What if we could put the CES Letter to good use? Let’s face it–whether you love it or hate it, the CES Letter (and its derivatives) will never completely go away. For those in the dark, the “letter” was a 2013 book-length bullet list of common intellectual arguments questioning religious and historical claims of Mormonism (and the LDS church in particular). The latest incarnation is called CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts instead of Letter to a CES Director: How I Lost My Testimony, but the points essentially remain the same. What if we could use the CES Letter as a springboard to actually learn something? To acquire tools for more informed discussion on difficult topics? After all, there’s always new research on Mormonism emerging from both amateurs and academic scholars.
FairMormon suggests the CES Letter is not wholly erroneous, though that organization strongly objects to what it sees as additional spin, mistakes, and falsehoods. LDS scholar Patrick Mason views the CES Letter as successful in critiquing a certain kind of Mormonism, but he counters, “…I don’t think the Mormonism [the CES Letter] is responding to is actually the real, only, or inevitable Mormonism. Certainly, that was some people’s Mormonism, but it’s not my Mormonism, and I don’t think it’s the Mormonism that is going to endure in future decades and centuries.”
I strongly believe good information needs to be more easily accessible for those who want to better understand common complaints against the church. Admittedly, there’s already a lot of responses and rebuttals to the CES Letter (it’s been out for over 4 years, after all). The best single-post response I’ve seen is from fellow W&T blogger churchistrue at his personal blog. The FairMormon website is the best at addressing each concern individually.
Even with all that, I still haven’t quite seen what I’d want if encountering these topics for the first time. I wouldn’t just want one opinion; I’d want to look at issues from multiple angles (if possible). More importantly, I’d want to know options of where I could go to dig deeper. So I’ve decided to start a new series following the structure of CES Letter 2.0, methodically covering the criticisms and providing broader context. The number of concerns covered per post will depend on length (today it’s only three-ish). Since the posts obviously reflect personal bias, I’m hoping commenters will chip in with additional resources and viewpoints they’ve found helpful.
The target audience is members of the church, though I hope others can benefit as well. Since Mormons have a culture of suspicion when it comes to online sources (yay for you getting this far!), I’ve made a point to highlight resources on the church’s suggested list for seminary instructors released last summer. That list differentiates between official websites (content endorsed by the church), third-party websites affiliated with the church, and third-party websites unaffiliated with the church. Below, I mark official websites on that list in green (LDS Scriptures, Gospel Topics, Joseph Smith Papers, etc.), third-party affiliated websites on that list in blue (Maxwell Institute, BYU Studies, Religious Studies Center, etc.), and third-party unaffiliated websites on that list in red (FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, Interpreter, etc.). I’ll also link to other websites, some sympathetic to the church, some critical, and some straight-up antagonistic. I like seeing the different points of view, but skittish members who want to stick to highlighted resources from the church’s list should still be able to get a sense of the complexity of the issues.
The CES Letter attempts to make arguments based on reason, and I’ll attempt to do the same. Apologetics is the fancy word for defending religious claims using intellectual arguments, and many of the resources on the church’s list, and in my posts, are considered apologetic in nature. Note: some people feel intellectual arguments shouldn’t be applied to religious truth claims, either for or against (hence the common advice to deal with criticisms by increasing faith with scripture study and prayer). It’s a valid position, but it may not work for everyone.
CES Letter: Book of Mormon
The CES Letter introduces the Book of Mormon section with two quotes, one by President Ezra Taft Benson and another by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland. These quotes establish the premise that the church’s religious truth claims hinge on the Book of Mormon. Thus, each of the eleven concerns use different methods to call the validity of the Book of Mormon, however you want to define that, into question. (Due to the length of the CES Letter’s Book of Mormon section, this commentary will be split among multiple posts.)
King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon
1. What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?…
2. When 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… What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon?…
The first two points cover the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the King James Version of the Bible. The CES Letter, surprisingly, only mentions minor concerns of translation errors and italics. At the Religious Studies Center, Daniel Belnap gives a basic overview of the problematic similarities between the two texts, from simple phrases (footnote 9 quotes Philip Barlow, “More than fifty thousand phrases of three or more words, excluding definite and indefinite articles, are common to the Bible and the Book of Mormon”) to long passages nearly verbatim. The simple answer is Joseph consulted a local bible, but the few witness statements we have of the translation process tend to agree no outside material was used. If the witness statements are to be trusted, those who believe Joseph truly translated the Book of Mormon from ancient text via the seer stone are left scratching their heads. This article highlights two options: Joseph Smith created his own wording from concepts given to him (loose translation), or Joseph was a conduit receiving every word with exactness (tight translation). Evidence exists for either theory. Regardless, it doesn’t exactly clear up why KJV language was used. (Note: for those who believe Joseph Smith authored the book himself, they also get to explain how Joseph recited long biblical passages while staring into a dark hat.) For more on the mechanics of the Book of Mormon’s translation, see the Gospel Topics essay.
But this is only part of the problem. The CES Letter doesn’t mention the larger issue of anachronistic content (inconsistent with the time period). The most famous is the book of Isaiah, though issues possibly exist with other biblical books (especially the New Testament). Let’s look at Isaiah as an example. Nephi had access to many books similar to our Old Testament on the brass plates up to the time he left Jerusalem around 600 B.C. So it makes sense he had the writings of Isaiah, a prophet who lived a century earlier. The problem is the current scholarly consensus says a good portion of our book of Isaiah was not written by the biblical prophet but, instead, by people involved with the Babylonian exile after Nephi left Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon quotes some of those chapters of Isaiah attributed to these later authors, so how could Nephi have access to them? The timing doesn’t make sense with current scholarship, thus anachronistic.
Through much of the 20th century, LDS scholars didn’t have any problem suggesting Joseph Smith used a KJV Bible to assist with translation. From Volume 3 of a FARMS Book of Mormon critical text project (available at the Maxwell Institute website), editor Robert F. Smith wrote in 1987,
In the course of this basic research project, we have made a number of text critical discoveries–several of which buttress what Roberts, Sperry, Vest, and Larson (and others) have noted about the strong likelihood that Joseph Smith (and Oliver Cowdery together?) utilized a King James Bible for comparison when translating clearly parallel sections of text.6 From our notes in III Nephi, for example, we can select words which are located in the midst of parallels to Matthew 5 & 6, Isaiah 52 & 54, Micah 5, and Malachi 3, which read in accordance with the 1828 H. & E. Phinney edition of the King James Bible and against both the 1611 and current KJV. This not only demonstrates Joseph’s strong bond with the KJV, but even tells us which possible edition, or editorial family, he (or Oliver) had in front of him on those rare occasions when it became useful or efficient. (p. iv)
Shortly thereafter, BYU English and Linguistics professor Royal Skousen‘s work analyzing the text of the Book of Mormon seems to have pushed apologists (those defending the church) to more firmly reject the idea of Joseph consulting a KJV Bible. This can be seen in some 1990s interplay between strong church critics and LDS apologists. The 1993 book New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, edited by Brent Metcalfe and published by Signature Books, had two essays arguing for Joseph Smith’s authorship by highlighting biblical Book of Mormon problems, “The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi” by Stan Larson (quoted at the CES Letter website) and “‘In Plain Terms That We May Understand’: Joseph Smith’s Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12-13” by David P. Wright. In a 1994 edition of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon (available at the Maxwell Institute website), several articles were published in response to those essays. Davis Bitton responded to Larson’s article, suggesting that perhaps Joseph picked up biblical phrases while skimming the Bible previously, or maybe he had a phenomenal memory and used those words when convenient (same reasoning others used with consulting a Bible, but without the Bible), or maybe God gave Joseph the words directly. John Tvetdness argued against Wright’s article, positing that Alma and Hebrews were both drawing from older material available to Alma on the brass plates. John Gee rebutted both Larson and Wright by contending, “The eyewitnesses to the translation process deny that a Bible was used, and there is circumstantial evidence that Joseph may not have owned a Bible at that time.” Royal Skousen also responded with witness statements, and he shared research supporting the translation as a stream of dictation. John Welch responded to Wright by arguing that Genesis is a better source text for Alma 13 rather than Hebrews, so it’s not anachronistic. Five LDS responses to KJV plagiarism accusations; none suggesting the possibility that Joseph Smith consulted a physical KJV Bible in translation.
Current theories for believers about how KJV language entered the Book of Mormon run the gamut. With the traditional loose translation position, all content on the plates is from ancient Nephite records, but the KJV wording can be attributed to conscious or subconscious decisions by Joseph Smith to use more familiar framing. The older tight translation position is every word was given directly to Joseph by God, and God delivered it in the KJV language best understood by Joseph and his contemporaries. A newer hybrid of these theories is gaining ground with an angelic translator in the wings (like Nephi or Moroni). This absolves Joseph of any responsibility, as he was just a conduit for someone else’s wording, and puts the imperfect composition on another individual struggling to make an ancient text understandable to an early 19th-century American audience. (At the Maxwell Institute, Roger Terry summarizes these various positions in his review of Brant Gardner’s The Gift and Power: Translating the Book
of Mormon.) Edited to add: This shift towards arguing for a separate translator is, again, influenced by Royal Skousen’s work on the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project. Skousen has a controversial theory that meanings of many English words used in the Book of Mormon are particular to the 1500s and 1600s, including words that do not appear in the KJV Bible. For more on this angle, see Skousen’s 2005 FARMS Insights article (at a BYU Studies website) and his 2013 article at the Interpreter.
For those who believe the Book of Mormon contains significant modern content, or is wholly modern, the KJV language relates more to Joseph Smith’s milieu, either as the cultural expectation for religious language or a riff off a literary pseudo-biblical tradition (more on that in a later post). An example of the idea that the Book of Mormon is both parts ancient text and 19th-century creation is Blake Ostler’s “expansion” theory, basically an extremely loose translation. As Ostler explained, the Book of Mormon contains Joseph’s “unrestricted and authoritative commentary, interpretation, explanation, and clarifications based on insights from the ancient Book of Mormon text and the King James Bible (KJV).” Some people who see the Book of Mormon as a completely modern creation still maintain it contains important religious truth. Grant Hardy explained the intricacies of this “inspired fiction” idea in a Q&A at the end of an address at a FairMormon conference (Cody Hatch offered his viewpoint here at W&T, and at churchistrue’s personal blog, multiple options are discussed for people who see modern content in the Book of Mormon). But Mormons and non-Mormons alike often struggle with the idea of the Book of Mormon having any religious merit without being based on an ancient historical record (see, for example, Stephen Smoot’s article at the Interpreter, or Andrew’s general post on historicity and testimony here at W&T).
For a short, but thorough, overview of the problems in the relationship between the KJV Bible and Book of Mormon, I recommend Grant Hardy’s book, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (p. 66-70, DON’T skip the endnotes on p. 289-292). For more in-depth, academic insights into the relationship between the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon, I highly recommend Colby Townsend’s 2016 senior thesis available at Book of Mormon Central. It contains an historical overview of how scholars have dealt with that intertextual relationship, highlighting major players (both LDS and non-LDS). Townsend makes a plea to the LDS academic community in his conclusion,
I hope that future academic research on the topic of the Bible in the [Book of Mormon] can escape the failings of the past several decades when this kind of study was beholden to a false dichotomy where if one claimed influence from the KJV or the [New Testament] then one was simply labeled a critic or anti-Mormon, or if another discounted one’s arguments they were simply an apologist. Understanding the development of the [Book of Mormon] and ideas and traditions behind it is much more important than personality conflicts or debates that revolve around one’s devotional life.
For more information on Isaiah authorship, there are two good articles from more traditional viewpoints. The first is John Welch’s “Authorship in the Book of Isaiah in Light of the Book of Mormon” in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (available as a PDF at the Maxwell Institute website). The second is Kent P. Jackson’s “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon” essay in the 2016 Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book joint publication, A Reason for Faith: Navigating Church Doctrine & History (Jackson also briefly covers the general KJV language issue). A more nuanced Isaiah view, yet still related to the traditional apologetic position, is Daniel T. Ellsworth’s 2017 “Their Imperfect Best: Isaianic Authorship from an LDS Perspective” at the Interpreter. LDS scholar David Bokovy is less traditional, arguing for more firm acceptance of the scholarly consensus in his two-part response to Kent P. Jackson’s Reason for Faith essay (part 1, part 2).
2b. “The above example, 2 Nephi 19:1,… quotes nearly verbatim from the 1611 AD translation of Isaiah 9:1 KJV… Additionally, the Book of Mormon describes the sea as the Red Sea.”
This is different from the KJV italics issue, so it merits its own discussion. The original KJV version of Isaiah 9:1 has “by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.” The Book of Mormon version reads “by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.” So what’s the problem? Most biblical readers don’t think Isaiah was referring to the Red Sea. Here’s the full Book of Mormon verses (2 Nephi 19:1-2):
1 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.
2 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.
Notice how they talk about the tribal lands of Zebulun and Naphtali? Now check out the tribal land designations in this Bible map from the LDS Scriptures. See how the lands of Zebulun and Naphtali are just west of the Sea of Galilee (a.k.a. Sea of Chinnareth)? That’s why Matthew 4:12-16 argues that Christ fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy when “he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim.” Capernaum is on the Sea of Galilee.
In a 1981 FARMS Preliminary Report, “The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon,” (available at the Maxwell Institute website), John Tvedtness didn’t mince words.
However, [the 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 [Book of Mormon] text. (p. 45)
Tvedtness blames the scribe, Oliver Cowdery (and now we’re back into loose translation versus tight translation debates…). But others argue it might not have been a mistake. Many people think “the way of the sea” refers to an actual road. Some LDS scholars have posited that Isaiah’s “way of the sea” refers to the King’s Highway, a heavily used ancient route running from Damascus down along the countries east of Israel: Ammon, Moab, and Edom. (See p. 154 of Paul Nolan Hyde’s commentary at the BYU Studies website, and Jeff Lindsay’s FAQ.) I suspect LDS peeps like this option because it can be argued as “beyond Jordan” and connects with a Red Sea port on it’s way to Egypt.
Most scholars tend to argue roads that, you know, actually went through Israel. One option is the Great Trunk Road, which runs from Damascus to Egypt, also known as Via Maris, Latin for “way of the sea.” Unfortunately, that name was given much later (likely inspired by Isaiah 9:1), but it still passes through several cities around the Sea of Galilee in Naphtali, including Capernaum, and down through Zebulun. Anciently called the “Way of the Philistines,” it was the major arterial road running through Philistine lands along the Mediterranean Sea on its way to Egypt.
.A non-LDS scholar, Anson Rainey, has suggested Isaiah’s “way of the sea” refers to a road from Damascus to the Mediterranean port city of Tyre. This ran along the northern border Israel (which was the northern border of Naphtali). In this argument, Isaiah is referring to the Assyrian conquest, specifically areas “lost to Tiglath Pileser III in that first Assyrian campaign: the Upper Galilee (‘the way of the sea’ and the rest of Naphtali), Gilead (‘on the other side of Jordan’) and the lower Galilee (‘Galilee of the Gentiles,’ including Zebulon).” Note: “Galilee of the Gentiles” and “Galilee of the nations” referred to the ethnic diversity of that region. Many tie it specifically to the Assyrian policies of forced importations. (See Andrew Skinner’s BYU Studies article.)
Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and the Book of Mormon
3. The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. These Book of Mormon verses should match the inspired JST version…
Newer research coming out of BYU is shedding more light on this, but first let’s back up. When I was growing up, I developed an impression, similar to the author of the CES Letter, that the Joseph Smith Translation was all about Joseph restoring the original text of the Bible. Although not explicit, it’s definitely suggested by verses in the Book of Mormon and the Bible Dictionary entry in the LDS Scriptures, “The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible.” For those of us who viewed the Book of Mormon biblical passages as coming from the brass plates which theoretically still contained the “plain and precious” stuff, it made sense that Book of Mormon passages should match Joseph’s later biblical “restorations.” But LDS scholars figured out long ago there was more to the JST than restoration of ancient text. One of the foremost scholars on the JST, Robert J. Matthews, suggested Joseph’s changes to the Bible fell into at least four categories (as quoted at FairMormon):
1. Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible.
2. Portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection
3. Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by “Likening” the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance. (See 1 Nephi 19:23-24; 2 Nephi 11:8).
4. Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate.
What many of us grew up thinking about the JST only applies to that first category.
A few months ago, in a LDS Perspectives podcast, BYU professor Thomas Wayment suggested we may want to adjust our thinking on the JST even further: “It probably doesn’t restore the original text, but it does restore meaning to that text.” Wayment’s viewpoint is the vast majority of the JST was about clarifying the Bible, making it “easier to read.” Not that there weren’t some “revelatory” chunks, especially in Genesis, but they were additions, not restorations, to original content.
So here’s the kicker; this idea isn’t new, even though it can feel pretty revolutionary. In 1987, Kevin Barney shared research exploring the JST as restoration of ancient scripture in his Dialogue article, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible.” His conclusion?
[I]t is unlikely (with very few exceptions) that the JST represents a literal restoration of material that stood in the original manuscripts of the Bible.
