Book of Mormon/Translation/The lost 116 pages

Criticism

• Joseph Smith did not retranslate the 116 lost pages of the Book of Lehi because he knew that he could not reproduce the exact same text.
• Alterations in a different handwriting to the stolen manuscript would have been readily apparent.
• The writing of the 116 pages served as an “apprenticeship” to allow Joseph to improve his writing skills.

Source(s) of the criticism

• Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 54. ( Index of claims )
• Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 7, 66. ( Index of claims )

Response

Background

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.^[1] 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 DC 3 and DC 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.

Conclusion

Only Joseph Smith himself knew the exact details of the translation process, despite the opinions of various second hand witnesses. All we know for certain is that the translation was performed by “the gift and power of God.” If one believes that the translation was accomplished through divine means, then one can easily believe that if the Lord wished for Joseph to dictate the exact same text that he did previously, then it would have been so. The Lord, however, knew of the problem to come with the 116 pages, and used the opportunity to teach the Prophet the importance of humility and of the need to heed the Lord’s counsel. As a result, we not only have the opportunity to gain wisdom from the lesson learned by the Prophet, but we also have access to the “plain and precious” teachings that constitute the record of Nephi.

Endnotes

1. [note]  Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 67.

Further reading

• Matthew Roper, "A More Perfect Priority? (Review of "Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis" by Brett Lee Metcalfe)," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 362–378. off-site

FAIR web site

• FAIR Topical Guide: