Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon

Response to "Book of Mormon Concerns & Questions"


A FAIR Analysis of:
[[../|Letter to a CES Director]]
A work by author: Jeremy Runnells
 [[../Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions|Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions]]


The absence of evidence is not proof. Here’s one small example:
Matthew Roper in a FairMormon Blog on June 17, 2013, writes about a criticism repeated many times over the years about the mention of steel in the Book of Mormon. In 1884, one critic wrote, “Laban’s sword was steel, when it is a notorious fact that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years afterwards. Who but as ignorant a person as Rigdon would have perpetuated all these blunders.”8 More recently, Thomas O’Dea in 1957 stated, “Every commentator on the Book of Mormon has pointed out the many cultural and historical anachronisms, such as the steel sword of Laban in 600 B.C.” [9]
We had no answer to these critics at the time, but as often happens in these matters, new discoveries in later years shed new light. Roper reports, “It is increasingly apparent that the practice of hardening iron through deliberate carburization, quenching and tempering was well known to the ancient world from which Nephi came. ‘It seems evident,’ notes one recent authority, ‘that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron.’” [10] In 1987, the Ensign reported that archeologists had unearthed a long steel sword near Jericho dating back to the late seventh century B.C., probably to the reign of King Josiah who died shortly before Lehi began to prophesy. [11] This sword is now on display at Jerusalem’s Israel Museum. The museum’s explanatory sign reads in part, “The sword is made of iron hardened into steel, attesting to substantial metallurgical know-how.” [12]
—Elder D. Todd Christofferson, "The Prophet Joseph Smith", Brigham Young University-Idaho Devotional, September 24, 2013.

∗       ∗       ∗

Quick Navigation

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

Template:CESLetterItemShort

Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon

Articles about the Book of Mormon
Authorship
Translation process
Gold plates
Witnesses
The Bible and the Book of Mormon
Language and the Book of Mormon
Geography
DNA
Anachronisms
Doctrine and teachings
Lamanites
Other

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. [1]

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.[2]

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...[3]

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.[4]

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.[5]

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.[6]

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.

To learn more:Nephi likening the scriptures
Summary: This idea is explored in more detail below.

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.[7]

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.[8] 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.[9]

When one considers that New Testament writers quoted hundreds of Old Testament scriptures including 76 verses from Isaiah[10] 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.[11]

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.[12]

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!

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than the Average Fourth Year Hebrew Student? Finding a Restoration-Significant Hebraism in Book of Mormon Isaiah"

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.

Click here to view the complete article

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.[13] 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.

We also find the genealogy from Genesis 5꞉10-11,36 repeated in 1 Chronicles, much of the history in Samuel and Kings is repeated in Chronicles, and Isaiah 36꞉2 through Isaiah 38꞉5 is the same as 2 Kings 18꞉17 through 2 Kings 20꞉6.

Although Old Testament scripture was often quoted by Old and New Testament writers without giving credit, Nephi and Jacob generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Indeed, much of 2 Nephi may be seen as an Isaiah commentary. 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 [14] 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"[15] 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.[16]

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.[17] 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.[18] 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. [19] Such a translation was "rare for its time."[20] 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.[21]

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.
Is the Book of Mormon plagiarized from the KJV?
Summary: The claim of 'plagiarism' is a superficially appealing one, but it ignores many facts and factors.

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.[22]

Significant changes to Isaiah material in the Book of Mormon






The rest of the changes can be found in Royal Skousen’s Analysis of Textual Variants in the Book of Mormon online.

The vast majority of Book of Mormon changes to Isaiah are on places where italicized text was placed in the King James Bible.[23]: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.[24]

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.[25]

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
1. Isaiah 9꞉1 ~ 2 Nephi 19꞉1 "Red sea" 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.
2. Isaiah 12꞉2 ~ 2 Nephi 22꞉2 Jehovah "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.[26] and was also in common use in Joseph Smith's day.[27]

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.

3. Isaiah 50꞉2 ~ 2 Nephi 7꞉2 Wherefore as a declarative "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."

4. Isaiah 51꞉19 ~ 2 Nephi 8꞉19 Sons "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'."[28]

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)
5. Isaiah 48꞉16 ~ 1 Nephi 20꞉16 Am 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.[29] 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)."[29] 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.

6. Isaiah 4꞉5 ~ 2 Nephi 14꞉5 defense 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.

To learn more:Table of alleged KJV translations errors persisting in the Book of Mormon
Summary: This article provides further, more detailed analysis of this alleged translation error.

2 Nephi 19:1-The 'Red' Sea?

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]."[30]

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."[31] 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".[32] 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.[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 the best reconstruction of it).[34]

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.

Hypothesis #2: Scribal Overcorrection

John Tvedtnes explains:

9:1 (MT 8:23) = 2 Ne. 19꞉1

KJV: "afflict her by the way of the sea"

BM: "afflict by the way of the Red Sea"

The deletion of italicized "her" is understandable, since it is not in [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.[35]

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.[36]

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.[36]

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:

  1. 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."[37]:56 Spencer calls this the Ancient Variants Hypothesis.
  2. 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.[37]:56-58
  3. 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.[37]

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.[38]

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?[36]

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).[39]


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:

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Their Imperfect Best: Isaianic Authorship from an LDS Perspective"

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.

Click here to view the complete article

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.[40] 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."[41]

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.[42]
  • 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.[43]

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,[44] 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.[45]

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.[46] 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."[47]
  • 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.[48] 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![49]

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.[50] This argument against the Book of Mormon is an argument from silence. A single discovery can overturn such silence.
Learn more about Isaiah in the Book of Mormon
FAIR links
  • Wordprint evidence and 'Deutero-Isaiah' FAIR link
Online
  • 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 Foundation print-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

Saints Unscripted:

Load video
YouTube
Print
  • 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.
Navigators
Sub categories

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 (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311.
  2. ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints’ Advocate 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
  3. ↑ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887), 12 ; cited frequently, including Neal A. Maxwell, Ensign (January 1997): 34–41. off-site
  4. ↑ 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
  5. ↑ Emma Smith to Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856," Journal of History 9 (January 1916): 454.
  6. ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints’ Advocate 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
  7. ↑ Jay P. Green Sr., The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew-Greek-English (Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1995), 975.
  8. ↑ LDS KJV, Bible Dictionary, 707. off-site.
  9. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, "Ten Keys to Understanding Isaiah," Ensign/10 (October 1973): 78–83. off-site
  10. ↑ See LDS KJV, Bible Dictionary, "Quotations from the Old Testament found in the New Testament," 756-59. off-site
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ 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.).
  13. ↑ See A. Melvin McDonald, Day of Defense (Sounds of Zion Inc., 1986; 2004), 49.
  14. ↑ These were the only editions consulted for this point.
  15. ↑ See page 81 of either edition of the Book of Mormon.
  16. ↑ 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)
  17. ↑ See Book of Mormon note to 2 Nephi 12꞉2
  18. ↑ 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.
  19. ↑ 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.
  20. ↑ Wikipedia, "Thomson's Translation," <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_Translation> (11 February 2015).
  21. ↑ 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.
  22. ↑ Please forgive blurriness from scanning/transmitting the images.
  23. ↑ 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
  24. ↑ 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).
  25. ↑ 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.
  26. ↑ See Exodus 6꞉3; Psalms 83꞉18; Isaiah 12꞉2; 26꞉4.
  27. ↑ 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
  28. ↑ 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"
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 Vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1:394.
  30. ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 9.
  31. ↑ 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.
  32. ↑ 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.
  33. ↑ Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon Part Two: 2 Nephi 1 – M (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014), 732–33.
  34. ↑ Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd edition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2022). off-site
  35. ↑ John Tvedtnes, "The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon," FARMS Preliminary Reports (1981): 45.
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 Jeff Lindsay, "Why does 2 Nephi 19:1 incorrectly change 'sea' in Isaiah 9 to 'Red Sea'?", LDS FAQ: Mormon Answers.
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 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
  38. ↑ 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 (2020): 45–106 (esp. 56–68).
  39. ↑ Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 Vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 2:267.
  40. ↑ 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.
  41. ↑ 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.
  42. ↑ Marc Schindler, "Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon?," FAIR Papers FAIR link
  43. ↑ Interpreter Foundation, "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon," <https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-history-of-the-text-of-the-book-of-mormon/> (25 January 2020).
  44. ↑ 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.
  45. ↑ L. La Mar Adams, "I Have a Question," Ensign 14 (October 1984): 29.
  46. ↑ 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.
  47. ↑ Wikipedia, "Isaiah Scroll," <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Scroll> (25 January 2020); citing Timothy A.J. Jull, et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of Scrolls and Linen Fragments from the Judean Desert," Radiocarbon 37-1 (1995): 14. doi:10.1017/S0033822200014740. Also citing All About Archaeology, "The Dead Sea Scrolls," <https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls-2.htm> (25 January 2020).
  48. ↑ Wikipedia, "Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)," <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC)> (25 January 2020).
  49. ↑ Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, MA: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), 311.
  50. ↑ ABC News, "Philistine cemetery uncovered in archaeological dig in Israel, Goliath's people were 'normal sized'," <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-11/old-bones-cast-new-light-on-goliath-people/7584904> (4 November 2019).


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.” [1] 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. [2]

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?.

Home > The Bible > The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon

Summary: 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.

Load video
YouTube

[3]

Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text?

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.

FAIR Resources on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

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.com off-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
  • Kurt Manwaring, “10 questions with Thomas Wayment”.
  • LDS Perspectives, Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment .
  • Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson, “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation".
Video
Video published by BYU Religious Education.
Load video
YouTube

Print
  • 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.
Navigators

Articles about Joseph Smith
Life and Character
Youth
Revelations and the Church
Prophetic Statements
Society
Plural marriage (polygamy)
Death

Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 141.
  2. ↑ Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign 7, no. 9 (September 1977).
  3. ↑ Video published by BYU Religious Education


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

Template:CESLetterItemShort

Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon

Articles about the Book of Mormon
Authorship
Translation process
Gold plates
Witnesses
The Bible and the Book of Mormon
Language and the Book of Mormon
Geography
DNA
Anachronisms
Doctrine and teachings
Lamanites
Other

KJV Italicized Text in the Book of Mormon

Summary: Italics in the King James Bible indicate that a word not present in the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text has been added to the text to make the translation readable and comprehensible in English. They are also sometimes added to clarify the meaning of the original.

The Book of Mormon contains quotations from and allusions to the King James Bible. The quotations contain words that are italicized in the King James Bible.

The Book of Mormon sometimes retains the italicized words (without the italics!) from the King James Bible. In other cases it deletes the italicized word(s). In still other cases the Book of Mormon modifies the italicized words.

Some critics believe that the presence of the italics is an indication that Joseph Smith didn’t translate an ancient text and instead just plagiarized a copy of the King James Bible. The CES Letter explains that "[w]hen King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV Bible." It asks, "What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?"[1]

The assumption seems to be that the Book of Mormon, if truly a translation of an ancient text, should either not include these words or use different words. (We emphasize that the italics did not—as the 'CES Letter' assumes, merely make the English more readable. They were also inserted to clarify the underlying meaning of the Greek and Hebrew being translated.)

Critic Stan Larson argued in a 1993 book chapter that the words used make it clear that a 1769 KJV is being used:

The Book of Mormon text often revises biblical quotations at the very point where the original 1611 edition of the KJV prints the word or words in a different typeface in order to indicate that the words are not found in the Greek. This printing device was both inconsistently and sparsely applied in the 1611 KJV and improved in the 1769 printing. When Smith came to the KJV italics in the Sermon on the Mount, which he knew indicated that whatever was printed in italics was not in the original Greek, he would often either drop the word or revise it. The Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings. For example, the Book of Mormon drops the italics of the 1769 printing at Matthew 6꞉5, 7; 7:18 (3 Ne. 13꞉5,7; 14꞉18), and the Book of Mormon changes the tense of the italics at Matthew 5꞉12 (3 Ne. 12꞉12). On the other hand, the Book of Mormon fails to revise places where the KJV text ought to have been printed in italics but is not. In two places the Book of Mormon copies the noun "men" from the KJV, where it is not in the original Greek and has been improperly added in the KJV.[2]

Thus, Larson argues from a different angle—he doesn’t use the mere presence of KJV italics in the Book of Mormon like the 'CES Letter'. He argues instead based on the Book of Mormon’s interaction with the KJV italics. In some cases, the italics are simply dropped. In some cases, the italics are revised. In some cases, there is a passage that should have an italicized word but isn’t. These interactions occur in places which were only italicized in the 1769 edition and later editions of the KJV. According to Larson, these considerations date the Book of Mormon’s composition (and, more particularly, the Savior's Sermon at the Temple recorded in 3 Nephi) to the 1800s.