Last March, in the article “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” at BYU‘s Journal of Undergraduate Research, Haley Wilson and Professor Wayment further explain that, through much of his translation project, Joseph appeared to rely on a popular 1831 biblical commentary for “grammatical, historical and linguistic aide.” No association was found between that commentary and the much longer, “revelatory” passages Joseph added to the Bible (like those canonized in our Pearl of Great Price), but it still calls into question how we look at the JST overall:
With some of the changes that Smith introduced into the text of the Bible resulting from academic sources, albeit modified and altered, the question arises as to whether the changes that arose via Clarke would have the same claim to canonicity that the longer revelatory insertions might have.
So if the Joseph Smith Translation wasn’t really about restoring ancient biblical text, then that particular concern in the CES Letter is moot. But we still have a bigger problem of adjusting our expectations of the Joseph Smith Translation. (It’ll probably be awhile before we fully shake that whole “restoring ancient biblical text” perspective.) For more information on the JST, check out this detailed 2005 book review by Royal Skousen at the Maxwell Institute website. Edited to add: Yesterday, Kevin Barney posted valuable information about the Joseph Smith Translation at By Common Consent, intended to help Gospel Doctrine teachers for the upcoming year: “Toward a Paradigm of JST Revisions.”
Well, that’s it for today. Next time we’ll cover DNA, anachronisms, and archaeology. (For a sneak peak, check out my Book of Mormon archaeology post from last April.)
Commenters, what other sources can you suggest to better understand the relationship of the Book of Mormon with the KJV Bible and/or Joseph Smith Translation?
Wheat & Tares 
Fabulous post. Very ambitious project taking on the CES Letter this way, providing various perspectives. I love it. I’ve tried to do the same thing on different topics but never this thorough. I think you’ve covered the variety of sources that I would also recommend in order to come to a greater understanding of how the Book of Mormon came together. If you put in the time to study that material, you may not come away with a testimony of BOM historicity, but you will surely come away with a greater appreciation of the complexity and, for many people, the spiritual value, of that book.
You’ve done very good job giving overview of why the KJV-BOM relationship is more complex than first glance and good links to explore more. Here’s one more. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/king-james-bible-language-in-the-book-of-mormon/ I did computer text study and played with the data from a few angles and came away both impressed and perplexed at how the KJV impacts the BOM. PS shame on Welch and the others for perpetuating this idea that Joseph couldn’t have used a KJV Bible in the translation process. This is the mindset that simplistic CES Letter arguments kill, and then truth-seekers think they are forced into two choices, either there’s no KJV influence or OK I’m outta here. Speaking of Alma and Hebrews, I wonder if Welch thinks there is something better in Genesis for Alma 7:11-13 than Hebrews 2:17-18.
Well done! I look forward to more installments.
Churchistrue, thanks for the link. I can’t speak for Welch, but I can find that Wayment has made an argument for Alma 7:11 as a quotation of Isaiah 53:4. I’d have to look deeper to see if Welch has written on this. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1399&index=10
Thanks, great resources! Are you going to address the perplexing issue of early modern English (pre-KJV) used in the B of M?
Acw, good catch! Roger Terry mentions it in his book review, but I should’ve brought it up specifically. It’s one of the reasons people are moving towards someone else as translator and Joseph as conduit. I’ll try to update that with a good link here in the next little bit.
Mary Ann is taking on a tough self- assigned effort to support Mormonism. Her skills appear to be up to the task. I wish her well. I also wish those well who depend on this approach to maintain a level of testimony. I will enjoy studying the results. I’ve followed the CES letter from its start to the latest update.
As important as it is to defend the legacy of Joseph Smith by the intellectual effort Mary Ann is taking on, it is imperative that each church member do all they can to acquire a God given testimony. For some, this kind of testimony comes relatively easy, for others it is anything but easy. I can only express my experience with the hope of adding to the faith and testimony of others.
A God given testimony comes in a variety of ways. The scripture provide detailed accounts. Heavenly Father, for reasons unknown, gave me a testimony that approaches those recorded in scripture. I can testify of experiences where the veil has been parted. On other occasions ministering angels have answered my prayers verbally. Because of these and many other kinds of manifestations of the Spirit, the CES letter and associated faith destroying attacks on Mormonism haven’t impacted my faith.
Experience has taught me, that the minute I share this kind of testimony some people get agitated, while others faith will be strengthened. I believe Heavenly Father gave me (as well as others) this level of faith and testimony as a gift to not only sustain me through mortality but to help others in their journey. The history of Mormonism is replete with manifestations of the Spirit given to church members to stand as a witness to the truthfulness of the of the claims of Mormonism. I’ve received many letters and other communications saying that when I’ve shared my testimony, as I have here, some have felt the Holy Ghost confirm the truthfulness of what I’ve related. I hope that will be the case today. Of course, their are those who feel just the opposite.
Churchistrue, I forgot to mention that in the new book “A Reason for Faith,” Jackson does leave open a door by saying “we can’t rule out the possibility” that Joseph used a KJV bible during the translation process. It lessens that ultimatum feeling a bit, especially when it’s in a book that may reach a lot of members (being sold at Deseret Book).
You’ve introduced perspectives like Grant Hardy and Blake Ostler. I’m not sure whether those two specifically allow for the possibility of Joseph consulting a KJV Bible but both believe in the possibility of a modern expansion. I think in Hardy’s case he has mentioned he finds the Skousen-Carmack’s theory compelling (exasperating to me) that Joseph saw in the hat and was tightly dictating a previously loosely-translated manuscript. Anyway, for me if you allow for modern expansion at all, the idea that he was using a Bible, isn’t that much of a stretch. I think the bigger deal, especially for the more traditional Apologists, is the translation method accounts, ie dictating to Oliver and done in such a short time. And then that leads to accusations of fraud if you think of him poring over a KJV Bible. I think it’s all more complicated than that, but I also am fine with acknowledging some level of pious fraud.
