OBJECTIONS TO THE BOOK OF MORMON (Continued).
I.
Errors of Style and Grammar.
One of the chief objections to the Book of Mormon from the first has been the uniformity of its literary style, and the defects in its language—errors in grammar, New York Yankee localisms, and the use of modern words—unwarranted, it is claimed, in the translation of an ancient record. Alexander Campbell, in his attack upon the Book of Mormon, 1831, on this subject, said:
The book proposes to be written at intervals and by different persons during the long period of 1020 years, and yet for uniformity of style there never was a book more evidently written by one set of fingers, nor more certainly conceived in one cranium since the first book appeared in human language, than this same book. If I could swear to any man's voice, face, or person, assuming different names, I could swear that this book was written by one man. And as Joseph Smith is a very ignorant man and is called the "Author," on the title page, I cannot doubt for a single moment but that he is sole "Author and Proprietor" of it.
He then proceeds to point out the same idioms of speech in the preface to the first edition—the Prophet's own composition, of course—in the testimony of the witnesses, and in various parts of the Book of Mormon proving, as he claims, unity of style and identity of authorship for the various books that make up the volume. He points out a large number of errors in grammar, also, a number of supposed anachronisms, modernism, etc., giving the pages where the defects occur. Indeed, so ample was Mr. Campbell's criticism on this point, that he has furnished the materials for this argument against the Book of Mormon which has been repeated by nearly all subsequent writers. Howe, for instance, takes up the refrain in this manner:
The style of the Book of Mormon is sui generis, and whoever peruses it will not have doubt but that the whole was framed and written by the same individual hand.[1]
Then follows quotations which he regards as justifying the conclusion.
Professor J. B. Turner of Illinois College, Jacksonville, Illinois, in his "Mormonism in All Ages" follows in the same strain and uses like illustrations.[2]
So also John Hyde in his "Mormonism." He perhaps is more elaborate in his criticism on this point than any other Anti-Mormon writer excepting Campbell.[3]
Samuel M. Smucker, also criticises in the same kind.[4]
So also Rev. M. T. Lamb devotes a chapter to the same kind of criticism.[5]
Linn, adopts the same argument, and with some manifestations of glee, quite unbecoming in a sober historian who professes to write at least a serious history of Mormonism; but who, while he points to these defects in grammatical construction, etc., he nowhere considers in any spirit of fairness the evidences that tend to support the truth of the Book of Mormon.[6]
The things to be considered in these objections, are:
First: does the uniformity of style exist: do the errors in grammar exist; are there modernisms and localisms in the book, and more especially in the first edition, since it was with this edition that this criticism began? These questions must be answered in the affirmative. The existence of uniformity of style, errors in grammar, modernisms and localisms cannot be denied, as all know who have investigated the matter. A comparison of current editions with the first edition will disclose the fact that many of the most flagrant verbal and grammatical errors have been corrected, besides many unimportant changes, such as "which" and "that," to "who" and "whom," and vice verse, to conform to modern usage;[7] and many more such corrections, without changing the slightest shade of statement or thought, could still be made to advantage.
Many of these changes, perhaps most of them, were effected under the supervision of the Prophet Joseph himself. In the preface to the second edition published in Kirtland, 1837, the following occurs:
Individuals acquainted with book printing are aware of the numerous typographical errors which always occur in manuscript editions. It is only necessary to say, that the whole has been carefully re-examined and compared with the original manuscript by Elder Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the Book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, Brother Cowdery, who formerly wrote the greatest portion of the same as dictated by Brother Smith.
In the third edition published at Nauvoo, 1840, this occurs on the title page:
"Carefully Revised by the Translator."
Of course the fact that the Book of Mormon was published in a country town, on a hand press, and by persons unfamiliar with book making, and the proofs read by Oliver Cowdery, who was entirely without experience in such work, will account for many errors verbal and grammatical. The further fact that the employees at the printing establishment where the book was published, where unfriendly to it, and were more anxious to make it appear ridiculous than to turn out a good job, may account for other errors that appear in the first edition. But after due allowance is made for all these conditions, the errors are too numerous, and of such a constitutional nature, that they cannot be explained away by these unfavorable conditions under which the work was published. Besides, examination of the fragment of the original manuscript, now (1909) in possession of President Joseph F. Smith, discloses the fact that many of the verbal errors in grammar are in the manuscript, written as the Prophet dictated it.
Second: How are these errors in language to be accounted for? How is it that errors in grammar are found in a work said to be translated by the "gift and power of God, through the medium of the Urim and Thummim?" Are these errors in language to be assigned to the Urim and Thummim, or to God? Is it true, as stated by Professor Turner, that such is the description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated, that all accounts "agree in making the Lord responsible not only for the thought, but also for the language of the book, from the necessity of the case, for they [those who have described the manner of translation] all claim that the words passed before Smith's eyes while looking through the pellucid stones?"[8] Must we remember, as the professor admonishes us to "remember," that according to Smith's story "the Lord is responsible not only for the thought, but also for the language of this new translation? The words of the translation being read off through the stone spectacles?"[9]
For one, I refuse to accept this statement of the case. I do not believe that the Lord is responsible for any defect of language that occurs in the Book of Mormon, or any other revelation. On the contrary, I stand with Moroni here: "And now, if there be faults [i.e. in the Nephite record], they are the mistakes of men."[10] Also with Mormon: "If there be faults, they be the faults of a man."[11]
If the Lord should speak directly to man without any intermediary whatsoever, it is reasonable to conclude that his language would be perfect in whatever tongue he spoke. If, however, he elected an intermediary through whom to communicate his message to the world, the language in which that message would be couched might, or might not, be perfect, according as the intermediary was learned or unlearned in the language through which the Lord communicated the revelation.
Third: Can these verbal errors, and errors in grammar, these modernisms and localisms arise from equivalent defects in the original Nephite records? That is to say, can these errors have been transferred from the ancient Nephite language into our English idioms? I know how unreasonable such a proposition as that will seem to readers in any way familiar with translations. I speak of it, however, because there are those friendly to the Book of Mormon who contend that such is the case. Those who take this view believe that because the Prophet used Urim and Thummim in the translation of the Nephite record, therefore, the process of translation was a word for word bringing over from the Nephite language into the English; that the instrument did the translating rather than the Prophet, the latter merely looking into Urim and Thummim as one may look into a mirror and tell what he sees there reflected; and that, therefore, the translation was really an absolutely "verbatim et literatim" translation of the record. They further believe that since the instrument was of divine appointing it could make no mistakes, and therefore if errors in the translation into English occur it is because these errors were in the Nephite language as recorded by Mormon.
As already remarked, to those at all acquainted with translation, this will be recognized as impossible. They know that such a thing as an absolute literal translation, or word for word bringing over from one language into another is out of the question; that for the most part such a literal translation would be meaningless, I give as examples the following from the Latin:
1. "Aversum hostem-videre"—original. "Turned away—foe—to see"—word for word. "To see a foe in flight"—translation. 2. "Non satis commode"—original. "Not—enough—conveniently"—word for word. "Not very conveniently"—translation. 3. "Ad eas se applicant"—original. "To—these—themselves—attach"—word for word. "They lean up against these"—translation. 4. "Impii est virtutem parvi estimare"—original. "Of an impious man—it is—virtue little—to value" word for word. "It is the mark of an impious man to think little of virtue"—translation. 5. "Christiani est quam plurimis prodesse"—original. "Of a Christian—it is—as very many—to do good" word for word. "It is the duty of a Christian to do good to as many as possible"—translation.
Fourth: Granting, as preforce we must, that there are verbal and grammatical errors, together with modernisms and localisms, in the English translation of the Nephite record; that the thought is expressed not only in English idioms, but also, at times, in Western New York localisms; that the whole body of phraseology is of the time and place where the work of translation was done; and all the errors are such as would be made by one circumstanced as Joseph Smith was as to knowledge of the English language; and that these local idioms and errors in grammar were not found in equivalent terms in the Nephite language and brought over into English by a process of word for word bring over—granting all these things, is there any way by which this criticism, based upon the faulty English of the translation, may be effectually met, and the truth still maintained that the translation of the Book of Mormon was made by a man inspired of God, and aided by an instrument of divine appointment?
I firmly believe that all these requirements can be met; that, as a matter of fact, the defects in English in the Book of Mormon constitute no real difficulty; that the difficulties, so far as they exist, are of our own creation (I speak of those who accept the Book of Mormon as a divine record); that our trouble arises through having accepted too literally the necessarily second-hand accounting, given by Martin Harris and David Whitmer, of the manner in which the translation was done. Because it has been said that the Prophet saw the Nephite characters in the Urim and Thummim; that the translation would appear in English under these characters; that the Prophet would read the translation to the scribe and that both characters and translation would remain in Urim and Thummim until written—because of this description of the manner of translation, our opponents have insisted—and we by our silence have conceded to some extent—that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the translation except to see what the instrument revealed and parrot-like repeat it; therefore it has been concluded by our opponents that the translation must be attributed entirely to the Urim and Thummim; and as it is unreasonable to think that God, or a divine instrument provided by him for the purpose of translating unknown languages—that is, that God directly or indirectly could be charged with these errors in English—they have argued that the translation was not inspired; that God had nothing to do with it; that Joseph Smith's pretentions were blasphemous, and the Book of Mormon untrue.
To this contention of our opponents we have either made no reply, being quite generally of the opinion that there was little or no force in the argument (a mistake in my judgment), or else have lamely and vainly argued that the errors were in the original Nephite records, and were brought over bodily into the translation, which is an absurdity.
The foundation for the answer to this objection and the argument by which it is sustained was laid in Vol. I, chapter VII of this work, where it is argued that the translation of the Book of Mormon was not merely a mechanical process in which the instrument Urim and Thummim did all and the Prophet nothing, except to give out to the scribe the translation said to have appeared in the divine instrument. The Lord's description of the manner of translating, by means of Urim and Thummim, is cited there in proof that the translation was not mechanical; that on the contrary it required deep thought, the employment, in fact, of all the mental and spiritual powers of the translator; that it was necessary for him to be in an exalted state of mind to get the meaning of the Nephite characters at all. The thought, however, and the ideas he obtained by concentrated mental effort, under the inspiration of God; but the language in which the translation was thought out was in such words and forms of expression as Joseph Smith could use; and this mental translation in language was doubtless reflected in the Urim and Thummim, where it remained until written by the scribe. And now, as the Prophet Joseph was uneducated at the time of translating the Nephite record, the language of his translation was in the faulty English of one circumstanced as he was, and was of the period and place when and where the translation took place. This I regard as a complete answer to all the objections that can be urged upon the score of the Book of Mormon's faulty English, and it is the only answer that can be successfully made to it. Such faults as exist are the faults of men, not of God. Such is the answer to this class of objections wherever made against the scriptures, for this sort of objection is not confined to the Book of Mormon. It has been urged with well nigh equal force against the Bible. In fact, there are not wanting those who claim that human speech, oral or written, is inadequate to convey a revelation from God.[12]
"The human language," says one of these, "whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God. The word of God exists in something else. Did the book called the Bible excel in purity of ideas and expression all the books now extant in the world, I would not take it for my rule of faith, as being the word of God, because the possibility would nevertheless exist of my being imposed upon."[13]
Again, the same author says:
Human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information, and therefore it is not the means that God useth in manifesting himself universally to man. It is only in the Creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read.[14]
This writer may be objected to on account of the ribald nature of his criticism of the Bible, but nevertheless, in the foregoing paragraph he represents the views of a very large class of people—a class that I fear is increasing rather than diminishing in numbers.
This author attacks the Book of Isaiah in the following fashion:
Whoever will take the trouble of reading the book ascribed to Isaiah will find it one of the most wild and disorderly compositions ever put together; it has neither beginning, middle, nor end; and, except a short historical part, and a few sketches of history in two or three of the first chapters, is one continued, incoherent, bombastical rant, full of extravagant metaphor without application, and destitute of meaning; a school-boy would scarcely have been excusable for writing such stuff; it is (at least in translation) that kind of composition and false taste that is properly called prose run mad.[15]
Referring to the entire volume of Hebrew scripture our author says:
For my own part, my belief in the perfection of the Deity will not permit me to believe that a book so manifestly obscure, disorderly, and contradictory can be his work. I can write a better book myself![16]
Other authors of the same school, and in like spirit attack the Hebrew scriptures. What is the reply to such attacks? Fortunately, on this point, I have at hand the views recently set forth of a very learned man, and one of high character, the Reverend Joseph Armitage Robinson, D. D., Dean of Westminister and Chaplain to King Edward VII of England. In a recent lecture delivered in Westminster Abby on the subject, "How the Bible Was Written," he says:
The message of the Old Testament was not written by the Divine hand, nor dictated by an outward compulsion; it was planted in the hearts of men, and made to grow in a fruitful soil. And then they were required to express it in their own language, after their natural methods, and in accordance with the stage of knowledge which their time had reached. Their human faculties were purified and quickened by the Divine Spirit; but they spoke to their time in the language of their time; they spoke a spiritual message, accommodated to the experience of their age, a message of faith in God, and of righteousness as demanded by a righteous God.[17]
So, also, Lyman Abbot, in a series of lectures on "The Bible as Literature:"
Neither in ancient nor in modern theology is there a simpler, a more comprehensive statement of the origin and character of the Bible than in the single sentence with which the Second Epistle of Peter describes it: "Holy men of God spake, moved by the Holy Ghost." * * * According to this definition the Bible is written by good men, and it is written by good men under the inspiration or on-breathing of the Spirit of God. * * * * These men are not amanuenses who write by dictation; they embody in their writings their own experience, their own thought, their own life. Thus, we should expect to find in the Bible the personal equation of the writers strongly marked. We should expect, as the sunshine developes each seed after its kind, so the shining of God on the human soul would develop each germinant soul after its kind * * * We see not men writing as clerks write, embodying only the work of a dictator; we find in each one the stream, the current, the color of his own personality. We shall expect, also, to find all these men writing as Paul says he wrote: "We know in part, and we prophesy in part," and "We see in a glass darkly."[18]
