93:33-35. In that passage, a “fullness of joy” (in awareness of what is written in 3 Nephi 28:10) refers to that which is received when body and spirit are inseparably connected. Thus this may be read to argue for an embodied God.
Question: How would a statement that "God is a spirit" be interpreted in ancient Judaism?
The statement that "God is a spirit" does not mean that he has no body - it means that he is the source of life-giving power and energy
Christopher Stead of the Cambridge Divinity School (another non-Mormon scholar) explains how a statement that God is spirit would have been interpreted within ancient Judaism:
By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body … but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure. [8]
It may be that Joseph Smith, by revelation, had something like this in mind when he wrote that the Father is "a personage of spirit."
Does Doctrine and Covenants 121:28 contradict the First Vision?
Joseph Smith was teaching that the Father and Son were two separate divine Beings many years before the letters comprising D&C 121 were written
In 1839 Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in which it was stated that the time would come "in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest" (D&C 121:28). This was an "unnecessary revelation," since according to the official Church First Vision account Joseph Smith supposedly knew that there was more than one God since 1820. This information counts as evidence that the Prophet's story was fraudulent.
This anti-Mormon argument against the First Vision is built upon a false premise; the material being used as a weapon has been misidentified (it is NOT a revelation from the Lord). Joseph Smith did indeed understand since 1820 that the Father and Son were two separate divine Beings. And he was teaching this concept to the Saints many years before he had the 1839 letters written.[9]
This is truly one of the strangest accusations that has ever been made against the veracity of the First Vision story.
A study of the origin of D&C 121 reveals that it consists exclusively of five widely-separated, but sequential, extracts from two letters written by Joseph Smith and others between the 20th and 25th of March 1839 (while they were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri). The extracts run as follows:
The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.
Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken[10] will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is NOT part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.
A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:
"God the father"
"our Lord and savior Jesus Christ"
"the holy Ghost"
The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—about ten and three-quarters months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate divine Beings. Do the detractors of Mormonism really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? This seems implausible.
Christian Research and Counsel, “Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]
Is the Father embodied or a spirit in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants?
There is no documentary evidence that indicates exactly when Joseph Smith learned that God the Father had a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone
When the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835 it portrayed God the Father as a personage of spirit whereas Jesus Christ was portrayed as a personage of tabernacle, or one having a physical body. Yet the official LDS First Vision story portrays the Father as a physical Being. It is claimed that this is evidence of an evolution of story; and that the evolution of this story is evidence of fraud.
There is no documentary evidence that indicates exactly when Joseph Smith learned that God the Father had a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone. And there is also no indication that Joseph learned any such thing during his 1820 First Vision. Regardless of when this revelation was bestowed upon the Prophet, it cannot be established beyond doubt that he was responsible for the teaching about the "spirit" nature of God found in the main text of lecture #5. It may, instead, be true that the Prophet was involved in adjusting the lecture #5 text to conform with his earlier work on the translation of the Bible.
When Doctrine and Covenants is combined with The Book of Mormon it may lead us in a better direction.
The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants though may push against this a little. In 3 Nephi 28:10, Jesus speaks to the Three Nephites who wished to remain on the earth to continue to preach the Gospel. The text reads thus:
7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.
8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.
9 And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.
10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;
Note how the phrase "fulness of joy" is juxtaposed with not having to taste the pains of death. Notice also how the Savior says "ye shall be as I am". This must refer to the Savior's glorified body. Note how he then states that he is even as his father is. This verse may be used to show that the Book of Mormon envisions an embodied God. But we can go further. If we turn to Doctrine and Covenants 93:33-35. This revelation (section 93) dates to the year 1833. There, the phrase "fulness of joy" is juxtaposed with the "elements" (that v. 35 identifies as "man" or "the tabernacle of God") and "spirit" being "inseparably connected". Therefore, if we apply these verses back to verse 10 in the Book of Mormon, the Father had given Christ a "fulness of joy" and that only came after he had element and spirit inseparably connected, and he states that he is even as the Father is.