You don’t have to answer this Mary Ann but I respect you a lot and am just wondering how you believe personally? Loose translation vs tight translation ? Historical vs inspired fiction? I would guess that it has changed over time and will continue to change but where are you right now?
Furthermore, I know that if I were to get up in my ward and even present the idea of a loose translation or an inspired fiction, it would cause great consternation in the majority of the ward members and stake leaders. Can you point to any conference talk or GA talk that I could use to show leadership is starting to consider this seriously?
Zach, I meant to give you a thumbs up, not a thumbs down. I wish it were a toggle, so I could fix it!
(Note: for those who believe Joseph Smith authored the book himself, they also get to explain how Joseph recited long biblical passages while staring into a dark hat.)
Not sure if this is serious or if I understood the challenge correctly but: Once the idea of Joseph Smith translating the plates shattered, pretty much everything regarding the translation seemed suspect, including ‘witness testimonies’. So I explain it by saying: It seems like the simplest answer is that he didn’t. He consulted a KJV Bible and any testimony that this wasn’t the case was either a falsehood or misinterpreted. It wouldn’t be the first time people colluded to falsehood. Heck, there’s a few stories like that in the BoM itself!
I jest. I also really appreciate the effort to bringing all of these resources together. Can’t wait to read the next sections.
awanderingwarlock, I’m not really sure how I meant it, other than to show the witness testimonies just complicate everything. You’re pretty much left having to go with incredible memory (which sounds dumb no matter which side says it) or tossing the statements. It’s just weird to me that LDS scholars were totally fine tossing the witness statements until about 30 years ago, and then suddenly the witnesses were super-reliable.
Churchistrue, I’m not sure Hardy would throw anything off the table (including possibly consulting a KJV Bible). I agree that he seems to be leaning in a more supernatural direction, though. I like what he says: “To be a Latter-day Saint is to accept the miraculous, divine origin of the Book of Mormon (most often defined as including the existence of angels, ancient plates, and historical Nephites), but within those basic parameters, there are still many faithful possibilities. Few Mormon scholars have investigated these options; I don’t expect that non-Mormons will find any of them remotely plausible.” (p. 292)
Zach, I have a couple talks that I could spin in that direction, but I don’t think the speakers would necessarily agree with that take. I don’t think leaders are wanting to introduce giving up historicity as an option. Not yet, anyway. Meaning, it’s okay to believe the Book of Mormon is historical, it’s okay to not be sure about the historicity of the Book of Mormon but still believe it’s inspired, but I *don’t* think believing it is a wholly modern creation (albeit inspired) would fly in a temple recommend interview.
As far as personal beliefs, I’m still on the historical side. I can see the modern stuff in there, but something about it still feels like these were real people, even if the story is filtered quite a bit. I definitely think it’s possible Joseph could’ve authored it, but that’s just not my position. I’m agnostic on the loose versus tight translation. The idea of an angelic translator totally cracks me up, which makes me want to entertain that possibility. But the seer stone/folk magic stuff is just so foreign to my everyday experience. It makes it hard for me to envision the mechanics of how it could have happened.
Note: I added a link to Kevin Barney’s post at By Common Consent, “Toward a Paradigm of JST Revisions.”
Nicely done. Nicely done.
The internal complexity of the Book of Mormon is fascinating. I think as we take it seriously, the same way we should take the Bible seriously, we get a completely different vision.
I really think this year’s Old Testament curriculum should have started with: https://www.amazon.com/This-Strange-Sacred-Scripture-Wrestling/dp/B010MZOJZO
I think getting a better, deeper read of the Bible opens up a better reading of the Book of Mormon and all of the issues and matters.
Great post, Mary Ann. We have painted ourselves into a bit of a corner with well-meaning statements like this one by Joseph Fielding Smith: “He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.” I agree with other comments that using biblical scholarship to look at our scriptures would resolve a lot of these issues. In my study, I think there are so many facets that make this complex and fascinating. I echo the sentiments of Josiah Quincy: “If the reader does not know what to make of Joseph Smith, I cannot help him out of the difficulty. I myself stand helpless before the puzzle.”
Stephen and Felixfabulous, I agree that better understanding the issues of the Bible can help us with the Book of Mormon. One quote I found doing research struck a chord and helped organize my thoughts I gave above. It’s from a keynote address Richard Bushman gave in 2016, “I read the Book of Mormon as informed Christians read the Bible. As I read, I know the arguments about the book’s historicity, but I can’t help feeling that the words are true, and that the events actually happened. I believe it in the face of many questions.” [31:20]
https://mi.byu.edu/bushman/watch/
I’m afraid that I’m with Mark Twain on this one:
“The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel — half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast.
Whenever he found his speech growing too modern — which was about every sentence or two — he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as ‘exceeding sore,’ ‘and it came to pass,’ etc., and made things satisfactory again. ‘And it came to pass’ was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.”
I’m personally more inspired by Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings”. Sam and Frodo are more realistic to me that Nephi, Sam, Laman and Lemual have ever been.
With lefthandloafer, I certainly find other books more inspiring–Jane Austen and Shakespeare are far more insightful into the human soul, for example. But with MaryAnn, there’s something about the books that strikes me as historical as well, and it sure as heck isn’t the clunky pseudo-historical language. I almost word-for-word quoted that “And it came to pass” thing to my daughter when I suggested that if we took that out, we could read the whole book in about 20% of the time. Historical people are capable of writing poorly just like modern people are, and of self-aggrandizing and glossing over the interesting parts (human foibles true-to-live motivations) for the boring ones (wars and religious people showing how religious they are).
Very well written first post in what promises to be a great series. I find that the critics who dismiss things based on the most simple approach haven’t asked the tougher questions in many cases. It’s always easier to criticize. I think that the collusion angle, for me at least, doesn’t really hold up, but that’s because I firmly believe that two people can keep a secret only if one of them is dead. Collusion would have meant more than two in this case, and while they are all dead now, they also all fell out with each other and lived many years past that. Nothing outs a secret like a personal conflict.
Nice detailed discussion, Mary Ann. The problem with apologetic or scholarly responses to the CES Letter (in general — not necessarily this post) is that those responses typically employ a more nuanced or even disingenuous representation of the LDS belief or account being criticized. The apologetic response characterization of the LDS position, in other words, doesn’t match what an average Mormon would understand as the LDS view or what LDS leadership regularly holds out as the LDS view in manuals and in talks. Here is another way to put it: if apologists are serious about their project, they ought to be trying to persuade LDS leaders to reform their view to match the apologetic responses, not just addressing the critics. The critics, in other words, are not the real problem.
The JST is a perfect example. Even Robert J. Matthews acknowledges that, at best, only a portion of the JS changes are candidates for a “restoration” of original text. The JST changes are best described as “Joseph Smith commentary.” As it stands, the “T” in JST is just another example of pervasive misuse, fueled by lay ignorance and apologetic handwaving, of the term “translation.” The JST is not, and has never been, canonized (whatever that would mean in an LDS context). Apologists ought to be sending letters to LDS leadership persuading them to recharacterize the JST as commentary and remove the JST passages that were unfortunately incorporated into the 1981 LDS edition of the Bible as footnotes and appendix material. The CES Letter criticisms are only effective because neither LDS apologists nor LDS leadership have been taking care of business at home by cleaning up and reforming (where necessary) LDS doctrinal and historical claims. [I suspect leadership is unwilling to publicly walk back traditional strong translation claims for JST changes because once you start walking back JS translation claims, it is difficult to stop.]
Mary Ann-
I don’t know if this will be useful to your research. If not, discard it, if helpful, let us know.
I found this on the internet while looking for non mormon scholars who have studied the Book of Mormon. What do they have to say? The link is below.
Harold Bloom is arguably the foremost living scholar of American literature.
As such, he has studied all of the main works attributed to Joseph Smith, since the Book of Mormon is one of the most influential works of American literature.
Bloom himself was raised an Orthodox Jew, and he is a scholar of Hebrew and Jewish religion and tradition as well.
As a scholar and a non-Latter-day Saint, Bloom assumes that Joseph Smith was a fraud who never received any revelation from God.
And yet, Bloom regards Joseph Smith as one of the three greatest minds of American literature, comparable only to Emerson and Whitman. This is because, unlike the many armchair scholars who give the Book of Mormon a scan and then immediately discard it as “obviously” fake because it is convenient for them to do so, Bloom has actually researched it in-depth, such that he has an understanding of the amazing level of intricacy and scholarship that faking the Book of Mormon would require.
Regarding Joseph Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as well as the other works and doctrines of the Latter-day Saint faith, Harold Bloom has this to say:
I can only attribute to his genius or daemons his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly. (Harold Bloom, The American Religion, 101.)
In other words, Joseph Smith apparently knew things about Old Testament-era Judaism that no one in North America should have known at that time, and Bloom’s only explanation for that is that Joseph Smith was a “genius”. Hmm.
https://www.quora.com/Have-any-non-Mormon-scholars-seriously-analyzed-the-Book-of-Mormon
Very well done, as always, Mary Ann.
My own view on whether Joseph used a KJV in the production of the BoM is that he did. Here’s my insight: yes, it’s true that the witness statements don’t describe the use of a physical Bible. But we have to keep in mind that witnesses are describing only the small slice of the dictation process they happened to witness personally. The heavy reliance on a King James Bible would have taken place towards the end of the translation process in 2 Nephi (assuming the priority of Mosiah). So if people were witnessing portions of the dictation that were not heavily reliant on the KJV, there would not have been a KJV in use. But in my view the certain passages that parallel for long stretches of time were based on use of a KJV, because the characteristics of the text simply require that conclusion.
Jared, interesting comment from Bloom. Any idea what he’s talking about? I’ve heard references to things like King Benjamin’s ritual. And Grant Hardy goes into some interesting stuff about Laman and Lemuel being focused on the Law of Moses over Lehi’s prophetic counsel. It’s interesting to me. But always rather vagueish and not super compelling in terms of “how could he know??” type bullseyes.
Great job Mary Ann.
The debate over the Red in Red Sea is the perfect example as to why the Isaiah chapters were nearly word for word with the KJV.
Had it not been word for word, we would spend decades arguing about added or removed words which detracts from the whole purpose of including the Isaiah text to begin with.
Thank you for responding Mary Ann. Dave B pretty much summarizes my frustrations. First, someone has a some difficult questions about the Book of Mormon. Elder Ballard tells them to go to the best books and scholars to help them resolve their concerns. The best books have answers that require one to have a more nuanced view and throw out the narrative they have been taught their whole life. That person goes to church and wants to have some meaningful discussion about what they are going through. That person is ostracized from his community, labeled as a non believer who has been deceived.
Some might be able to still enjoy church and some might have wards and stakes that are more open to different levels of orthodoxy, but for the rest of us church has been turned into torture. My wife says the only three hours of the week she does not feel peace are the hours she has to go to church.
I can understand the corner the church has painted itself into. I would just like one or two of the leaders in conference to address specific concerns regarding the Book of Mormon. I love being able to say JFS might have said that, but BH Roberts had this to say. Or Brigham and Joseph had different beliefs, but I side more with Joseph’s line of thinking. When you have allies with your line of thinking that have an important title, it adds a lot of weight to your comment and deflects criticism. Come on leaders, help us out a little.
Dave, I like the idea of respected apologists sending letters to leaders, but it would likely be viewed as “steadying the ark.” I think Ballard’s BYU devotional was incredibly significant in trying to distance the hierarchy of any responsibility in these intellectual/historical matters. I still believe he expects CES instructors to stay updated on current LDS scholarship. I think curriculum writers are trying to be sensitive to current scholarship (thinking of the newer NT institute course manual), but I think people are very antsy about causing any sort of conflict with widely-believed traditional church positions. Think about how long it took for leadership to switch from a hemispheric model to a limited geography model. FARMS had been pushing a limited geography model for decades before leadership finally changed wording in the BofM intro and did the DNA essay.
Jared, thanks for that tip. I appreciate it. I know that FARMS and FairMormon have pushed views from Margaret Barker who argues the Book of Mormon contains elements from before Josiah’s reforms. I wonder where a section on that would fit in best with the CES Letter concerns. Maybe when he talks trinitarian theology in the Book of Mormon? I’ll have to think on it.
Kevin, thanks for your input. I really like the idea of keeping a KJV Bible in the picture as an option. (And… I wish I spotted your BCC post prior to posting this.)
Fantastic post, Mary Ann, and I look forward to other installments.
Kevin Barney, besides the internal text, what evidence do we have that Joseph referenced a KJV Bible when translators weren’t around. Wouldn’t he have had to write those portions himself, meaning some part of the original manuscript would have his handwriting alongside that of the various scribes? Do we have those portions of the manuscript?
I’ve always been curious how Joseph would have quoted from the KJV verbatim while no scribe saw him using one, so I am quite curious on the mechanism you think was used.
Zach, you described the problem really well. It reminds me of that secretly taped meeting between a disaffected member, a GA, and a church historian. The historian was clearly up for more nuance, but the GA kept throwing things into a black-and-white perspective. This is one of the reasons I feel church leaders have an obligation to know these issues, regardless of whether they talk about them publicly. I get Ballard’s viewpoint that it isn’t their expertise, and they are busy seeing to the pastoral care and core doctrines, but just *knowing* these criticisms forces an adjustment (even if minor) in the black-and-white thinking.
Bloom is a gnostic who believes in upwellings.
So he doesn’t see JS as a fraud though he doesn’t see him as a prophet as we would either.
The rest of the discussion here is really interesting.
Mary Ann, fantastic post (as usual) and I’m very much looking forward to the rest of them. You and Hawkgrrrl probably shouldn’t publish on the same day — too much good stuff to think about and digest.
Dave B wrote: “The CES Letter criticisms are only effective because neither LDS apologists nor LDS leadership have been taking care of business at home by cleaning up and reforming (where necessary) LDS doctrinal and historical claims. [I suspect leadership is unwilling to publicly walk back traditional strong translation claims for JST changes because once you start walking back JS translation claims, it is difficult to stop.]”
I think this is very true, but I think it’s not just that they (church leaders) haven’t weeded out the bugs, but that they haven’t exploited the features. A lot of Mormons (myself included) are very much interested in revelation from God. We seek it. And we’re taught we should be able to recognize it. But I don’t think that process is nearly as simple as it’s always presented at church. The deepest discussions at church on the topic seem to come when discussing Oliver’s attempt to translate, and there seems like a whole lot more that should be explored. It seems to me that by analyzing the JST, the BoM, and the D&C, we can learn an awful lot about the revelatory process. Clearly, God can nudge, prompt, inspire, speak, and even open the windows of heaven, and the degree/significance of each of these is simply not the same, even though they can all be valuable. Boiling it down to “you’re either listening to God or your not”, or “it’s either all from God or it’s not” doesn’t reflect my personal experience with revelation, and I think it can even threaten our relationship with our Heavenly Father and our performance in our callings. And yes, it gives the CES letter more influence with some than I think it deserves.
Cody, I don’t see anything in Oliver’s statements about the translation that would preclude the occasional use of a KJV Bible. (I agree with you that there’s basically no way Joseph wrote those sections out himself, he definitely used a scribe). But when other people describe the stone in the hat methodology, they are only describing the small slice of the translation process that they happened to witness, not the process in toto.
Great post and comments. Some of the comments hit the nail on the head. I agree with Mary Ann that church leaders need to know these issues. I served as a bishop when I first came across these issues (as people came to chat) and now in my current calling I have an opportunity to meet with people from all the units in the stake. Over the last several years I have purchased (and read most of them, including everything referenced in the post) every book imaginable addressing these issues and theology in general (LDS and non-LDS), listened to all the podcast under the sun (lds themed, anti and friendly, and other religious podcasts), frequented all the blogs you would expect, and even subscribed to Dialogue, Sunstone, and all the other online and other journals etc. As I meet with members in our neck of the woods, it is extremely rare that someone comes to see me with an issue that I now have not read about, heard about, listened to podcasts about, studied etc. I honestly try my best to let them know that all views are welcome (orthodox to the most liberal etc) and I regularly try to talk about different points of views.
So why do I share this part of my life that you likely don’t care about?
Even after doing all that is described above (putting in countless hours studying and meeting with members), most people who go down the rabbit hole don’t ever seem to come back out. And very few are able to come out the other side with a nuanced testimony or a “churchistrue” type testimony. They might stay and participate and even accept callings, and in many cases do a much better job in their callings/ministries than the orthodox believer who never studies a thing, but many simply no longer believe, at all. Local leaders can patiently, lovingly, and with open arms let them know there is room for all, but because over the years the general leadership has hammered home (and is doubling down in many cases) the all-or-nothing approach (all 100% true or 100% false), many don’t feel comfortable and don’t seem able to get to the place where “churchistrue” or many of the others on this site are at. They can’t look at things differently because they have been trained all their lives not to. I guess the point of my ramble is that there is no easy answer. We are not at a point yet where those without an “orthodox, traditional” testimony feel they are valued because the general leadership in most cases won’t reach out to them. And those who have such a testimony feel threatened and offended by those who don’t (I’m trying to change this the best I can in my neck of the woods). This dichotomy between “orthodox” and “nuanced” will never change until the general leadership talks about these issues and ministers in a way that helps both groups (and all in between). We need to hear more from them. For those of us in middle management who have jobs, families, and all the normal stuff in our callings, becoming amateur “experts” and theologians on this material is aging us twice as quickly as we otherwise would. It would help those ministering and those being minstered to if they would take the lead. I really wish they would. While the scriptural mandate for the general leadership certainly is to preach repentance and the doctrine of Christ, they obviously don’t have an issue talking about so much more. I believe then they have a duty to become informed and help with these issues.
