Criticism of Mormonism/Books/No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith/Chapter 4

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to claims made in "Chapter 4: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder"

Claims made in "Chapter 3: Red Sons of Israel"

A FAIR Analysis of: No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith A work by author: Fawn Brodie

Claims made in "Chapter 5: Witnesses for God"

The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:

Joseph warned Martin Harris that God's wrath would strike him down if he examined the plates or looked at him while he was translating.

Author's sources: No source provided.

Question: Did Joseph Smith say that viewing the gold plates would result in death?

The only first-person account—that made by Joseph Smith himself—says that it was Joseph who would be destroyed if he showed the plates to any other person unless commanded to do so by the Lord

It is claimed that Joseph Smith said that the penalty for viewing the gold plates was death, and that this was just a way for Joseph to hide the fact that the plates really didn't exist. However, the only first-person account—that made by Joseph Smith himself—says that it was Joseph who would be destroyed if he showed the plates to any other person unless commanded to do so by the Lord. Many accounts attributed to Joseph in which he is supposed to have claimed that anyone else who viewed the plates would die originated with people who were hostile to Joseph and the Church. Significantly, Emma's statement makes no mention of the alleged penalty associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates.

Primary source: Joseph Smith's own words

Joseph Smith-History 1:42 describes the conditions under which Joseph was to handle the plates:

Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it. (emphasis added)

According to this, it was Joseph who risked destruction if he showed the plates to anyone unless explicitly commanded to do so by the Lord, not the person to whom he showed them.

Of course, we also have the testimony of the Three and Eight witnesses, who all viewed the plates without any threat of destruction.

The idea that God would "strike down" anyone who viewed the plates came from a hostile secondary source

Fawn Brodie claimed that Joseph told Martin Harris that God's wrath would strike him down if he examined the plates or looked at him while he was translating. This is supported by a second-hand source: Charles Anthon's statement regarding the visit of Martin Harris in Eber D. Howe's anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. Anthon stated:

I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon [Harris], and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this.

In the critical bookMormonism Unvailed, Peter Ingersoll and Sophia Lewis claimed that Joseph told them that anyone who viewed the plates would perish.

Peter Ingersoll was a hostile source. Here is what he claims that Joseph said to him:

...On my entering the house, I found the family at the table eating dinner. They were all anxious to know the contents of my frock. At that moment, I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible. To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refuse to see it, and left the room." Now, said Jo, "I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun." Notwithstanding, he told me he had no such book, and believed there never was any such book....(emphasis added)

Here we have a statement alleged to have been made by Joseph Smith that "no man can see it with the naked eye and live." However, we also see that, according to Peter Ingersoll, Joseph came up with the entire idea of the "golden bible" on the spur of the moment as a way to have "fun." Then he claims that Joseph confided to him that the plates didn't actually exist at all. There are so many inconsistencies between this story and the statements of numerous other witnesses that one wonders if Peter Ingersoll was the one who was having some "fun" with his audience. Ingersoll can also be discredited on his claim that Joseph made the story up on the spot, because Joseph was telling various people about his Moroni visits well before recovering the plates (see for example various Knight family recollections).

Examining the testimony of Sophia Lewis we find:

SOPHIA LEWIS, certifies that she "heard a conversation between Joseph Smith, Jr., and the Rev. James B. Roach, in which Smith called Mr. R. a d-----d fool. Smith also said in the same conversation that he (Smith) was as good as Jesus Christ;" and that she "has frequently heard Smith use profane language. She states that she heard Smith say "the Book of Plates could not be opened under penalty of death by any other person but his (Smith's) first-born, which was to be a male." She says she "was present at the birth of this child, and that it was still-born and very much deformed."(emphasis added)

Here we find that not only could the plates not be viewed by another person, but that the only person who could "open" them would be Joseph's first-born child. Sophia Lewis's testimony is suspicious however. Hezekiah M'Kune, Levi Lewis and Sophia Lewis went together to make their depositions before the justice. Their testimonies bear a remarkable similarity and contain the unique claim that Joseph claimed to be "as good as Jesus Christ." This claim is not related by any other individuals who knew the Prophet, suggesting that these three individuals planned and coordinated their story before giving their depositions.

Joseph's wife Emma did not recall any specific threat of destruction associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates

It is interesting to note that Emma Smith, admittedly much closer to her husband Joseph than the hostile sources previously quoted, never mentioned a penalty for viewing the plates. In fact, in an interview with her son Joseph Smith III in 1879, the following conversation was recorded:

[Joseph Smith III} Q: I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?