The "official" 1838 First Vision account does not say anything about the specific nature of the Father's body other than it could be seen
The "official" 1838 First Vision account (first published in 1842 in the Times and Seasons) does not say anything about God the Father possessing a physical body. In fact, it says nothing at all about the specific nature of the Father's body other than it could be seen. Critics of the Church should be much more careful in what they say about the content of historical documents.
However, it is correct to say that the Lectures on Faith which were contained within the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants did refer to God the Father as a personage of spirit with a human or bodily form.
LECTURE #5, paragraph 2: "the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image; he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father"
LECTURE #5, questions and answers section: "What is the Father? He is a personage"
It becomes obvious from an examination of the "Questions and Answers" section of lecture #5 that the person who constructed this lecture drew heavily from the book of John in the New Testament (seven direct quotations were utilized). It is more than likely, therefore, that the statement in lecture #5 which reads "the Father being a personage of spirit" was drawn directly from John 4:24. It is curious, however, that even though this was listed as an attribute of the Father in the main text of the lecture it was deleted in the question and answer section.
MAIN TEXT:
the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
[#5.] Q. What is the Father?
A. He is a personage of glory and of power ([lecture] 5 [paragraph] 2).
[NOTE: This is the precise coordinate for the statement that is made above]
[#6.] Q. . . . the Father is a personage of glory and of power
The Lectures on Faith were ready for publication by 17 February 1835 and it is clear that Joseph Smith had a hand in preparing them for public release.[11] But whether or not the Prophet was himself ultimately responsible for the initial creation of the lecture material is a vigorously debated topic.[12]
This brings up a very interesting question. Is it possible that the text of lecture #5 was edited by Joseph Smith—or the entire preparation/editorial committee (the First Presidency)—to delete the mention of God being a spirit in the question and answer section? This would make perfectly good sense since by 2 February 1833 Joseph Smith had changed John 4:24 in his translation of the Bible so that it no longer said that God was a spirit (see JST John 4:26).
At some point, Joseph Smith knew that God the Father had a physical body of flesh and bone
It is significant that shortly after the Lectures on Faith were presented before the School of the Elders in Kirtland, Ohio a Presbyterian minister named Rev. Truman Coe—who had lived among the Saints in Kirtland, Ohio for a span of four years—wrote that the Mormons "believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself."[13]
It is also significant that on 5 January 1841—shortly before the so-called "official" First Vision story was released to the public via the Church's press—Joseph Smith was teaching in Nauvoo the very same thing that Rev. Truman Coe had heard in Kirtland: "That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones."[14]
Oliver Barr, “Mormonism--No. V,” The Christian Palladium (Union Mills, New York) 6, no. 18 (15 January 1838): 275. off-site Criticizes the idea of God having any 'material' component.
Christian Research and Counsel, “Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]
Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 1. ( Index of claims )
↑See David L. Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives," Brigham Young University Studies 35 no. 4 (1995–96), 6–94. PDF link(Key source)
↑Stephen Post, “Mormon Defence.--No. II,” Christian Palladium (Union Mills, New York) 6, no. 15 (1 December 1837): 230–31. off-site
↑Oliver Barr, “Mormonism--No. V,” The Christian Palladium (Union Mills, New York) 6, no. 18 (15 January 1838): 275. off-site
↑See David L. Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and PhilosophicalPerspectives," Brigham Young University Studies 35 no. 4 (1995–96), 6–94. PDF link
↑Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002), 13.
↑Doctrine and Covenants, 1st ed., preface; Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 2:169–170,180. Volume 2 link
↑See Noel B. Reynolds, "The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lecture on Faith (8 June 2004) [based on version given at Mormon History Association meeting at Kirtland 2003]. PDF link
↑Truman Coe, "Mormonism," Cincinnati Journal and Western Luminary (25 August 1836): 4. Reprinted from Hudson Ohio Observer (16 August 1836): 1-2. off-site See also Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Press, 1996-2003), 1:47. See discussion in Milton V. Backman, Jr., "Truman Coe's 1836 Description of Mormonism," Brigham Young University Studies 17 no. 3 (1977), 347–350, 354. PDF link