I think the reason local leaders don’t get up to speed is that they are just too dang busy. So they focus on one thing when visiting with those in the ward/stake–namely just get a spiritual witness and ignore everything else, like Jared above suggests. Who knows, when it all comes down to it, maybe he is right. But when that does not come easily they get bogged down and crushed. I think the church is losing some of the local leaders who start down the rabbit holes themselves (and so in some cases are going through this crisis or struggle or journey ourselves) because frankly the church keeps people so dang busy they burn out. They see the scope of the issues and throw their hands up. That is why the CES Letter is so effective even though it so poorly written and simply barfs up a lot of rehashed info–it simply overwhelms people. And some of the responses to the letter do the same thing.
Anyhow please keep these great posts coming. I will read and study them all. Good luck to all and God bless!
Kevin, thanks for the response. I hadn’t considered that Oliver’s description of the process didn’t explicitly preclude referral to a KJV Bible. I’ll have to go back and read his comments again with that in mind. Thank you.
AngelaC
“With lefthandloafer, I certainly find other books more inspiring–Jane Austen and Shakespeare are far more insightful into the human soul, for example. But with MaryAnn, there’s something about the books that strikes me as historical as well, and it sure as heck isn’t the clunky pseudo-historical language.”
Amen to this! My exact experience!
Loved this post Mary Ann! Looking forward to future posts! I did have one potential thing to add (depending on the intended scope of the project)-
Although I don’t agree with her, Ann Taves has some really interesting things to say on the materialization of the gold plates and the translation process (it basically is a secular version of Brant Gardner’s theory) here: http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf
as well as in her book here: https://www.amazon.com/Revelatory-Events-Studies-Emergence-Spiritual/dp/0691152896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515631167&sr=8-1&keywords=ann+taves
Again, I’m a fairly orthodox believer but I 1- appreciate the way Taves treats my beliefs. Though she tells an unconventional story of how we get the gold plates ad the Book of Mormon, she did it in a very constructive way. Even conservative scholars like Stephen C. Harper had a lot of good things to say! 2- A few of my friends who stopped believing in the church found her ideas gave them constructive ways to deal with the church.
Again, it may be out of the scope of the OP! Thank you again for your hard work! Looking forward to the series!
JasonB, not out of the scope at all! Both Cody Hatch and churchistrue reference Ann Taves in their posts on the idea that the Book of Mormon is not historical, yet still inspired. I linked to their posts, but I’m glad you brought her up specifically.
Mary Ann, you are an artiste. That is all.
I like your approach to these topics, and your summary of sources and theories. The issue of KJV references in the BoM is very interesting. I’d like to point out some aspects of biblical language in the BoM that are not often understood. 1) Even with the Isaiah/Malachi/Matthew chapters aside, the BoM is still full of actual KJV bible phrases, not just biblical sounding language. For example, Alma 40:14 (using Skousen’s Earliest Text here) has “a state of awful fearful LOOKING FOR OF the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them.” This is clearly a reference to Hebrews 10:27: “But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” The “fearful looking” and “fiery indignation” are enough to connect these verses, but there’s more. “Looking for of” is used here to mean “expecting.” This is not normal English, not even normal biblical-style English. It’s pretty much unique to the KJV (and its predecessors) and occurs only this one verse. The composer of the Book of Mormon (whether JS or God or angel or other mortal) isn’t just wanting to sound biblical, he’s giving us a deliberate reference to the New Testament, He wants is to know that he is using our Bible, our New Testament. In reading the Book of Mormon, I get a sense that such biblical phrases are often meant to function as cross-references. The composer wants us to recognize the references and open up our bibles and read. This is also evident in the way the Book of Mormon tends to quote the latest version of an ancient scripture, pointing us to sort of a scripture chain. For example, 1 Nephi 22:20 quotes Deuteronomy 18:25-19, but using the version of that passage found in Acts 3:22-23. There are many more examples of this. So the many biblical passages in the Book of Mormon are not just filler. There’s a method and a purpose. 2) The use of these biblical passages in the Book of Mormon shows that the composer had an intimate knowledge of the Bible. This does not describe Joseph Smith at that stage of his life, from what I have been able to see in the historical documents. He was famously unfamiliar with the Bible and more interested in digging for gold. Even if he had a Bible in front of him, JS would not have been able to put this thing together. It required someone extremely familiar with the Bible and with the intertextuality between the Old and New Testaments and between books of the Old Testament (and all that without the aid of the internet). 3) There is another difficulty with the idea that JS consulted a physical Bible while “translating.” These biblical references are not just in 2 Nephi, they are plentiful throughout the Book of Mormon (minus the war chapters). JS would have had to be continually consulting the Bible. The most reliable witness evidence, which is quite consistent (and which I review in “Seers and Stones…” in Interpreter) clearly does not allow for this. This leaves us with JS either memorizing an entire day’s dictation or reading (in some sort of vision) something that someone else has composed (as the witness statements suggest he did). The other alternative, as one commenter pointed out, is a conspiracy, with the hat trick as a sham. But that idea has some major problems. The conspiracy would of necessity involve the many people who were familiar with Joseph Smith’s activities during this period, many of whom eventually turned against him but nonetheless remained convinced that he dictated the book by the power of God (or the devil). Conspiracies are pretty much impossible to keep contained with so many people under such conditions.