Critic David P. Wright uses a similar analysis of the Book of Mormon's alleged interaction with the italics of KJV Isaiah.[3] He concluded that the perceived interaction "demontrates in large measure that the BoM Isaiah derives from the KJV."[3]:p. 159 More broadly, he uses this "evidence" to argue that "the Isaiah of the BoM is a revision of the KJV and not a translation of an ancient document."[3]:p. 157

Believing author Stan Spencer (not Stan Larson), following Wright,[3]:164-66. discerns one more problem to account for. Spencer informs us that "[t]hese variants are usually minor but sometimes result in readings that conflict with the larger context of Isaiah’s message or create ungrammatical or even nonsensical sentences, particularly in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon."[4]:46 Spencer used Royal Skousen's first edition of The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (2009) which is the best reconstruction of the text as it was originally dictated by Joseph Smith.[5]

We must thus address four questions:

  1. Did Joseph know what the italics represented?
  2. Did Joseph use a King James Bible in order to produce the Book of Mormon, including reference to the italics?
  3. Do the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV italics show that Joseph Smith was working from the 1769 edition of the KJV?
  4. Do the original Book of Mormon text's omissions and revisions of italics refute the teaching of Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book of any on earth"?

Question #1: What did Joseph know about the italics?

There is considerable debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon as to whether Joseph Smith knew the meaning of the italics.

Evidence Joseph did not know what the italics meant

Those that argue that Joseph didn't know what the italics mean cite six lines of evidence:

1. Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls If Joseph didn't know this basic fact about Jerusalem, can we expect him to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the purpose of the italics?

2. Our critics rely heavily on an assumption that Joseph Smith was deeply familiar with the Bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Those closest to Joseph Smith in his early life state otherwise. Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that "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."[6]

3. The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.[7]

Related article:All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process
Summary: This link presents all known descriptions (first person and second hand) of the translation setting, tools used, and process.

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.[4]: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.[8]

4. There is no evidence that Joseph even owned a bible at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon. 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.[9]

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.[10] 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).[11] Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?

5. The general lack of explanation of italics in Bibles of Joseph Smith's day. The original 1611 KJV does not explain the use of italics; in fact, it silently borrowed the idea from the Geneva Bible, which does explain them.[12]

6. In a 1994 paper, Royal Skousen wrote: "Calhoun and Robbins [two students of Skousen's also compared the italicized words in the King James Bible with the original text of the Book of Mormon (as found in the two manuscripts [the original manuscript and printer's manuscript]). And both discovered many examples where Joseph Smith deleted, added, or altered words that are not in italics in any of the King James printings they examined. Each concluded that there was no direct connection between the italics and the original Book of Mormon text. Simply giving examples where changes correspond with italics means nothing; one must look at all the changes including the ones that occur independently of italics."[13]:127

Skousen is quite right that paying attention only to the italics will bias the data. The critics' method is a version of the hasty generalization fallacy, in which too few examples are studied before drawing conclusions about the whole.

Evidence Joseph did understand the italics' purpose

Those that believe Joseph did know the meaning of the italics typically cite 4–5 lines of evidence:[14]

1. The distribution of KJV italics being revised as they come to the Book of Mormon and especially the Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon. Royal Skousen has determined that of all the differences in the biblical quotations in the Book of Mormon, 23% involve italics. Of all the italics contained in the KJV, 38% are changed in some way in the Book of Mormon.[15] Skousen sees these facts as evidence that Joseph did not know the meaning of the italics since a much larger amount of changes do not involve italics. Though other scholars read those same percentages as significant; as evidence that Joseph did know the meaning of the italics.

2. Critic David P. Wright cited a KJV Bible published in New York City in 1818—George D'Oyly and Richard Mant's The Holy Bible According to the Authorized Version with Notes, Explanatory and Practical—that explained the meaning of the italics.[3]:159, p. 213n5 Wright speculates that "[l]ay readers could have read such statements and circulated the information further by word of mouth. Ministers, too, would have learned the reason for italics either from these sources or through their education and no doubt would have shared it with their congregants."[3]:159. This presumes much that is not in evidence.

3. Stan Spencer analyzed many of the Book of Mormon's interactions with the KJV Isaiah italics and argued that the Book of Mormon's interaction with Isaiah italics cannot be due to chance.[4]:49-55

4. The practice of crossing out italicized words in the Joseph Smith Translation. The manuscripts are available and one can see that there appears (at least to some) to be a strong focus on revision of the italicized words. The production of the JST began in June 1830 (after the publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church) and continued intermittently until 1833. Yet this evidence cannot tell us what Joseph knew in 1829, and by 1830 he had Sidney Rigdon's input—Rigdon was an accomplished minister and preacher, and would have been far more likely to know the meaning of the italics. He did not, however, join the Church until November 1830.[16]

5. The presence of statements from Joseph Smith's contemporary environment suggesting that there was a broader familiarity with the meaning of the italics. An editorial for the Evening and Morning Star (January 1833) stated the following: "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."[17]

A few months later (July 1833), the same paper had an editorial that states "[a]s to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men."[18]

Roughly ten years later (September 1843) in the Latter-day Saint news paper Times and Seasons, another Latter-day Saint writer stated that "[m]uch has been said about the bad translations of the Bible. . . . Every school boy seems to know that when either of the sectarian translators failed in making the two ends of a sentence meet, he filled up the vacuity with italic, by which means God has been greatly helped towards expressing himself so as to be understood by the learned world."[19]

An 1831 article (critical of the Church and its claims) in The Sun, a newspaper in Philadelphia, states the following: "Finally, after frequent and fervent prayer, Jo's spectacles were restored to sight, and he again permitted to open the book.—Jo had, during his spiritual blindness, by the assistance of some one, commited several chapters of the New Testament to memory; and, the better to carry on his deception with the deluded Harris, had inquired, and found out the words inserted by the translators; (which are distinguished by Italics, both in the New Testament and the Old.) So, in order to convince Harris that he could read from the plates, Jo deposits them in his hat, applies spectacles, and refers Harris to a chapter in the Bible which he had learned by rote; and which he read from the plates, with surprising accuracy; and what astonished Harris most, was, that Jo should omit all the words in the Bible that were printed in Italic. And, if Harris attempted to correct Jo, he persisted that the plates were right, and the Bible was wrong."[20] The source of this article's assertions is unknown to the author of this article (couldn't locate any reference in the source to Martin as a source), though Stan Spencer says that it was "based apparently on an interview with Martin Harris".[4]:62.

Here again, however, we are relying on later sources to tell us what Joseph knew in 1829. And, they include resources such as WW Phelps, who was far more educated and sophisticated than Joseph, especially the Joseph of 1829.

Both perspectives are viable and still in debate among scholars of the Book of Mormon.

Three Hypotheses For How and Why the Italicized Words in Book of Mormon Were Modified

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:

  1. 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."[4]:56 Spencer calls this the Ancient Variants Hypothesis.
  2. 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.[4]:56-58
  3. 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.[4]

Question #2: Is the presence of italics from the KJV Bible evidence of plagiarism?

The italics make the English text of the Bible more readable, clear, and comprehensible. If Joseph Smith was to produce a text that was readable and clear, the presence of something like the italics words would be necessary. Given that the KJV was a largely functional translation, following it points would be sensible. It’s nonsensical to claim that the mere presence of the italicized words is in and of itself damning.

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.

Question #3: Does the Book of Mormon's interaction with the King James italics prove that it came from the 1800s?

Given that we don't know and likely can't know whether or not that Joseph Smith had knowledge of the meaning of the italics in the Bible, this question is in one sense unanswerable.

On the other hand, even if Joseph were aware of the italics' meaning, that does not prevent him from genuinely translating. If he knew the italics were an artifact or tool of the translator, then as a translator he would have paid particular attention to those words, since they have no exact match in the original. We would expect a translator to do that.

In that case, at most we could argue that the translation came from the 1800's—but that is completely non-controversial. There's no doubt the English translation was produced in 1829. This doesn't answer the question of whether Joseph was composing it in 1829, or translating based on an ancient text.

Question #4: Do issues with italics mean the Book of Mormon cannot be the world's "most correct book"?

Given that we don't know and likely can't know whether or not that Joseph Smith had knowledge of the meaning of the italics in the Bible, this question is in one sense unanswerable.

It's perhaps important to pick among the hypotheses Spencer outlines above in relation to the changes in italics in the Book of Mormon. The author favors Spencer's theory but acknowledges that there may be some cases in which there really are ancient variants that correspond to the changes in italics made in the Book of Mormon. Thus a sort of hybrid of Spencer's and Roberts' theories.

Today's edition of the Book of Mormon is very readable and comprehensible, but the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was less so. Stan Spencer lines up passages from the KJV Isaiah and Royal Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon show how the changes sometimes have "negative effects on the sense, clarity, or grammar of the text" versus the KJV.[4]:49

To fully assess this question, we would need to consider each case of omission or revision of italics and determine whether the resulting message is an erroneous theological or ethical message about God.

Stan Spencer discusses 10 of these changes that worsen the original biblical passages' sense and clarity.[4] Royal Skousen discusses similar issues in volume 3, part 5 of his Book of Mormon Critical Text Project entitled The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon.[21]

We have collected every change that could potentially deemed misleading regarding the intent of the biblical passages being quoted. In the table below, the left column describes the changes and the right column assesses their impact (if any) on meaning. These revisions are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon.