[Emma Smith Bidamon] A. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so.

Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

[Emma] A. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.

[JS III] Q. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?

[Emma] A. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.(emphasis added)

Emma, therefore, did not recall any specific threat of destruction associated with the unauthorized viewing of the plates.

The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:

Harris once tried to trick Joseph by substituting an ordinary stone for the seer stone.

Author's sources: Summary of Martin Harris' sermon in Salt Lake City, September 4, 1870, Historical Record, Vol. VI, p. 216.

Martin Harris describes how he swapped Joseph's seer stone during the Book of Mormon translation process

Stephen D. Ricks,

Martin Harris aided in the translation of the book of Lehi. Edward Stevenson reported about him:

After continued translation they would become weary, and would go down to the river and exercise by throwing stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion, Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming their labor of translation, Martin put in [its] place the stone that he had found. He said that the Prophet remained silent, unusually and intently gazing in darkness, no traces of the usual sentences appearing. Much surprised, Joseph exclaimed, "Martin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt!" Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the Prophet asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them, etc.

These and other independent witnesses to the translation provide modern researchers with significant information about the Book of Mormon plates. These firsthand witnesses are an indigestible lump in the throats of those who deny that the plates existed and try to explain the experience as an example of "collective hysteria."

The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:

Lucy Harris stole the manuscript and "neither pleas nor blows could make her divulge its hiding place."

Author's sources: Author's speculation.

FAIR's Response

• Lucy states in the Hurlbut affidavits that her husband "has whipped, kicked, and turned me out of the house." Despite the fact that Lucy Harris makes no mention of the lost 116 pages of manuscript from the Book of Mormon, Fawn Brodie actually concludes that Harris beat his wife in order to get her to divulge what she had done with the lost 116 pages of manuscript.
• The Hurlbut affidavits—Lucy Harris

The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:

Joseph realized that he could not duplicate the 116 pages exactly.

Author's sources: Author's conjecture.

FAIR's Response

•  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.

Question: Was Joseph Smith afraid to reproduce the text of the lost 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript because he could not do so?

It is inconsistent for the critics to believe that Joseph was capable of dictating in the manner that he did, and yet could not have easily dictated an alternate text to replace that which was lost

Upon completing the translation of the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, known as the Book of Lehi, Martin Harris, who had acted as scribe during this period of time, asked the Prophet if he could show the manuscript to his wife Lucy. After repeated inquiries of the Lord, Joseph reluctantly agreed to let Martin take the manuscript home. The manuscript disappeared after Martin showed it not only to his wife, but to a number of other people as well. Rather than re-translate the original portion of the record, the Lord instructed Joseph to translate an additional set of plates that had been provided, the record of Nephi, as described in D&C 3 and D&C 10.

Critics have attempted to come up with a secular explanation of why Joseph Smith would create an entirely different text rather than simply reproducing the text of the 116 lost pages. One argument used by critics is that Joseph was afraid to reproduce the text of the 116 pages because he could not do so, and that he therefore chose to avoid the issue by creating an entirely different text.

Given the descriptions of the translation process by various witnesses, it is apparent that the translation proceeded in a very linear fashion. Each day Joseph would pick up the translation where he had left off the day before, without any recital of the previously written text. It is inconsistent for the critics to believe that Joseph was capable of dictating in this manner, and yet could not have easily dictated an alternate text to replace that which was lost. For the believer, it is much easier to accept that the Lord, in His wisdom, knew of the problem that would occur and provided an alternate text.

The loss of the 116 pages did not stop the Book of Mormon from coming forth. If the Book of Lehi (Mormon’s abridgment of what is currently found in the first books in the Book of Mormon today) had been preserved, we would not have had the “more spiritual” first person narrative of Nephi and Jacob. The incident provided a very valuable lesson about the importance of not opposing the Lord’s will. This incident affected the Prophet very deeply, and he was more determined than ever to regain the ability to translate. The lessons taught by this incident are meaningful and are taught even today to members of the Church.

The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript

The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. It wasn't necessary to obtain the original pages, therefore there was no reason for Joseph to attempt to locate it using a seer stone. The Lord did not command him to do so. In fact, the Lord commanded Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:

• D&C 3꞉6-10

And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words— Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.

A looser translation model might cause other problems

Another possibility is raised by Brant Gardner. Gardner argues that the Book of Mormon translation was not a word-for-word process, and that Joseph had considerable freedom in how he rendered the text. This means that even a divinely-inspired translation would not be the same (and certainly not word-for-word the same) if done twice. Given the expectations in Joseph's environment (which saw scripture as inerrant and divinely inspired word-for-word), this might have caused problems for Joseph's contemporaries. They expected, even demanded that scripture be inerrant and revealed word-for-word. David Whitmer, for example, would later complain that Joseph ought not to edit the revelations he received--David was still stuck with the view of revelation shared by most nineteenth century believers.

Further Evidence Against This

In the 1830 preface to the Book of Mormon, Joseph explains why he didn't try to retranslate the lost portion, identifying the reasons given by the Lord in D&C 10. Given this, if the conspiring men were planning to introduce a modified document, they would now immediately fall under scrutiny, since Joseph preemptively identified the conspiracy. By coming forward, they would actually substantiate Joseph's claim of prophecy! By sharing this revelation with Joseph, the Lord called these men into question before they even had a chance to carry out their plan.

Additionally, the Book of Mormon never mentions the small plates of Nephi after the Words of Mormon. If Joseph translated the Book of Lehi, lost it, and waited several months before beginning in Mosiah again, wouldn't Joseph want to back up his claim for two sets of plates by mentioning it from Mosiah through Moroni? Wouldn't he want to throw in a plug for the"second set of plates" to add plausibility to his claim? But the only time we hear of these plates are 1 Nephi through the Words of Mormon--the only people who actually wrote on the plates. It would make sense that Nephi, Jacob, etc, would mention repeatedly which plates they are writing on. It also makes sense that Mosiah through Moroni are more concerned with the large plates of Nephi, since those are the records that are being updated.

The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:

Joseph's family was counting on sales of the Book of Mormon to prevent foreclosure on their farm.

Author's sources: None

FAIR's Response

•  Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.: the author presents no evidence for this claim.

The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:

Once Joseph had translated the small plates of Nephi, he could go back to the old plates and carry on.

FAIR's Response

•  History unclear or in error: Joseph likely continued to translate the large plates, and only finished with the small plates at the end.

Question: What do we know about the chronology of the Book of Mormon translation and publication?

<onlyinclude>

Spring 1820

First Vision

21 September 1823

Joseph receives a visit from Moroni—three that night, and one the next day. He is directed to and sees the plates for the first time. He is forbidden to take the plates at that time.

Next four years

Joseph is to return to the hill once a year for four years for instruction, prior to receiving the plates. Joseph never identified the hill as “the hill Cumorah,” but this designation was common among the early Latter-day Saints.

18 January 1827

Joseph marries Emma Hale.

22 September 1827

Joseph receives the gold plates from Moroni.

December 1827

Joseph and Emma move to Harmony, Pennsylvania (Emma's parents' home).

January 1828

Joseph translates some characters.

February 1828

By this date, Martin Harris takes characters with translation to Charles Anthon. See also Anthon transcript

12 April to 14 June 1828

The "Book of Lehi" (Mormon's abridgement) is translated; 116 pages total with Martin Harris as scribe.

15 June 1828 

Emma and Joseph's first child (a son) is born and dies within hours. For a few weeks, Joseph is constantly at Emma's bedside, fearing she too may die.

June 1828

Martin Harris loses 116 pages.

July 1828

Joseph goes to Manchester; interpreters and plates taken from him because of the loss of the 116 pages. The Urim and Thummim were returned to Joseph for him to receive D&C 3; they were then again taken away, though he regained the plates and interpreters "in a few days."

22 September 1828

Plates and interpreters returned to Joseph by this date.

December 1828

David Whitmer goes to Palmyra and meets Oliver Cowdery.

February 1829

D&C 4; Lord appears to Oliver Cowdery (approx. date)

February/March 1829

Joseph begins sporadically translating, with Emma as scribe

5 April 1829

Oliver arrives in Harmony to meet Joseph. Soon after, he writes David Whitmer, saying that he is convinced that Joseph does have the plates.

April 7 – end of June 1829

Joseph translates the Book of Mormon with Oliver as scribe.