Related article:Why did Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book"?
Summary: Joseph Smith's reference to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" refers to its doctrine, theology, and witness of Christ. This does not mean it does not contain errors of grammar, translation, or even minor matters of fact.
Supposed Harmful Change Commentary
Changes of KJV Italics in the Book of Mormon and Their Implications
1 Nephi 20꞉5 ~ Isaiah 48꞉5. 1 Nephi 20꞉5 deletes the italicized it in Isaiah 48꞉5's "I have even from the beginning declared it to thee" creating the awkward "And I have even from the beginning declared to thee". The text is indeed awkward but doesn't lead away from understanding the intent of the passage.
2 Nephi 8꞉17-18 ~ Isaiah 51꞉17-18. There are six omissions in italics and one addition that create awkward readings. The following is from the KJV Isaiah with omissions bolded and additions in carets (<>): "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrung them out. There is <—And> none to guide her among all the sons whom she hath brought forth; neither is there any that taketh her by the hand<,> of all the sons that she hath brought up." Thus the verse now reads: "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury—thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling wrung out—And none to guide her among all the sons she hath brought forth; neither that taketh her by the hand, of all the sons she hath brought up." The passage is very awkward but doesn't lead ineluctably away from intent. At worst it just makes the passage awkward or incoherent, and the intent of the original passage is already taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.
2 Nephi 15꞉25. In the earliest text of the Book of Mormon, the last sentence fragment states that "For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand stretched out still." This instead of "his hand is stretched out still." This pattern is repeated in 2 Nephi 19꞉21, 20:4, and 24:27. The omission seems to make the sentence awkward but not incomprehensible and not leading into inaccurate understandings of God. If anything, it inclines toward a more literal translation.
In 2 Nephi 16꞉5, the omission of "is" and "am" from the KJV’s "Woe is me for I am undone because I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell" makes this sentence ungrammatical and potentially confusing. Indeed, ungrammatical and a bit confusing, but not misleading. The most recent edition of the Book of Mormon has "unto" after "Woe is".
In 2 Nephi 16꞉7, the omission of "it" from the KJV’s "he laid it [a live coal] upon my mouth" produces the illogical, "he laid upon my mouth." In context, Isaiah is having God's holiness and purity transferred to him and he is becoming transformed by it. Thus this passage, implying that the seraph lays on Isaiah's mouth, is not necessarily out of alignment with the intent of the passage. The passage just means to communicate that God can forgive our sins and make us pure with his holiness, which is testified of throughout scripture. No one is compelled to believing anything false by reading the scripture as it read originally. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon retains it.
In verse 8, the omission of "am" from "Here am I send me" makes the English text awkward, at least. Indeed, awkward but not incorrect though, and allowing a correct understanding of the passage's intent
In 2 Nephi 16꞉9, the KJV’s "Hear ye indeed but understand not and see ye indeed but perceive not" becomes "Hear ye indeed but they understand not and see ye indeed but they perceive not." This change results in an awkward switching back and forth between second person and third person and between the imperative and indicative moods. It also alters the meaning contrary to the statement in the next verse, which has God again dictating impediments to understanding and perception. Spencer overplays the awkwardness and incorrectly perceives a change in meaning in the subsequent verse. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon changes some of the verbs to the past tense: "Hear ye indeed, but they understood not; and see ye indeed, but they perceived not."
The omission of "it" from "ask it either in the" in 2 Nephi 17꞉11 may imply for some that the asking (not the sign) is to be done in the depths or heights. It's not clear why Spencer finds this so illogical. Again, at most this errs on the side of literalness, where the it is implied.
In 2 Nephi 17꞉17, the omission of "even" could lead the reader to wrongly believe that Judah was king of Assyria. The italicized "even" in that verse in the KJV is important because it discourages such a misinterpretation. The even actually doesn't do much to discourage the reading of Judah as the king of Assyria. This problem has to be fixed with punctuation, which the dictated Book of Mormon text did not have. Future editions of the Book of Mormon with better punctuators may be necessary. The modern edition omits "even". it may also need to alter the sentence structure much differently than the original Hebrew text to make sense of the passage.
Similarly, the italicized "namely" that is omitted in the Book of Mormon from 2 Nephi 17꞉20 is important in clarifying that the king of Assyria is not the one hiring a razor; he is the razor. This also doesn't provide much utility in clarifying the meaning of the text. Punctuation, scholarly commentary, and maybe other modification of the text may be necessary for future editions of the Book of Mormon. This isn't a fault in translation. The modern edition of the Book of Mormon also omits "namely".
The replacement of "it" with "which" in 2 Nephi 17꞉23 muddles the meaning of Isaiah’s message. The text as it stands in the KJV makes sense — the deserted land, once fruitful, will be overrun with briars and thorns. With "which" in place of "it," the Book of Mormon appears to instead say, in an incomplete sentence, that briars and thorns will be purchased with a thousand silverlings (i.e., a thousand silver coins) The text doesn't necessarily force that reading, but Spencer's reading makes sense. Even with it the best reading remains unclear. Ideally a they should replace it and the sentence structure should be rearranged to emphasize that the deserted land will become overrun with briars and thorns. Readers are probably not likely to spend too much time on this verse when it's equally muddled in both the KJV and BoM. The essential intent of the passage seems unharmed and, in context the reader will most likely interpret it as Isaiah speaking about a prior state of serenity and a subsequent state of disaster. This passage is merely "a negative oracle describing the dire consequences, particularly the subjectaion of Judah by the Assyrian Empire, that will befall Jerusalem and Judah as a result of Ahaz's refusal to accept Isaiah's promises."[22] The modern edition of the Book of Mormon retains "which" instead of it".
The original version of 2 Nephi 19꞉5 in the earliest editions of the Book of Mormon deletes the italicized is from the KJV Isaiah 9꞉5 such that the KJV Isaiah 9꞉5 reads "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" and 2 Nephi 9꞉5 reads "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." The most likely way of interpreting this passage for reads is to see the first clause as the beginning of an accumulatio and still retaining the correct intent.
3 Nephi 22꞉9 is part of a longer quotation of Isaiah 4. The King James version of Isaiah 54꞉9 reads "For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee." 3 Nephi 22꞉9 deletes the first is as such that the verse now reads "For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee." The initial clause may be mildly confusing, but the intent becomes clear in the second—"as I have sworn ... so have I sworn." There's no lack of clarity when the whole sentence is read. The effect is somewhat poetic as the initial meaning becomes clearer as the reader "circles back."

None of the changes are of much consequence; while reading less fluidly in some cases, their meaning is not difficult to discern. None of these verses if deleted completely would deprive us of any doctrine or teaching of significance. Their main importance is as evidence of how the translation proceeded, and what its priorities may have been.

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14.
  2. ↑ Stan 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), 130–31.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in American Apocrypha, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 159–69.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 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
  5. ↑ The second edition is available for consultation online at Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd edition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2022). off-site
  6. ↑ Preston Nibley, editor, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Mack Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1954), 82-83.
  7. ↑ 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. (BYU Press; Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.
  8. ↑ 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.
  9. ↑ 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
  10. ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (University of Illinois Press; Reprint edition, 1987), 95–100.
  11. ↑ Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (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
  12. ↑ Kent P. Jackson, Frank F. Judd Jr., and David R. Seely, "Chapters, Verses, Punctuation, Spelling, and Italics," in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 108–12.
  13. ↑ 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). [121–144] link
  14. ↑ Kevin Barney, "KJV Italics," By Common Consent, October 13, 2007, http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/10/kjv-italics/.
  15. ↑ Royal Skousen, "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Presentation on Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon," Book of Mormon Central, accessed December 24, 2022, https://www.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/Blog%20entry/2020/Presentation%20parts%205%20and%206%20Hinckley%20Center.pdf.
  16. ↑ "Sidney Rigdon," JSPP.
  17. ↑ W.W. Phelps, "The Book of Mormon," The Evening and the Morning Star 1, no. 8 (January 1833): 58.
  18. ↑ "Errors of the Bible," The Evening and the Morning Star 2, no. 14 (July 1833): 106.
  19. ↑ "Minutes of A Conference," Times and Seasons 4, no. 20 (September 1, 1843): 318; emphasis in original. Quoted in Kent P. Jackson, "The King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation," in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 203.
  20. ↑ "Mormonites," The Sun, August 18, 1831, http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/Phil1830.htm.
  21. ↑ Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon: Part 5, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 2019), 182–210.
  22. ↑ Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 990n18–19.



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

Template:CESLetterItemShort Home > The Bible > The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon

Summary: 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.

Load video
YouTube

[1]

Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text?

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.

FAIR Resources on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

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.com off-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
  • Kurt Manwaring, “10 questions with Thomas Wayment”.
  • LDS Perspectives, Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment .
  • Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson, “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation".
Video
Video published by BYU Religious Education.
Load video
YouTube

Print
  • 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.
Navigators

Articles about Joseph Smith
Life and Character
Youth
Revelations and the Church
Prophetic Statements
Society
Plural marriage (polygamy)
Death

Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Video published by BYU Religious Education


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

Template:CESLetterItemShort

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon


Anachronisms

Template:CESLetterItemShort

This is an oversimplification. There’s been a lot written on these sorts of topics, and many of them by John Sorenson....But the author of the letter seems unaware of those things. He doesn’t engage them in any event. I can imagine someone saying “the evidence doesn’t persuade me,” but what bothers me is to suggest there is no evidence, there are no counterarguments. That bothers me, and that doesn’t, to me, show a serious engagement with the data.

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference.

∗       ∗       ∗

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Horses

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Cattle

Miller and Roper: "Bones of domesticated cattle...have been reported from different caves in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico"

Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper: [1]

Bones of domesticated cattle (Bos taurus – see Figure 2) have been reported from different caves in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico.[2] 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. [3]

Image taken from Miller and Roper, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives," Blog of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture.

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Sheep

Miller and Roper: "there are sheep native to America. The most common type is the Mountain Sheep, Ovis canadensis"

Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper: [4]

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 [5] (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. [6] 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.” [7] Sorenson noted the apparent recovery of sheep wool from a pre-Columbian burial site near Puebla (southeast of Mexico City). [8] 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.

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Swine

Miller and Roper: "two distinct species of peccary live in Mesoamerica....They were hunted and eaten as early as Olmec times"

Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper: [9]

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. [10] 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. [11] 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 [12] and in several other caves in the region associated with human artifacts. [13] There is no question that peccaries (“wild pigs”) and man shared this area since prehistoric times.

Image taken from Miller and Roper, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives," Blog of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture.

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Goats

Miller and Roper: "Evidence of goats associated with pre-Columbian man also comes from caves in Yucatan"

Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper: [14]

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. [15] It was not made clear whether this was a wild or a domesticated type of goat.

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Elephants

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Chariots

Chariots in the Book of Mormon


Jump to Subtopic:

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Wheat

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Silk

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Steel

Steel in the Book of Mormon


Jump to Subtopic:

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: Iron

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon


"There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon"

Template:CESLetterItemShort

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.

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference

∗       ∗       ∗

Question: How does archaeology in the Old World compare to the first chapters in the Book of Mormon?

There are recently discovered correlations between the early chapters of the Book of Mormon and the archaeological record of the Old World

Given the inherent advantages (cultural continuity, toponyms, environmental conditions which favor the preservation of artifacts, time and resources invested in archaeological and linguistic field-work, etc.) of Old World studies compared to New World studies, it is interesting to note some recently discovered correlations between the early chapters of the Book of Mormon and the archaeological record of the Old World in ways that would have been unknown at the time the book was translated. In other words, it is impossible that Joseph Smith could have known any of the Old World archaeological data that have come to light since his death—these finds do not contradict the Book of Mormon and, in many instances, are consistent with its stories.

Consider, for instance, a recently discovered altar in Yemen that is consistent with a story related in the Book of Mormon. This altar, discovered by non-LDS archaeologists, has the tribal name of NHM carved into it. The altar is located in the same vicinity in which the Book of Mormon describes the Lehites stopping in Nahom to bury Ishmael, and dates from the same time period.[16] One should here remember that the Hebrew language of Nephi's era has no written vowels, and thus NHM could very likely be “NaHoM.”[17] The name NHM does not just appear out of thin air either, but rather the location of an ancient NHM exists not only within the specific time of the Lehite journey, but also within a plausible location through which LDS scholars believe the Lehites traveled in Arabia before embarking on their voyage to the New World.

Main article:Nahom


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.

S. Kent Brown: [18]

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.[19] 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.[20] 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."[21]

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."

1 Nephi 17꞉1:

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.[22] 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.[23]

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.

1 Nephi 16꞉34-35:

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." [24] However, given the high correlation of the data, it seems that the critics are the ones that have difficulty explaining the data.

See also: Question: Did Joseph Smith have access to materials related to Nahom at Allegheny College?

Book of Mormon Central Evidence: Nahom

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:

Load video
YouTube


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"

A 1782 map by Carsten Niebuhr shows "Nehem" in the proper location. (See the map at http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~31563~1150042:A-new-map-of-Arabia-divided-into-it) Could Joseph Smith have accessed a copy of this map?

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:[25]

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.[26]

  • 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.[27]

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.[28]

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.[29]

More information on anachronisms can be found in the articles addressing anachronisms, research presented at FairMormon Conferences, and other Latter-day Saint academic venues.

Load video
YouTube


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.”[30] 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?[31]

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.[32] 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.[33] 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.[34]

“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.”[35]

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.[36]

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.[37] 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.[38] 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.[39]


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.”[40]

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).[41]

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.)"[42]

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?"[43]


"This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists are coming up with the Limited Geography Model"

Template:CESLetterItemShort

This 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.

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference

∗       ∗       ∗

Book of Mormon/Geography/New World/Limited Geography Theory/What is it

"Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Funding) founder"

Template:CESLetterItemShort

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.

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference

∗       ∗       ∗

Thomas Stuart Ferguson and Mormon archaeology



Book of Mormon Geography

Template:CESLetterItemShort

[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..."

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference</ref>

Theory of Book of Mormon place names from area around Joseph Smith's home


Jump to Subtopic:


Hill Cumorah

Template:CESLetterItemShort


The Book of Mormon and Captain Kidd

Figure 1. Portrait of Captain
William Kidd.

Summary: Critics of the Book of Mormon claim that Joseph Smith could have acquired the names “Moroni” and “Cumorah” from either maps he could have had access to as a youth, stories that he may have read associated with Captain William Kidd, or local Palmyra whalers that told stories of their journeys to places where Captain Kidd is also known to have operated.

The argument typically starts with the Captain Kidd stories. Joseph is supposed to have known about stories regarding Captain Kidd and either directly cribbed the names "Moroni" and "Cumorah" (or names close to those two) from the stories or, inspired by Kidd’s and/or other pirates' exploits on the four islands of the Comoros Archipelago (which is almost sandwiched between Mozambique and Madagascar in the Mozambique Channel), gone to maps to learn more about the area and found names on those maps that he could use for the supposedly fictitious creation of the Book of Mormon. On the maps, he would have found that the capital city of one of the islands in the archipelago is Moroni. On one of the islands in the Comoros, Anjouan (also sometimes called "Joanna" historically), there is a port city named "Meroni" (sometimes spelled "Merone").

Alternatively, as mentioned, American whalers could have sailed in the Comoros and talked about their travels in settings where Joseph could have heard them.

To reiterate, there are two places that Joseph Smith could have gotten the name “Moroni” from and three places that he could have gotten “Cumorah” from, according to these critics.

For Moroni:

  1. The capital city of the island Grand Comore is literally Moroni.
  2. There is an island named Anjouan (also known as "Joanna" by some historically) in the Comoros, and one of the port cities of that island is called "Meroni" (sometimes spelled "Merone").

For Cumorah:

  1. The islands are named the "Comoros Islands"
  2. The largest island of the Comoros is called "Grand Comore."
  3. Before French occupation in 1841, critics claim that Grand Comore was often called "Camora."

For this last potential source ("Camora"), critics note that, in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Cumorah is always spelled "Camorah", suggesting that Joseph and/or Oliver merely added an h to the end of the name "Camora", placed it in the Book of Mormon, and then respelled it later on to perhaps cover their tracks more.

When weighing the probability that this theory is true, your mileage varies a little depending on what you assume regarding various questions, such as:

  1. Whether Joseph Smith had co-conspirators or not
  2. What you assume about how much Joseph Smith (and/or co.) knows about Captain Kidd
  3. What Joseph Smith (and/or co.) has read about him
  4. How much Joseph Smith (and/or co.) admires Captain Kidd and his (and/or their) corresponding desire to learn what he (and/or they) can about him
  5. How much Joseph Smith (and/or co.) admires other pirates and his (and/or their) corresponding desire to learn about them
  6. How much he (or they) has read about those pirates
  7. The proximity of maps and other sources containing resemblances of "Moroni" and "Cumorah" to Joseph (and/or co.)
  8. Joseph's (and/or co.'s) abilities to plausibly spin names in these sources to be Book of Mormon names and, finally
  9. The proximity and obviousness of sources like the 41 mentions of other islands in the Comoros in General History to Joseph (and/or co.) that may have motivated him (and/or them) to look at maps of the areas.

At nearly every step here, you're making dubious (and, in some of the cases of the critics above, false) claims/assumptions based on tenuous (and, in some of the instances of the critics above, entirely non-existent) strands of evidence.

As your evidence, you have the name "Comaro" once in General History; you have 41 mentions of other islands besides Comore in the Comoros in relation to different pirates, 12 of which are to Joanna; you have a handful of mostly late and mostly hostile (with the obvious exception of Orrin Porter Rockwell) statements that say that Joseph Smith sought for Captain Kidd's treasure and one contemporary newspaper account that says that citizens of Palmyra looked for that treasure; you have three late, hostile sources, one relying on the accuracy of the other, stating that Joseph Smith had a copy of an autobiography of or "novels" about Captain Kidd; you have five maps, all of which are detail maps of one island (out of two separate islands) in the Comoros, with names sometimes more similar and sometimes less similar to "Moroni" and "Cumorah", and two of which are in French; and you have some other potential sources documented by Carmack.

You're likely committing an appeal to probability fallacy and a texas sharpshooter fallacy to claim that the theory works and establish your case.

As far as the author's beliefs, the evidence really only carries you with certainty as far as Joseph Smith knowing about Captain Kidd and the treasure he buried in New York and looking for it. He also likely (but not certainly) read about Captain Kidd in some sources available to him. Past that, little can be certain. Little wonder Carmack says that whether Joseph Smith was aware of the Comoros before 1830 is difficult to determine conclusively. Any similarity, closer or further, between the Comoros Islands and the Book of Mormon is most likely coincidental and specious.

Both the main body of text and the footnotes of this article contain valuable information related to these arguments, and we encourage readers to review both.

Related article:A FairMormon Analysis of "From Captain Kidd's Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism" by Ronald V. Huggins, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36 no. 4 (2003), 22.

1. Who was Captain Kidd?

Some background on Captain Kidd will be helpful as we continue with this article. This history lesson comes primarily from "MaryAnn", a blogger at the blog Wheat and Tares,[44] with some modifications by the author of this article:

Captain Kidd was Scottish-born but lived in New York. He was a successful privateer who typically worked the West Indies. An upstanding British citizen, he got hired in 1696 to go after pirates in the East Indies (and French merchants, because England and France weren’t on good terms). He and his crew were to be paid from the spoil they got, with a portion going back to his sponsors. Hiring these privateers was a way for the British government to supplement its navy and look after its interests on the high seas, while maintaining plausible deniability if the privateers ever did anything wrong.

With a brand-spankin' new ship (called the Adventure Galley) and a bunch of experienced New York seamen, Kidd made his way to the East Indies. It took a year, but Kidd and his crew finally reached Madagascar, a known pirate haven, in January 1697. Unfortunately, he couldn’t find any pirates. Whoops. After a month, he headed over to Johanna, the most popular island in the Comoro archipelago. He spent March and April in the Comoros, bouncing back and forth between the islands of Johanna and Mohilla. On Mohilla, he lost fifty men to sickness. Luckily, he got more men on the island of Johanna and was finally able to borrow enough money to repair his debilitated ship. He left the Comoro Islands an honest man, a little financially desperate, but an honest man. It wasn’t until a few months later that things started to get a little fishy.

Kidd traveled about a thousand miles north to Bab-el-Mandeb at the mouth of the Red Sea and unsuccessfully attacked a fleet in August 1697. So he decided to try his luck on the Malabar Coast, along the Western coast of India, over 3,000 miles away from the Comoros Islands. His crew grew antsy, and they attempted mutiny when Kidd refused to attack a Dutch ship. The leader of the mutiny, William Moore, later died when Kidd threw a bucket at him (this death became important later). Ultimately, he only ever took two French ships while sailing down India’s western coast, but the second, the Quedagh Merchant, was laden with valuables. Unfortunately, England was on better terms with France, so the capture of the ships was viewed as scandalous (turns out the latter boat was captained by an Englishman – double whoops). Once word of these activities reached London in late 1698, William Kidd was declared a pirate, and orders were given to apprehend him.

Captain Kidd, unaware of his infamy, sailed the Quedagh Merchant to the Caribbean (after a brief, uncomfortable encounter with a real pirate at Madagascar). Upon his arrival in the West Indies, he used part of his treasure to purchase a new ship and left the Quedagh Merchant, now a liability, behind. Later, Kidd’s crew pillaged the ship and burned it. The remains of the Quedagh Merchant were rediscovered in 2007, just off the coast of Catalina Island.

Kidd sailed up to New York to appeal to higher-ups and hid a bunch of his treasure on Gardiners Island (fueling rumors that he or his associates were also burying treasure in other areas of the Northeastern United States). He never buried treasure in the Comoros. He was apprehended and taken to England. Found guilty of piracy and the murder of William Moore, Kidd was executed in 1701 with two associates, and his body was hanged for three years over the River Thames to discourage would-be pirates.

The following map is from Wikipedia and gives an overview of the locations and dates of arrival for Captain Kidd's journeys:

Figure 2. Map of Adventure Galley 's voyages from Wikipedia.

The Comoro Islands were indeed heavily utilized by pirates, but typically not for burying treasure. They were a part of the Pirate Round, a “sailing route followed by certain mainly English pirates, during the late 17th century and early 18th century. The course led from the western Atlantic, parallel to the Cape Route around the southern tip of Africa, stopping at Madagascar, then on to targets such as the coast of Yemen and India. The Pirate Round was briefly used again during the early 1720s. Pirates who followed the route are sometimes referred to as Roundsmen. The Pirate Round was largely co-extensive with the routes of the East India Company ships of Britain and other nations. The Pirate Round started from a variety of Atlantic ports, including Bermuda, Nassau, New York City, and A Coruña, depending on where the pirate crew initially assembled. The course then lay roughly south by southeast along the coast of Africa, frequently by way of the Madeira Islands. The pirates would then double the Cape of Good Hope, and sail through the Mozambique Channel to northern Madagascar. Pirates would frequently careen and refit their ships on Madagascar and take on fresh provisions before proceeding onward toward their targets further north. Particularly important pirate bases on Madagascar included the island of St. Mary's (often called by its French name, Île Sainte-Marie) and Ranter Bay (now called Antongil Bay), both on the northeastern side of the island."[45] The Comoros were sometimes used as a stopping point to prepare for the rest of the journey to India, Yemen, or other destinations.

2. Are there any places in stories about Captain Kidd that reference Grande Comore, Moroni, Meroni, or Merone?

Only one place in the Captain Kidd Stories that contains a reference to Grande Comore and no place that mentions Moroni nor Meroni/Merone

We'll start with stories about Captain Kidd, as contained in books, since critics typically cite those as the most likely source for Joseph's plagiarism.

References to Joseph Smith's interest 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."[48]: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 [Noted here is that the first “dime novel” did not appear until 1860. See Wikipedia article "Dime novel" off-site]. 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...[48]:17

It's important to note that Pomeroy Tucker did not connect the Captain Kidd stories to the Book of Mormon and attempt to argue that Joseph Smith plagiarized the former.

We would 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).[49] We'd also dispute his characterization of Joseph as an avid reader. Emma Smith, Joseph's wife, remembered that during the translation of the Book of Mormon, he didn't know that Jerusalem had walls around it.[50] She also said "Joseph Smith...could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon."[51] Lucy Smith, Joseph's mother, reminisced that Joseph was less inclined to the perusal of books and more to deep meditation.[52]

Main articles:Joseph and the family's early reputation
Contemporary witnesses regarded the Smiths as trustworthy and hard-working
Lazy Smiths?
Joseph's early work as a farmhand

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 Wayne Sentinel reported in 1825:

We are sorry to observe, even in this enlightened age, so prevalent a disposition to credit the accounts of the marvellous. Even the frightful stories of money being hid under the surface of the earth, and enchanted by the Devil or Robert Kidd [Captain Kidd], are received by many of our respectable fellow citizens as truths.[53]

Mostly hostile and, in most cases, clearly late sources reminisced that, in his early years, Joseph Smith "had spent his time for several years in telling fortunes and digging for hidden treasures, and especially for pots and iron chests of money, supposed to have been buried by Captain Kidd."[54]:3:154 Others insinuated that Joseph Smith "studied piracy while digging for the money [his] Father pretended old Bob Kidd <had> buried."[54]:1:597[55] Another stated that "[h]e had for a library a copy of the 'Arabian Nights,' stories of Captain Kidd, and a few novels."[54]:3:130 Another late, hostile source, "evidently relying on the published accounts of...Pomeroy Tucker",[54]:3:146 reported that Joseph had in his possession "'The Life of Stephen Burroughs,' the clerical scoundrel, and the autobiography of Capt. Kidd, the pirate" and that Kidd was Joseph's Smith's "hero."[54]:3:148 The "autobiography" in Joseph Smith's possession is not specified. Still, one author argued persuasively that the most likely source is Charles Johnson's General History of the Pyrates.[56]:pp. 109–110 One late, hostile source claims that Joseph Smith "saw Captain Kidd sailing on the Susquehanna River during a freshet, and that he buried two pots of gold and silver. He claimed he saw writing cut on the rocks in an unknown language telling where Kidd buried it, and he translated it through his peep-stone." That same source reports that Joseph "dug...for Kidd’s money, on the west bank of the Susquehanna, half a mile from the river, and three miles from his salt wells."[54]:4:182–84. James Harrison Kennedy, a non-Latter-day Saint and then-editor of the Magazine of Western History, wrote in an account of Church history published in 1888 that Joseph Smith Sr. was reportedly "at times" engaged in the hunt for Captain Kidd's treasure.[57]:p. 8 Kennedy also wrote that Joseph Smith had told him that the autobiography of Captain Kidd "made a deep impression upon him."[57]:p. 13 Kennedy cites no source for this statement, however. These sources may very well contain fabrications and exaggerations. They are certainly designed to convince others that Joseph Smith Sr. and Jr. Smith are/were mendacious swindlers as well as fanciful, superstitious lunatics.