• Translation begins on the 7th of April—two days after Oliver arrived.
• 15 May 1829 – Oliver and Joseph receive the Aaronic priesthood; Oliver indicated that their asking about baptism was stimulated by translating 3 Nephi.
• 1 June to 1 July – Due to persecution, David Whitmer moved Oliver and Joseph to his parents' homestead (Peter Whitmer, Sr.) in Fayette.
• 11 June 1829: Joseph registers the copyright via the title page.
• June 1829: 3 witnesses, 8 witnesses see the plates.See also: Book of Mormon witnesses

July 1829

Egbert B. Grandin and Thurlow Weed (a printer in Rochester) decline to print the Book of Mormon

August 1829

• Grandin learns that Martin Harris and Joseph have gotten a quote from Elihu F. Marshall, another printer in Rochester; he thus agrees to print the book since he realizes that if he doesn't, someone else will.
• Martin Harris' farm is required as collateral to reassure Grandin (mortgage dated 25 August) after local residents approach him, threatening to boycott sales of the Book of Mormon. Grandin fears that he will not be paid for the large volume of books he is printing.

6 November 1829

Printer's manuscript prepared up to Alma 36.

16 January 1830

Document signed granting Martin Harris the first money back in sales, until his $3000 security against his farm is repaid. Harris ultimately has to sell 151 acres of the farm on 7 April 1831 to cover the costs. It is not known whether he ever recouped the cost of printing the first edition of the Book of Mormon.

26 March 1830

First public sale of the Book of Mormon

6 April 1830

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is organized

Claim

• The Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon were "chiefly those chapters from Isaiah mentioned in Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews."

Author's source(s)

• No source provided.

Response

•  The author's claim is false: View of the Hebrews Chapter 2 quotes Deuteronomy 30; Isaiah 11, 18, 60, 65; Jeremiah 16, 23, 30-31, 35-37; Zephaniah 3; Amos 9; Hosea and Joel. Out of these, only Isaiah 11 appears in the Book of Mormon.
• See also Jeff Lindsay, Did Joseph Smith plagiarize from View of the Hebrews when writing the Book of Mormon?
• Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/View of the Hebrews/Analysis of scripture use
• Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews

The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:

Joseph was careful to modify primarily the italicized interpolation in the King James text.

Author's sources: Author's conjecture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there are basically three types of evidence favoring the conclusion that Joseph understood the meaning of the italicized words. First, and most importantly, is the distribution of the variants in Joseph’s inspired translations, which show a clear (though by no means absolute) tendency to revolve around the italicized words. Skousen and Wright agree roughly on this distribution, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%, give or take, but they draw different conclusions from it. My experience spending a fair amount of time examining variants is that the italics were a significant factor.

Second is the practice of often crossing out italicized words in the “marked Bible” used as an aid in preparing the JST. Anyone with access to the critical text can see this phenomenon for herself, since they have actual pictures of the marked Bible text.

Third are near-contemporary statements from Joseph’s milieu evincing a familiarity with the purpose of the italics. A prominent example is this from a W.W. Phelps editorial in the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833):

The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.—It was translated by the gift and power of God.

Question: Could Joseph have used a Bible during and simply dictated from it during Book of Mormon translation?

Nobody ever reported seeing a Bible, because Joseph was looking at the stone in the hat in full view of witnesses

The witnesses of the translation are unanimous that Joseph did not have a book or papers, and could not have concealed them if he did have. Since much of the translation was done via Joseph's seer stone placed into his hat to exclude the light, it is not clear how the critics believe Joseph concealed a Bible or notes in the hat, and then read them in the dark.

Emma Smith described this portion of the translation:

Q — [Joseph Smith III]. What is the truth of Mormonism?

A — [Emma]. 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 your father 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.

Q. — Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book?

A. — 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.

NOTE: Some Mormon scholars believe that the passages in the Book of Mormon which match, for the most part, the wording of similar passages in the King James Bible, indicate that Joseph Smith simply used the wording from the Bible as he dictated. If this is the case, he clearly received that wording as part of the revelatory process, since the witnesses confirm that there was no book or Bible present at the time. For more information see Ensign (Sept. 1977): "If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible"

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

Richard Lloyd Anderson (Ensign, September 1977):

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

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

Question: Did Joseph own a Bible at the time of the Book of Mormon translation?

There is no evidence that Joseph owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation

The difficult financial circumstances of Joseph's family during the Book of Mormon translation are well known. There is no evidence that Joseph owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation. In fact, Oliver would later purchase a Bible for Joseph, who used it in producing his revision of the Bible (which became known as the Joseph Smith Translation). This purchase occurred on 8 October 1829, from the same printer that was then setting the type for the already-translated Book of Mormon. Why would Joseph, poor as he was, get a Bible if he already owned one?

Claim

• Joseph incorporated one of his father's dreams into the Book of Mormon

Author's source(s)

• Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches, pp. 58-9.