"Orrin Porter Rockwell, Joseph's neighbor in Manchester, New York, told Elizabeth W. Kane in the early 1870s that '[n]ot only was there religious excitement, but the phantom treasure of Captain Kidd were sought for far and near, and even in places like Cumorah'."[58]:p. 185n53

See also: Joseph Smith/Money digging

Critics have more recently attempted to link the stories to Joseph, as Captain William Kidd is known to have visited the Comoros Islands during his life.

The first to propose the Comoros/Moroni/Captain Kidd connection seems to be Fred Buchanan, then an associate professor in the Department of Educational Studies at the University of Utah, in the June 1989 issue of Sunstone Magazine.[59] Buchanan spoke about a "rendezvous at Comoro and Moroni" that Kidd had. Yet Kidd never set foot on Comore nor Moroni.

Years later, in a 2003 article, critic Ronald V. Huggins asserted that Captain Kidd was "hanged for crimes allegedly committed in the vicinity of Moroni on Grand Comoro."[60] Except he wasn't. Similarly, critic Jeremy T. Runnells claimed that Kidd "was...arrested for capturing a treasure ship called the 'Quedagh Merchant' in the Indian Ocean near the Comoros islands."[61] Except he wasn't even close to the Comoros. Kidd was charged with crimes/declared a pirate only after he seized the ship Quedagh Merchant on January 30, 1698. Recall that the seizing of the ship occurred along the western coast of India—over 3,000 miles away from the Comoros! Kidd and his crew spotted the ship about 25 leagues from Kochi. Kidd was hanged in 1701 in London for stealing the Quedagh Merchant and for murdering his ship's gunner, William Moore, during a mutiny which occurred around the same time as the seizure of the Quedagh Merchant. None of these actions was related to the city of Moroni or the Comoros generally. The association of these events with "Moroni on Grand Comoro" is an unsupported assertion by Huggins, and these specific names have nothing to do with Kidd's execution. This seems to be a stretching attempt by Huggins to tie Kidd's execution with Joseph Smith and Mormonism more closely. Huggins' other abuses of historical sources and problematic conclusions have been thoroughly exposed by historians Mark Ashurst-McGee and Larry E. Morris.[62] We've reviewed some of Huggins' claims here on the FAIR wiki.

Eleven years after Huggins, ex-Mormon critic Grant H. Palmer asserted in a 2014 article 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."[63] Similarly, critic Jeremy T. Runnells in the 2017 edition of his CES Letter claims that "'Camora' [Grand Comore] and settlement 'Moroni' were 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."[64] But that's negligibly true. The primary inspiration for Captain Kidd stories and legends, Daniel Defoe's (aka Captain Charles Johnson) 1724 book A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates, mentions Grande Comore once and fails to mention "Moroni/Meroni/Maroni." Neither Grande Comore nor Meroni/Merone/Maroni are connected to Kidd. This is the case for both volumes of General History which can be read/checked online (Vol. 1

3. Are any maps or other sources containing the names Moroni, Meroni, Comoros, Camora, or Grande Comore known to have existed close to Joseph Smith?

Maps and other Sources that Contain the Names Moroni, Meroni, Comoros, Camora, or Grand Comore are not proximate to Joseph Smith

When popular maps and other contemporary sources related to Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon are examined, the possibility that Joseph saw Comoros and Moroni on these maps recedes, and the idea becomes less plausible.

One critic, Noel A. Carmack, took up an exhaustive searching of maps, gazetteers, and other sources proximate to Joseph Smith and observes "that [whether] Joseph Smith Jr. had pre-1830 knowledge of the East Indian Ocean pirate haunt ["pirate haunt" being a place pirates like to frequent habitually]—the Comoro Island group and its sultan town, Moroni—is difficult to conclusively determine." He further states that "[n]o extant pre-1830 chart or map shows Moroni as a place name on the larger island [of Grande Comore]."[56]:p. 130

Carmack does note that there is a 1778 map of Grande Comore (called "Comoro" in this map) with the town spelled as "Moroon" (hardly the kind of easy grab for Joseph Smith the critics want):

Figure 3. Carmack's caption reads: "Detail of inset map, 'Comoro the Highest Island', from A Chart of the Inner Passage between the Coast of Africa and the Isle of Madagascar, from Mr. D’Anville with Several Additions. In The Oriental
Pilot (1778) by R. Sayer and J. Bennett. Courtesy the Map Section at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, Australia."


There is also this detail map from 1774 with the names as "Comoro" and "Moroon":

Figure 4. Carmack's caption: "Detail of 'Plan of the w. side of Comoro or Anga-Zecha, showing 'AIngando,' (Itzanda), and 'Moroon' (Moroni), Alexander Sibbald, 1774, from Dalrymple's Charts (1807?). Courtesy the Map Section at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, Australia.


Are we really going to expect Joseph Smith to look at one of these two maps of one island, Comore, flip the name "Moroon" to become "Moroni", flip the name "Comoro" to "Cumorah", and stick it in the Book of Mormon? When there's one mention of Comore and no mention of Moroon in the source closest to him (General History)?

There is also this 1748 map done by French hydrographer Jacque-Nicolas Bellin of the island of Joanna with the names "Comore" and "Meroni" on it:

Figure 5. Carmack's caption: "Full map, Carte de l’Isle d’Anjouan, by
Jacque-Nicolas Bellin. Courtesy the author’s collection."


Figure 6. Carmack's caption: "Detail of map, Carte de l’Isle d’Anjouan, Une des
Isles de Comore par le Cape Cornwal, from Abbé Prévost’s sixteen-volume
Histoire Générale des Voyages (1748) by Jacque-Nicolas Bellin. Courtesy the
author’s collection."


A 1752 version of the same map has the name spelled as "Merone":

Figure 7. 1752 version of Bellin map.


A map from 1745–47 of Anjouan also contains the names "Komoro" and "Meroni":

Figure 8. Carmack's caption: "Detail of map, Johanna, or Anjuan, One of the
Komoro Islands by Cap. Cornwall, from Green and Astley’s A New Collection of
Voyages and Travels (1745–47). Courtesy the Map Section at the National
Library of Australia, Canberra, Australia."


But are we really going to expect that Joseph Smith is going to look at one of these three maps of one island, two of which are in French (and by which reason there's little motivation for Joseph to seek these maps out), spin the tiny port town "Meroni" and "Comore" to become "Moroni" and "Cumorah", and stick them in the Book of Mormon? When there's relatively little mention of Joanna (and especially in transitory contexts) and no mention of Meroni in the Captain Kidd stories? Why doesn't Joseph Smith look at a globe or other global map? Why a map as specific as one of these?

This is the closest anyone has come to date in placing potential inspiration for both Moroni and Cumorah in the same source.

4. Could Joseph Smith have gotten the naems Moroni and Cumorah from local American whalers?

This is just an argument from silence

Figure 9. Imaginative
drawing of Captain William
Kidd burying treasure.

There is another speculation put forth by critics 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."[65] 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. 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."[65] 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. Critics have posited that there may be such a connection with Solomon Mack, Joseph's grandfather and "a retired sea captain...who plied the same New England waters once haunted by Kidd[.]"[58]:p. 185n53. See also pp. 50–51 therein. Evidence for this, however, is lacking. This "connection" is based on pure conjecture. Given that the stories regarding Kidd mention "Comaro" once and never mention "Moroni" nor "Meroni", how would Solomon Mack even learn the names (or close enough matches that could become the names) "Cumorah" and "Moroni"?

What makes the theory especially lacking in the author's view is that if we're looking for words that are spelled and pronounced roughly the same that Joseph Smith could have cribbed from, we can eventually find what we're looking for, and it would have no bearing on the Book of Mormon's authenticity. To demonstrate, consider an experiment done by David Snell, a Latter-day Saint and host of the Faith and Beliefs segment of the YouTube show Saints Unscripted. Snell made up several names that sounded like Book of Mormon names and picked a random state in the United States: Kentucky. Next, Snell searched for place names in Kentucky that sounded like his made-up Book of Mormon-sounding names. He found matches or near matches for three of his five made-up names. His experiment begins at 4:20 of the video below:

Load video
YouTube


Snell aptly demonstrates the fallacies that critics commit when making the Captain Kidd argument against the Book of Mormon.

5. What about "Cumorah" being spelled "Camorah" in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon?

The Original Manuscript and the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon Undermine this Claim

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. Both Palmer and Jeremy Runnells claim that "[p]rior to its French occupation in 1841, the islands were known by its Arabic name, 'Camora.'"[64] The name "Cumorah" figures 9 times in the Book of Mormon text, all within the book of Mormon.

The first thing to note is that the spelling of Grande Comore as "Camora" does not appear in any source that the author has been able to locate. Both Grant Palmer and Jeremy Runnells inaccurately identify an 1808 map of the Comoros as calling the group of islands "Camora." The following screenshot is from Runnells' CES Letter:

Figure 10. CES Letter (2017 edition), pg. 15. Jeremy Runnells' inaccurate claim(s)
that this 1808 map refers to all the Comoros Islands as "Camora."


One will see two things. First, Runnells wrongly claims that "Camora" on the map refers to all the Comoros Islands when it actually refers only to Grande Comore. As evidence, one can see that the islands of Mohilla and Johanna are also mentioned. Mayotta is not mentioned. Second, you'll see that the name here is "Comora" rather than "Camora" as Runnells wrongly claims. For example, compare the "o" in "Comora" on the map above with the "o" of "Mohilla" and the "a" of "Joanno" just below and to the right of Mohilla for evidence that the map indeed says "Comora." So, even with the uniform spelling of Cumorah as "Camorah" in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, there is little likelihood that Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery cribbed the name from maps of the Comoros.


Figure 11. 1830 Book of Mormon showing the spelling "Camorah"


But pursuing this further, Oliver Cowdery stated that "Camorah" was a spelling error in the July 1835 issue of the Latter Day Saint's Messenger and Advocate. Oliver Cowdery states:

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.[66] 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, an unknown scribe, and Hyrum Smith.[67] The unknown scribe is the one who 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.[68] 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.[69] 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.

There are "com" names in the Book of Mormon, such as:

  • COM
  • COMNOR
  • JACOM

We have plenty of evidence of the islands in general and/or Grande Comore in particular being referred to as Comora, Comoro, Comore, Comoros, etc. However, the textual evidence documented by Royal Skousen above suggests that the name was intentionally spelled Comorah (or something close to it) first and then changed later to Cumorah.

In each of the above scenarios and with each piece of supposed evidence used, the critics commit the fallacy of appeal to probability (discussed on the linked page) while trying to establish their arguments. Additionally, the probability has receded significantly that Joseph Smith cribbed these names when examining the evidence that the critics use to develop the likelihood.

6. Have faithful Latter-day Saint scholars found the Captain Kidd theory plausible?

No, there is no evidence that faithful Latter-day Saint scholars have found the Captain Kidd theory plausible

In his 2014 "debunking" of FAIR's response to the 2013 edition of the CES Letter, Jeremy T. Runnells claimed that "[f]or 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'."[70]

Runnells relied on a Wikipedia article that at one point stated the following to make his claim:

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) [NOTE from author of this FAIR article: this map is shown above. The Wikipedia editor also wrongly claims that it says "Camora"] 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."[71]

Notice the unusual language in the Wikipedia article, which suggests that Mormon authors accept the Captain Kidd theories. We go to the footnote for more information, which 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.[71]

The first thing we can rule out with all confidence is that Coon has connected the Captain Kidd stories to the Book of Mormon. He's still faithful, so he's not going to believe that Joseph plagiarized the stories to create the Book of Mormon. The next thing we need to learn is why some 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 is a hobbyist researcher of the Book of Mormon who believes that the Book of Mormon took place in the Heartland Geography (which encompasses primarily the Eastern to Mid United States). He was 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 or another area along the eastern seaboard of the United States. He used this as evidence of that assertion. He, like the other Heartland theorists mentioned in the Wikipedia quote, was trying to argue against Limited Geography Theories of Book of Mormon geography that place the Book of Mormon somewhere on the west side of the North American continent. Here's every source cited by Wikipedia that supposedly connects Coon to the Captain Kidd theory and what he actually said about the Comoros:

{

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives," Blog of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (April 21, 2014)
  2. ↑ Robert T. Hatt, “Faunal and archaeological researches in Yucatan caves.” Cranbrook Institute of Science 33 (1953), 1-42.
  3. ↑ 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.
  4. ↑ Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives," Blog of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (April 21, 2014)
  5. ↑ 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.
  6. ↑ E. Raymond Hall and Keith R. Kelson, The Mammals of North America,” (New York, Ronald Press, 1959).1
  7. ↑ Valerius Geist, “Mountain Sheep: A Study in Behavior and Evolution,” (Chicago and London: University of Chicago press, 1971), 41.
  8. ↑ Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, 1985), 296-97.
  9. ↑ Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives," Blog of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (April 21, 2014)
  10. ↑ A. Starker Leopold, “Wildlife of Mexico: The Game Birds and Mammals,” (Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1959), 493-500.
  11. ↑ S. T. Evans, “Ancient Mexico & Central America: Archaeology and Culture History,” (London, Thames & Hudson, Ltd., 2004).
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ Robert T. Hatt, Faunal and Archaeological Researches in Yucatan Caves (1953), 1-42.
  14. ↑ Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives," Blog of Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (April 21, 2014)
  15. ↑ Robert T. Hatt, “Faunal and archaeological researches in Yucatan caves.” Cranbrook Institute of Science 33 (1953),29.
  16. ↑ 1 Nephi 16:3–4.
  17. ↑ S. Kent Brown, "New Light: 'The Place That Was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/1 (1999). [66–67] link
  18. ↑ S. Kent Brown, "Nahom and the 'Eastward' Turn," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12:1 (2003)
  19. ↑ 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.
  20. ↑ 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).
  21. ↑ Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002), 120.
  22. ↑ 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)."
  23. ↑ S. Kent Brown, "Nahom and the 'Eastward' Turn," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12:1 (2003)
  24. ↑ MormonThink.com page "Book of Mormon Problems".
  25. ↑ 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.
  26. ↑ The claim still appears on Mormon Curtain as of 18 October 2014.
  27. ↑ Tom Clynes, "Laser Scans Reveal Maya "Megalopolis" Below Guatemalan Jungle," National Geographic News, 1 February 2018 (accessed 28 Feb 2023). Richard D. Hansen, et al., "LiDAR analyses in the contiguous Mirador-Calakmul Karst Basin, Guatemala: an introduction to new perspectives on regional early Maya socioeconomic and political organization," Ancient Mesoamerica FirstView, Cambridge University Press, 5 December 2022 (accessed 28 February 2023).
  28. ↑ John Clark, Wade Ardern, and Matthew Roper, “Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon,” FAIR Conference 2005.
  29. ↑ Matt Roper and Kirk Magleby, "Time Vindicates the Prophet," FairMormon Conference 2019
  30. ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5, no. 1 (1993): 36.
  31. ↑ 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, no.1 (1993): 169–170.
  32. ↑ [citation needed]
  33. ↑ 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).
  34. ↑ 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)
  35. ↑ 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).
  36. ↑ 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
  37. ↑ Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems," 164.
  38. ↑ William G. Dever, “archaeology and the Bible: Understanding Their Special Relationship,” Biblical archaeology Review (May/June 1990) 16:3.
  39. ↑ 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
  40. ↑ 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.
  41. ↑ 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).
  42. ↑ 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).
  43. ↑ Hamblin, "What Would be Proof...."
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 Mary Ann, "The Telephone Game: Evolving Misinformation Connecting Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd, and the Comoro Islands," Wheat and Tares, May 27, 2017, https://wheatandtares.org/2017/05/27/the-telephone-game-evolving-misinformation-about-joseph-smith-captain-kidd-and-the-comoro-islands/.
  45. ↑ "Pirate Round," Wikipedia, accessed January 25, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Round.
  46. ↑ Charles Johnson, A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates (London: C. Rivington, 1724), 2:70. 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). This second edition contains no mention of Kidd.
  47. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Debunking FairMormon, 2014"
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867).
  49. ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 16 argues that "Some apologists say that Tucker’s Mormonism: Its Origin, Rise, and Progress is “antiMormon” and thus anything in the book cannot be trusted. If this is true, why then did LDS scholar and Church History compiler B.H. Roberts quote Tucker for background information on Joseph Smith? Also, FairMormon has an article in which they quote Tucker’s book 4 times as support for Joseph, and they even refer to Tucker as an “eyewitness” to Joseph and his family. Is Tucker’s peripheral information only useful and accurate when it shows Joseph and the Church in a positive and favorable light?" It should be noted that the article Runnells links to is done by one author for one paper, and that the author only used Tucker to establish basic details about Joseph's life and not those that are contested, i.e. those for which critics and believers may be more biased about.
  50. ↑ Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History 9 (October 1916): 454; transcribed in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John Welch with Erick B. Carlson (Salt Lake City/Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2005), 129 (document 38). Briggs also related this story as an aside in “Interview with David Whitmer,” Saints’ Herald 31 (June 21, 1884): 396–397; quoted in Welch, “The Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens, 106 n.23..
  51. ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," The Saints' Herald 26, no. 19 (October 1879): 290.
  52. ↑ Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors for Many Generations (1853; repr. 1995), 84. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, "The Early Preparation of the Prophet Joseph Smith," Ensign 35, no. 12 (December 2005).
  53. ↑ "Money digging," Wayne Sentinel 2, no. 21 (February 1825).
  54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 54.2 54.3 54.4 54.5 Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996–2003).
  55. ↑ Another source also states that Joseph Smith Sr. looked for Captain Kidd's treasure. See Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:624–25.
  56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 Noel A. Carmack, "Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd Lore, and Treasure-Seeking in New York and New England during the Early Republic," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 46, no. 3 (Fall 2013): 78–153.
  57. ↑ 57.0 57.1 James Harrison Kennedy, Early Days of Mormonism: Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo (New York: Charles Scribener's Sons, 1888). As cited in Van Wagoner, Natural Born Seer, 185n53.
  58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 Richard S. Van Wagoner, Natural Born Seer: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1805–1830 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2016).
  59. ↑ Fred Buchanan, "Perilous Ponderings," Sunstone 13, no. 3 (June 1989): 7–9.
  60. ↑ 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): 17–42.
  61. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Debunking FairMormon", 2014.
  62. ↑ Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian," The FARMS Review 18, no. 1 (2006): 34–100; Larry E. Morris, "'I Should Have an Eye Single to the Glory of God': Joseph Smith's Account of the Angel and the Plates," The FARMS Review 17, no. 1 (2005): 11–81.
  63. ↑ Grant Palmer, "Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd, Cumorah, and Moroni," John Whitmer Historical Association vol. 34 no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2014): 50—57.
  64. ↑ 64.0 64.1 Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to my Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 15.
  65. ↑ 65.0 65.1 Martin and Harriet Ottenheimer, "COMORO ISLANDS" (website) off-site
  66. ↑ See here for the listings and the manuscript listed on the Joseph Smith Papers website for confirmation of this.
  67. ↑ Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part 1 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014), 21.
  68. ↑ 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.
  69. ↑ Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part 6 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2009), 3636–38.
  70. ↑ See Jeremy Runnells "Debunking FairMormon; July 2014 Revision"
  71. ↑ 71.0 71.1 "Cumorah - Alternative origin of the name," Wikipedia, accessed December 29, 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumorah#Alternative_origin_of_the_name.


"'Camora' and settlement 'Moroni' were common names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd"

Template:CESLetterItemShort


The Book of Mormon and Captain Kidd

Figure 1. Portrait of Captain
William Kidd.

Summary: Critics of the Book of Mormon claim that Joseph Smith could have acquired the names “Moroni” and “Cumorah” from either maps he could have had access to as a youth, stories that he may have read associated with Captain William Kidd, or local Palmyra whalers that told stories of their journeys to places where Captain Kidd is also known to have operated.

The argument typically starts with the Captain Kidd stories. Joseph is supposed to have known about stories regarding Captain Kidd and either directly cribbed the names "Moroni" and "Cumorah" (or names close to those two) from the stories or, inspired by Kidd’s and/or other pirates' exploits on the four islands of the Comoros Archipelago (which is almost sandwiched between Mozambique and Madagascar in the Mozambique Channel), gone to maps to learn more about the area and found names on those maps that he could use for the supposedly fictitious creation of the Book of Mormon. On the maps, he would have found that the capital city of one of the islands in the archipelago is Moroni. On one of the islands in the Comoros, Anjouan (also sometimes called "Joanna" historically), there is a port city named "Meroni" (sometimes spelled "Merone").

Alternatively, as mentioned, American whalers could have sailed in the Comoros and talked about their travels in settings where Joseph could have heard them.

To reiterate, there are two places that Joseph Smith could have gotten the name “Moroni” from and three places that he could have gotten “Cumorah” from, according to these critics.

For Moroni:

  1. The capital city of the island Grand Comore is literally Moroni.
  2. There is an island named Anjouan (also known as "Joanna" by some historically) in the Comoros, and one of the port cities of that island is called "Meroni" (sometimes spelled "Merone").

For Cumorah:

  1. The islands are named the "Comoros Islands"
  2. The largest island of the Comoros is called "Grand Comore."
  3. Before French occupation in 1841, critics claim that Grand Comore was often called "Camora."

For this last potential source ("Camora"), critics note that, in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Cumorah is always spelled "Camorah", suggesting that Joseph and/or Oliver merely added an h to the end of the name "Camora", placed it in the Book of Mormon, and then respelled it later on to perhaps cover their tracks more.

When weighing the probability that this theory is true, your mileage varies a little depending on what you assume regarding various questions, such as:

  1. Whether Joseph Smith had co-conspirators or not
  2. What you assume about how much Joseph Smith (and/or co.) knows about Captain Kidd
  3. What Joseph Smith (and/or co.) has read about him
  4. How much Joseph Smith (and/or co.) admires Captain Kidd and his (and/or their) corresponding desire to learn what he (and/or they) can about him
  5. How much Joseph Smith (and/or co.) admires other pirates and his (and/or their) corresponding desire to learn about them
  6. How much he (or they) has read about those pirates
  7. The proximity of maps and other sources containing resemblances of "Moroni" and "Cumorah" to Joseph (and/or co.)
  8. Joseph's (and/or co.'s) abilities to plausibly spin names in these sources to be Book of Mormon names and, finally
  9. The proximity and obviousness of sources like the 41 mentions of other islands in the Comoros in General History to Joseph (and/or co.) that may have motivated him (and/or them) to look at maps of the areas.

At nearly every step here, you're making dubious (and, in some of the cases of the critics above, false) claims/assumptions based on tenuous (and, in some of the instances of the critics above, entirely non-existent) strands of evidence.

As your evidence, you have the name "Comaro" once in General History; you have 41 mentions of other islands besides Comore in the Comoros in relation to different pirates, 12 of which are to Joanna; you have a handful of mostly late and mostly hostile (with the obvious exception of Orrin Porter Rockwell) statements that say that Joseph Smith sought for Captain Kidd's treasure and one contemporary newspaper account that says that citizens of Palmyra looked for that treasure; you have three late, hostile sources, one relying on the accuracy of the other, stating that Joseph Smith had a copy of an autobiography of or "novels" about Captain Kidd; you have five maps, all of which are detail maps of one island (out of two separate islands) in the Comoros, with names sometimes more similar and sometimes less similar to "Moroni" and "Cumorah", and two of which are in French; and you have some other potential sources documented by Carmack.

You're likely committing an appeal to probability fallacy and a texas sharpshooter fallacy to claim that the theory works and establish your case.

As far as the author's beliefs, the evidence really only carries you with certainty as far as Joseph Smith knowing about Captain Kidd and the treasure he buried in New York and looking for it. He also likely (but not certainly) read about Captain Kidd in some sources available to him. Past that, little can be certain. Little wonder Carmack says that whether Joseph Smith was aware of the Comoros before 1830 is difficult to determine conclusively. Any similarity, closer or further, between the Comoros Islands and the Book of Mormon is most likely coincidental and specious.

Both the main body of text and the footnotes of this article contain valuable information related to these arguments, and we encourage readers to review both.

Related article:A FairMormon Analysis of "From Captain Kidd's Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism" by Ronald V. Huggins, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36 no. 4 (2003), 22.

1. Who was Captain Kidd?

Some background on Captain Kidd will be helpful as we continue with this article. This history lesson comes primarily from "MaryAnn", a blogger at the blog Wheat and Tares,[1] with some modifications by the author of this article:

Captain Kidd was Scottish-born but lived in New York. He was a successful privateer who typically worked the West Indies. An upstanding British citizen, he got hired in 1696 to go after pirates in the East Indies (and French merchants, because England and France weren’t on good terms). He and his crew were to be paid from the spoil they got, with a portion going back to his sponsors. Hiring these privateers was a way for the British government to supplement its navy and look after its interests on the high seas, while maintaining plausible deniability if the privateers ever did anything wrong.

With a brand-spankin' new ship (called the Adventure Galley) and a bunch of experienced New York seamen, Kidd made his way to the East Indies. It took a year, but Kidd and his crew finally reached Madagascar, a known pirate haven, in January 1697. Unfortunately, he couldn’t find any pirates. Whoops. After a month, he headed over to Johanna, the most popular island in the Comoro archipelago. He spent March and April in the Comoros, bouncing back and forth between the islands of Johanna and Mohilla. On Mohilla, he lost fifty men to sickness. Luckily, he got more men on the island of Johanna and was finally able to borrow enough money to repair his debilitated ship. He left the Comoro Islands an honest man, a little financially desperate, but an honest man. It wasn’t until a few months later that things started to get a little fishy.

Kidd traveled about a thousand miles north to Bab-el-Mandeb at the mouth of the Red Sea and unsuccessfully attacked a fleet in August 1697. So he decided to try his luck on the Malabar Coast, along the Western coast of India, over 3,000 miles away from the Comoros Islands. His crew grew antsy, and they attempted mutiny when Kidd refused to attack a Dutch ship. The leader of the mutiny, William Moore, later died when Kidd threw a bucket at him (this death became important later). Ultimately, he only ever took two French ships while sailing down India’s western coast, but the second, the Quedagh Merchant, was laden with valuables. Unfortunately, England was on better terms with France, so the capture of the ships was viewed as scandalous (turns out the latter boat was captained by an Englishman – double whoops). Once word of these activities reached London in late 1698, William Kidd was declared a pirate, and orders were given to apprehend him.

Captain Kidd, unaware of his infamy, sailed the Quedagh Merchant to the Caribbean (after a brief, uncomfortable encounter with a real pirate at Madagascar). Upon his arrival in the West Indies, he used part of his treasure to purchase a new ship and left the Quedagh Merchant, now a liability, behind. Later, Kidd’s crew pillaged the ship and burned it. The remains of the Quedagh Merchant were rediscovered in 2007, just off the coast of Catalina Island.

Kidd sailed up to New York to appeal to higher-ups and hid a bunch of his treasure on Gardiners Island (fueling rumors that he or his associates were also burying treasure in other areas of the Northeastern United States). He never buried treasure in the Comoros. He was apprehended and taken to England. Found guilty of piracy and the murder of William Moore, Kidd was executed in 1701 with two associates, and his body was hanged for three years over the River Thames to discourage would-be pirates.

The following map is from Wikipedia and gives an overview of the locations and dates of arrival for Captain Kidd's journeys:

Figure 2. Map of Adventure Galley 's voyages from Wikipedia.

The Comoro Islands were indeed heavily utilized by pirates, but typically not for burying treasure. They were a part of the Pirate Round, a “sailing route followed by certain mainly English pirates, during the late 17th century and early 18th century. The course led from the western Atlantic, parallel to the Cape Route around the southern tip of Africa, stopping at Madagascar, then on to targets such as the coast of Yemen and India. The Pirate Round was briefly used again during the early 1720s. Pirates who followed the route are sometimes referred to as Roundsmen. The Pirate Round was largely co-extensive with the routes of the East India Company ships of Britain and other nations. The Pirate Round started from a variety of Atlantic ports, including Bermuda, Nassau, New York City, and A Coruña, depending on where the pirate crew initially assembled. The course then lay roughly south by southeast along the coast of Africa, frequently by way of the Madeira Islands. The pirates would then double the Cape of Good Hope, and sail through the Mozambique Channel to northern Madagascar. Pirates would frequently careen and refit their ships on Madagascar and take on fresh provisions before proceeding onward toward their targets further north. Particularly important pirate bases on Madagascar included the island of St. Mary's (often called by its French name, Île Sainte-Marie) and Ranter Bay (now called Antongil Bay), both on the northeastern side of the island."[2] The Comoros were sometimes used as a stopping point to prepare for the rest of the journey to India, Yemen, or other destinations.

2. Are there any places in stories about Captain Kidd that reference Grande Comore, Moroni, Meroni, or Merone?

Only one place in the Captain Kidd Stories that contains a reference to Grande Comore and no place that mentions Moroni nor Meroni/Merone

We'll start with stories about Captain Kidd, as contained in books, since critics typically cite those as the most likely source for Joseph's plagiarism.

References to Joseph Smith's interest 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."[5]: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 [Noted here is that the first “dime novel” did not appear until 1860. See Wikipedia article "Dime novel" off-site]. 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...[5]:17

It's important to note that Pomeroy Tucker did not connect the Captain Kidd stories to the Book of Mormon and attempt to argue that Joseph Smith plagiarized the former.

We would 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).[6] We'd also dispute his characterization of Joseph as an avid reader. Emma Smith, Joseph's wife, remembered that during the translation of the Book of Mormon, he didn't know that Jerusalem had walls around it.[7] She also said "Joseph Smith...could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon."[8] Lucy Smith, Joseph's mother, reminisced that Joseph was less inclined to the perusal of books and more to deep meditation.[9]

Main articles:Joseph and the family's early reputation
Contemporary witnesses regarded the Smiths as trustworthy and hard-working
Lazy Smiths?
Joseph's early work as a farmhand

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 Wayne Sentinel reported in 1825:

We are sorry to observe, even in this enlightened age, so prevalent a disposition to credit the accounts of the marvellous. Even the frightful stories of money being hid under the surface of the earth, and enchanted by the Devil or Robert Kidd [Captain Kidd], are received by many of our respectable fellow citizens as truths.[10]

Mostly hostile and, in most cases, clearly late sources reminisced that, in his early years, Joseph Smith "had spent his time for several years in telling fortunes and digging for hidden treasures, and especially for pots and iron chests of money, supposed to have been buried by Captain Kidd."[11]:3:154 Others insinuated that Joseph Smith "studied piracy while digging for the money [his] Father pretended old Bob Kidd <had> buried."[11]:1:597[12] Another stated that "[h]e had for a library a copy of the 'Arabian Nights,' stories of Captain Kidd, and a few novels."[11]:3:130 Another late, hostile source, "evidently relying on the published accounts of...Pomeroy Tucker",[11]:3:146 reported that Joseph had in his possession "'The Life of Stephen Burroughs,' the clerical scoundrel, and the autobiography of Capt. Kidd, the pirate" and that Kidd was Joseph's Smith's "hero."[11]:3:148 The "autobiography" in Joseph Smith's possession is not specified. Still, one author argued persuasively that the most likely source is Charles Johnson's General History of the Pyrates.[13]:pp. 109–110 One late, hostile source claims that Joseph Smith "saw Captain Kidd sailing on the Susquehanna River during a freshet, and that he buried two pots of gold and silver. He claimed he saw writing cut on the rocks in an unknown language telling where Kidd buried it, and he translated it through his peep-stone." That same source reports that Joseph "dug...for Kidd’s money, on the west bank of the Susquehanna, half a mile from the river, and three miles from his salt wells."[11]:4:182–84. James Harrison Kennedy, a non-Latter-day Saint and then-editor of the Magazine of Western History, wrote in an account of Church history published in 1888 that Joseph Smith Sr. was reportedly "at times" engaged in the hunt for Captain Kidd's treasure.[14]:p. 8 Kennedy also wrote that Joseph Smith had told him that the autobiography of Captain Kidd "made a deep impression upon him."[14]:p. 13 Kennedy cites no source for this statement, however. These sources may very well contain fabrications and exaggerations. They are certainly designed to convince others that Joseph Smith Sr. and Jr. Smith are/were mendacious swindlers as well as fanciful, superstitious lunatics.

"Orrin Porter Rockwell, Joseph's neighbor in Manchester, New York, told Elizabeth W. Kane in the early 1870s that '[n]ot only was there religious excitement, but the phantom treasure of Captain Kidd were sought for far and near, and even in places like Cumorah'."[15]:p. 185n53

See also: Joseph Smith/Money digging

Critics have more recently attempted to link the stories to Joseph, as Captain William Kidd is known to have visited the Comoros Islands during his life.

The first to propose the Comoros/Moroni/Captain Kidd connection seems to be Fred Buchanan, then an associate professor in the Department of Educational Studies at the University of Utah, in the June 1989 issue of Sunstone Magazine.[16] Buchanan spoke about a "rendezvous at Comoro and Moroni" that Kidd had. Yet Kidd never set foot on Comore nor Moroni.

Years later, in a 2003 article, critic Ronald V. Huggins asserted that Captain Kidd was "hanged for crimes allegedly committed in the vicinity of Moroni on Grand Comoro."[17] Except he wasn't. Similarly, critic Jeremy T. Runnells claimed that Kidd "was...arrested for capturing a treasure ship called the 'Quedagh Merchant' in the Indian Ocean near the Comoros islands."[18] Except he wasn't even close to the Comoros. Kidd was charged with crimes/declared a pirate only after he seized the ship Quedagh Merchant on January 30, 1698. Recall that the seizing of the ship occurred along the western coast of India—over 3,000 miles away from the Comoros! Kidd and his crew spotted the ship about 25 leagues from Kochi. Kidd was hanged in 1701 in London for stealing the Quedagh Merchant and for murdering his ship's gunner, William Moore, during a mutiny which occurred around the same time as the seizure of the Quedagh Merchant. None of these actions was related to the city of Moroni or the Comoros generally. The association of these events with "Moroni on Grand Comoro" is an unsupported assertion by Huggins, and these specific names have nothing to do with Kidd's execution. This seems to be a stretching attempt by Huggins to tie Kidd's execution with Joseph Smith and Mormonism more closely. Huggins' other abuses of historical sources and problematic conclusions have been thoroughly exposed by historians Mark Ashurst-McGee and Larry E. Morris.[19] We've reviewed some of Huggins' claims here on the FAIR wiki.

Eleven years after Huggins, ex-Mormon critic Grant H. Palmer asserted in a 2014 article 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."[20] Similarly, critic Jeremy T. Runnells in the 2017 edition of his CES Letter claims that "'Camora' [Grand Comore] and settlement 'Moroni' were 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."[21] But that's negligibly true. The primary inspiration for Captain Kidd stories and legends, Daniel Defoe's (aka Captain Charles Johnson) 1724 book A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates, mentions Grande Comore once and fails to mention "Moroni/Meroni/Maroni." Neither Grande Comore nor Meroni/Merone/Maroni are connected to Kidd. This is the case for both volumes of General History which can be read/checked online (Vol. 1

3. Are any maps or other sources containing the names Moroni, Meroni, Comoros, Camora, or Grande Comore known to have existed close to Joseph Smith?

Maps and other Sources that Contain the Names Moroni, Meroni, Comoros, Camora, or Grand Comore are not proximate to Joseph Smith

When popular maps and other contemporary sources related to Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon are examined, the possibility that Joseph saw Comoros and Moroni on these maps recedes, and the idea becomes less plausible.

One critic, Noel A. Carmack, took up an exhaustive searching of maps, gazetteers, and other sources proximate to Joseph Smith and observes "that [whether] Joseph Smith Jr. had pre-1830 knowledge of the East Indian Ocean pirate haunt ["pirate haunt" being a place pirates like to frequent habitually]—the Comoro Island group and its sultan town, Moroni—is difficult to conclusively determine." He further states that "[n]o extant pre-1830 chart or map shows Moroni as a place name on the larger island [of Grande Comore]."[13]:p. 130

Carmack does note that there is a 1778 map of Grande Comore (called "Comoro" in this map) with the town spelled as "Moroon" (hardly the kind of easy grab for Joseph Smith the critics want):

Figure 3. Carmack's caption reads: "Detail of inset map, 'Comoro the Highest Island', from A Chart of the Inner Passage between the Coast of Africa and the Isle of Madagascar, from Mr. D’Anville with Several Additions. In The Oriental
Pilot (1778) by R. Sayer and J. Bennett. Courtesy the Map Section at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, Australia."


There is also this detail map from 1774 with the names as "Comoro" and "Moroon":

Figure 4. Carmack's caption: "Detail of 'Plan of the w. side of Comoro or Anga-Zecha, showing 'AIngando,' (Itzanda), and 'Moroon' (Moroni), Alexander Sibbald, 1774, from Dalrymple's Charts (1807?). Courtesy the Map Section at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, Australia.


Are we really going to expect Joseph Smith to look at one of these two maps of one island, Comore, flip the name "Moroon" to become "Moroni", flip the name "Comoro" to "Cumorah", and stick it in the Book of Mormon? When there's one mention of Comore and no mention of Moroon in the source closest to him (General History)?

There is also this 1748 map done by French hydrographer Jacque-Nicolas Bellin of the island of Joanna with the names "Comore" and "Meroni" on it:

Figure 5. Carmack's caption: "Full map, Carte de l’Isle d’Anjouan, by
Jacque-Nicolas Bellin. Courtesy the author’s collection."


Figure 6. Carmack's caption: "Detail of map, Carte de l’Isle d’Anjouan, Une des
Isles de Comore par le Cape Cornwal, from Abbé Prévost’s sixteen-volume
Histoire Générale des Voyages (1748) by Jacque-Nicolas Bellin. Courtesy the
author’s collection."


A 1752 version of the same map has the name spelled as "Merone":

Figure 7. 1752 version of Bellin map.


A map from 1745–47 of Anjouan also contains the names "Komoro" and "Meroni":

Figure 8. Carmack's caption: "Detail of map, Johanna, or Anjuan, One of the
Komoro Islands by Cap. Cornwall, from Green and Astley’s A New Collection of
Voyages and Travels (1745–47). Courtesy the Map Section at the National
Library of Australia, Canberra, Australia."


But are we really going to expect that Joseph Smith is going to look at one of these three maps of one island, two of which are in French (and by which reason there's little motivation for Joseph to seek these maps out), spin the tiny port town "Meroni" and "Comore" to become "Moroni" and "Cumorah", and stick them in the Book of Mormon? When there's relatively little mention of Joanna (and especially in transitory contexts) and no mention of Meroni in the Captain Kidd stories? Why doesn't Joseph Smith look at a globe or other global map? Why a map as specific as one of these?

This is the closest anyone has come to date in placing potential inspiration for both Moroni and Cumorah in the same source.

4. Could Joseph Smith have gotten the naems Moroni and Cumorah from local American whalers?

This is just an argument from silence

Figure 9. Imaginative
drawing of Captain William
Kidd burying treasure.

There is another speculation put forth by critics 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."[22] 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. 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."[22] 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. Critics have posited that there may be such a connection with Solomon Mack, Joseph's grandfather and "a retired sea captain...who plied the same New England waters once haunted by Kidd[.]"[15]:p. 185n53. See also pp. 50–51 therein. Evidence for this, however, is lacking. This "connection" is based on pure conjecture. Given that the stories regarding Kidd mention "Comaro" once and never mention "Moroni" nor "Meroni", how would Solomon Mack even learn the names (or close enough matches that could become the names) "Cumorah" and "Moroni"?

What makes the theory especially lacking in the author's view is that if we're looking for words that are spelled and pronounced roughly the same that Joseph Smith could have cribbed from, we can eventually find what we're looking for, and it would have no bearing on the Book of Mormon's authenticity. To demonstrate, consider an experiment done by David Snell, a Latter-day Saint and host of the Faith and Beliefs segment of the YouTube show Saints Unscripted. Snell made up several names that sounded like Book of Mormon names and picked a random state in the United States: Kentucky. Next, Snell searched for place names in Kentucky that sounded like his made-up Book of Mormon-sounding names. He found matches or near matches for three of his five made-up names. His experiment begins at 4:20 of the video below:

Load video
YouTube


Snell aptly demonstrates the fallacies that critics commit when making the Captain Kidd argument against the Book of Mormon.

5. What about "Cumorah" being spelled "Camorah" in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon?

The Original Manuscript and the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon Undermine this Claim

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. Both Palmer and Jeremy Runnells claim that "[p]rior to its French occupation in 1841, the islands were known by its Arabic name, 'Camora.'"[21] The name "Cumorah" figures 9 times in the Book of Mormon text, all within the book of Mormon.

The first thing to note is that the spelling of Grande Comore as "Camora" does not appear in any source that the author has been able to locate. Both Grant Palmer and Jeremy Runnells inaccurately identify an 1808 map of the Comoros as calling the group of islands "Camora." The following screenshot is from Runnells' CES Letter:

Figure 10. CES Letter (2017 edition), pg. 15. Jeremy Runnells' inaccurate claim(s)
that this 1808 map refers to all the Comoros Islands as "Camora."


One will see two things. First, Runnells wrongly claims that "Camora" on the map refers to all the Comoros Islands when it actually refers only to Grande Comore. As evidence, one can see that the islands of Mohilla and Johanna are also mentioned. Mayotta is not mentioned. Second, you'll see that the name here is "Comora" rather than "Camora" as Runnells wrongly claims. For example, compare the "o" in "Comora" on the map above with the "o" of "Mohilla" and the "a" of "Joanno" just below and to the right of Mohilla for evidence that the map indeed says "Comora." So, even with the uniform spelling of Cumorah as "Camorah" in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, there is little likelihood that Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery cribbed the name from maps of the Comoros.


Figure 11. 1830 Book of Mormon showing the spelling "Camorah"


But pursuing this further, Oliver Cowdery stated that "Camorah" was a spelling error in the July 1835 issue of the Latter Day Saint's Messenger and Advocate. Oliver Cowdery states:

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.[23] 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, an unknown scribe, and Hyrum Smith.[24] The unknown scribe is the one who 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.[25] 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.[26] 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.

There are "com" names in the Book of Mormon, such as:

  • COM
  • COMNOR
  • JACOM

We have plenty of evidence of the islands in general and/or Grande Comore in particular being referred to as Comora, Comoro, Comore, Comoros, etc. However, the textual evidence documented by Royal Skousen above suggests that the name was intentionally spelled Comorah (or something close to it) first and then changed later to Cumorah.

In each of the above scenarios and with each piece of supposed evidence used, the critics commit the fallacy of appeal to probability (discussed on the linked page) while trying to establish their arguments. Additionally, the probability has receded significantly that Joseph Smith cribbed these names when examining the evidence that the critics use to develop the likelihood.

6. Have faithful Latter-day Saint scholars found the Captain Kidd theory plausible?

No, there is no evidence that faithful Latter-day Saint scholars have found the Captain Kidd theory plausible

In his 2014 "debunking" of FAIR's response to the 2013 edition of the CES Letter, Jeremy T. Runnells claimed that "[f]or 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'."[27]

Runnells relied on a Wikipedia article that at one point stated the following to make his claim:

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) [NOTE from author of this FAIR article: this map is shown above. The Wikipedia editor also wrongly claims that it says "Camora"] 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."[28]

Notice the unusual language in the Wikipedia article, which suggests that Mormon authors accept the Captain Kidd theories. We go to the footnote for more information, which 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.[28]

The first thing we can rule out with all confidence is that Coon has connected the Captain Kidd stories to the Book of Mormon. He's still faithful, so he's not going to believe that Joseph plagiarized the stories to create the Book of Mormon. The next thing we need to learn is why some 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 is a hobbyist researcher of the Book of Mormon who believes that the Book of Mormon took place in the Heartland Geography (which encompasses primarily the Eastern to Mid United States). He was 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 or another area along the eastern seaboard of the United States. He used this as evidence of that assertion. He, like the other Heartland theorists mentioned in the Wikipedia quote, was trying to argue against Limited Geography Theories of Book of Mormon geography that place the Book of Mormon somewhere on the west side of the North American continent. Here's every source cited by Wikipedia that supposedly connects Coon to the Captain Kidd theory and what he actually said about the Comoros:

{

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Mary Ann, "The Telephone Game: Evolving Misinformation Connecting Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd, and the Comoro Islands," Wheat and Tares, May 27, 2017, https://wheatandtares.org/2017/05/27/the-telephone-game-evolving-misinformation-about-joseph-smith-captain-kidd-and-the-comoro-islands/.
  2. ↑ "Pirate Round," Wikipedia, accessed January 25, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Round.
  3. ↑ Charles Johnson, A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates (London: C. Rivington, 1724), 2:70. 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). This second edition contains no mention of Kidd.
  4. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Debunking FairMormon, 2014"
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867).
  6. ↑ Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 16 argues that "Some apologists say that Tucker’s Mormonism: Its Origin, Rise, and Progress is “antiMormon” and thus anything in the book cannot be trusted. If this is true, why then did LDS scholar and Church History compiler B.H. Roberts quote Tucker for background information on Joseph Smith? Also, FairMormon has an article in which they quote Tucker’s book 4 times as support for Joseph, and they even refer to Tucker as an “eyewitness” to Joseph and his family. Is Tucker’s peripheral information only useful and accurate when it shows Joseph and the Church in a positive and favorable light?" It should be noted that the article Runnells links to is done by one author for one paper, and that the author only used Tucker to establish basic details about Joseph's life and not those that are contested, i.e. those for which critics and believers may be more biased about.
  7. ↑ Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History 9 (October 1916): 454; transcribed in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John Welch with Erick B. Carlson (Salt Lake City/Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2005), 129 (document 38). Briggs also related this story as an aside in “Interview with David Whitmer,” Saints’ Herald 31 (June 21, 1884): 396–397; quoted in Welch, “The Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens, 106 n.23..
  8. ↑ Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," The Saints' Herald 26, no. 19 (October 1879): 290.
  9. ↑ Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors for Many Generations (1853; repr. 1995), 84. Cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, "The Early Preparation of the Prophet Joseph Smith," Ensign 35, no. 12 (December 2005).
  10. ↑ "Money digging," Wayne Sentinel 2, no. 21 (February 1825).
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996–2003).
  12. ↑ Another source also states that Joseph Smith Sr. looked for Captain Kidd's treasure. See Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:624–25.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Noel A. Carmack, "Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd Lore, and Treasure-Seeking in New York and New England during the Early Republic," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 46, no. 3 (Fall 2013): 78–153.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 James Harrison Kennedy, Early Days of Mormonism: Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo (New York: Charles Scribener's Sons, 1888). As cited in Van Wagoner, Natural Born Seer, 185n53.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Richard S. Van Wagoner, Natural Born Seer: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1805–1830 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2016).
  16. ↑ Fred Buchanan, "Perilous Ponderings," Sunstone 13, no. 3 (June 1989): 7–9.
  17. ↑ 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): 17–42.
  18. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Debunking FairMormon", 2014.
  19. ↑ Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian," The FARMS Review 18, no. 1 (2006): 34–100; Larry E. Morris, "'I Should Have an Eye Single to the Glory of God': Joseph Smith's Account of the Angel and the Plates," The FARMS Review 17, no. 1 (2005): 11–81.
  20. ↑ Grant Palmer, "Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd, Cumorah, and Moroni," John Whitmer Historical Association vol. 34 no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2014): 50—57.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to my Mormon Doubts (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 15.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Martin and Harriet Ottenheimer, "COMORO ISLANDS" (website) off-site
  23. ↑ See here for the listings and the manuscript listed on the Joseph Smith Papers website for confirmation of this.
  24. ↑ Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part 1 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014), 21.
  25. ↑ 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.
  26. ↑ Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part 6 (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2009), 3636–38.
  27. ↑ See Jeremy Runnells "Debunking FairMormon; July 2014 Revision"
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 "Cumorah - Alternative origin of the name," Wikipedia, accessed December 29, 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumorah#Alternative_origin_of_the_name.


"'View of the Hebrews' compared to the Book of Mormon"

Template:CESLetterItemShort

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon


"The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead"

Template:CESLetterItemShort

"God" changed to "Son of God" in the Book of Mormon


Jump to Subtopic:


Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top


Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Detailed_response_to_CES_Letter%2C_Book_of_Mormon&oldid=126062"