Response

• Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/Joseph Smith, Sr.'s dream and Lehi's vision

Claim

• Early in the writing Joseph vigorously attacked the Catholic Church as the "great and abominable church" and the "whore of all the earth"

Author's source(s)

• Source not provided.

Response

•  Misrepresentation of source: Book of Mormon/Great and abominable church

Claim

• Lucy Smith's stories about the Golden Bible had converted Oliver Cowdery.

Author's source(s)

• Author's conjecture.

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

The author(s) of No Man Knows My History make(s) the following claim:

Joseph Smith's lack of education is "a favorite thesis designed to prove the authenticity" of the Book of Mormon.

Author's sources: Author's opinion.

FAIR's Response

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Joseph Smith

Life and Character	Status in Latter-day Saint belief Joseph's trustworthiness Money digging Folk magic or the occult The Word of Wisdom Alleged narcissism
Youth	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Education Use of seer stones as a youth The Hurlbut affidavits Joseph Smith's 1826 trial
Revelations and the Church	Witness of Jesus Christ First Vision Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible (JST) The restoration of the priesthood Personages who appeared to Joseph Smith Production of the Book of Abraham Kinderhook Plates
Prophetic Statements	The U.S. Civil War Rocky Mountain prophecy The White Horse prophecy Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith and Old Testament practices
Society	Legal issues 1826 trial Creation of the Kirtland Safety Society Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Campaign for President of the United States
Plural marriage (polygamy)	Plural marriage or polygamy Polygamy navigator Plural wives of Joseph Smith
Death	The Nauvoo Expositor Events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith Firing a gun at Carthage Jail Qualification as a martyr 1844 Succession to Joseph Smith

Was Joseph Smith illiterate?

The Church never taught that Joseph Smith was "illiterate." The official account of the First Vision refutes this, since it demonstrates that Joseph was fully capable of reading and understanding the Bible. The statement from the critics that Joseph's family "wasn't a family of illiterates" argues against a point that is never being made.

Here's what Joseph wrote in 1832 (original spelling retained):

I was born in the town of Charon [Sharon] in the State of vermont North America on the twenty third day of December AD 1805 of goodly Parents who spared no pains to instructing me in the christian religion at the age of about ten years my Father Joseph Smith Siegnior moved to Palmyra Ontario County in the State of New York and being in indigent circumstances were obliged to labour hard for the support of a large Family having nine chilldren and as it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the support of the Family therefore we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading and writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements.

Emma Smith, Joseph's wife, later stated:

Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, 'a marvel and a wonder,' as much so as to anyone else.

Question: Did B.H. Roberts state that it was possible for Joseph Smith to have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own?

B.H. Roberts was a believer in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, and talked of young Joseph Smith as he sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel

B.H. Roberts retained his belief that the Book of Mormon was of divine origin up until the end of his life. Yet, according to one critical website, B.H. Roberts "postulated that it was certainly possible for Joseph Smith to have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own." Roberts, however, believed that Joseph had conversations with the Angel Moroni.

B.H. Roberts, in his critical study of the Book of Mormon, pointed out how future critics might make use of this.

The face of it is first established by the testimony of the mother who bore him, Lucy Smith. Speaking of the days immediately following the revelation making known the existence of the Book of Mormon to her son...Lucy Smith in her History of the Prophet Joseph Smith, recounts how in the evening of that day, the young prophet sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel;

⍗

Learn more about Joseph Smith: abilities

Online	Brian C. Hales, "Joseph Smith's Education and Intellect as Described in Documentary Sources," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 59/1 (13 October 2023). [1–32] link Jeff Lindsay, "The Great and Spacious Book of Mormon Arcade Game: More Curious Works from Book of Mormon Critics," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23/8 (13 January 2017). [161–236] link Robert A. Rees, "Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19/1 (26 February 2016). [1–16] link
Video	"Joseph Smith's pre 1830 education," BH Roberts Foundation print-link.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young Joseph Smith

Notes

Source:Joseph Smith:1832 History:Education

62-63

Claim

• Joseph Smith borrowed many stories from the Bible.

Author's source(s)

• Author's opinion.

Response

• Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/King James Bible

63

Claim

• Joseph's sentence structure in the Book of Mormon was "loose-jointed, like an earthworm hacked into segments that crawl away alive and whole."

Author's source(s)

• Author's opinion.

Response

• Book of Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus

65

Claim

• The story of the Gadianton band reflects the anti-Masonic feelings in New York at the time that the Book of Mormon was produced.

Author's source(s)

• No source given.
• Author's conjecture.

Response

• Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Gadianton masons

Notes