Views similar to those were entertained by the late Henry Drummond, the author of "Natural Law in the Spiritual World." Referring to the writers of the Hebrew scripture he said:
These men when they spoke were not typewriters. They were authors. They were not pens. They were men; and their individuality comes out in every page they wrote. Sometimes they write a better style than they do at other times. Sometimes their minds are clearer and their arguments more condensed and consecutive and logical.[19] Look at some of the envolved theological statements in the New Testament, and contrast them with the absolutely pellucid utterances of the same author written on a different occasion, when he was in a different mood. Those men were not mere pens, I repeat; they were authors, and it is not the book that is inspired, so much as the men. God inspired men to make an inspired book. * * * Just as a scientific man in communication with nature reads its secrets, drinks in its spirit, and writes it down, so a man who walks with God catches the mind of God and gets revelations from God and writes them down; religion is not the result of this, but the cause of it.[20]
Jenyns in his treatise on the "Internal Evidences of the Christian Religion" says:
Others there are who allow that a revelation from God may be both necessary and credible; but allege that the Scriptures, that is, the books of the Old and New Testament, cannot be that revelation—because in them are to be found errors and inconsistencies, fabulous stories, false facts, and false philosophy; which can never be derived from the fountain of all wisdom and truth. To this I reply that I readily acknowledge that the Scriptures are not revelations from God, but the history of them [i.e., the history of the revelations]. The revelation itself is derived from God; but the history of it is the production of men, and therefore the truth of it is not in the least affected by their fallibility, but depends on the internal evidence of its own supernatural excellence. If in these books such a religion as has been here described actually exists, no seeming or even real defects to be found in them can disprove the divine origin of this revelation, or invalidate my argument. * * * If any one could show that these books were never written by their pretended authors, but were posterior impositions on illiterate and credulous ages—all these wonderful discoveries would prove no more than this, that God, for reasons to us unknown, had thought proper to permit a revelation by him communicated to mankind, to be mixed with their ignorance, and corrupted by their frauds from its earliest infancy, in the same manner in which he has visibly permitted it to be mixed and corrupted from that period to the present hour. If in these books a religion superior to all human imagination actually exists, it is of no consequence to the proof of its divine origin, by what means it was there introduced, or with what human errors and imperfections it is blended. A diamond, though found in a bed of mud, is still a diamond, nor can the dirt which surrounds it depreciate its value or destroy its lustre.
The point of Jenyns' argument is, that both in doctrine and ethics the New Testament is so far superior, so far surpasses in sublimity of idea and beauty of moral precept, all that is known amongst men outside of the New Testament, and is so far removed from the uninspired utterances of men that he claims the conclusion to be irresistible that the Christian Scriptures derive their origin immediately from God; that the knowledge which they teach is divine, no matter what faults may be charged to the expression of this knowledge. From this view point he becomes almost reckless in the admission of errors and defects in the writers of the New Testament. He has been much criticized, in fact, by the professional Christian ministry—for he was a layman as to his relation with the church, a member of the British parliament—for the admission of errors in the New Testament in the passage I have quoted above, but I think unjustly so. What is needed, both as to the New Testament scriptures and the Nephite scriptures, is a thoroughgoing recognition of the fact that the truth is of more consequence than the form in which it is expressed. The wheat is of more importance than the chaff in which it grows, and which holds it until the thrashing and the winnowing. The question is not so much is all the mine-ledge gold, but is there gold in the ledge.[21]
The inspiration of God falls upon a prophet as a white ray of light may fall upon a prism, which separates the white ray of which it is composed—blue, orange, red, green, etc. The clearness of these several rays and the sharpness with which they are defined will depend upon the purity, and perhaps the position, of the prism through which the white ray passes. So with the white ray of God's inspiration falling upon men. It receives different colorings or expressions through them according to their personal characteristics. While it is true that the inspiration of God may be so overwhelming in its force at times that the prophet may well nigh lose his individuality, and become merely the mouth-piece of God, the organ through which the Divine speaks, yet the personality of the prophet is not usually so overwhelmed; hence each prophet preserves even under the inspiration of God his agency and his personal idiosyncrasies. Thus Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos, Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, all preserve their individuality in conception of ideas and in the expression of them, though inspired by the same spirit. So also Joseph Smith imparted certain characteristics to his translation of the Nephite record, notwithstanding the use of Urim and Thummim and the inspiration of the Lord that rested upon him. Just in what manner the Urim and Thummim was of assistance to him may be beyond human power to at present explain, but of this we may be certain, it was by no means the principal factor in the work; its place must forever be regarded as secondary; it was an aid to the Prophet, not he an aid to it; wonderful as it may be as a divine instrument it could not be so marvelous as the mind of man, especially as the mind of this man, Joseph Smith, this Seer, by way of pre-eminence; it is Joseph the "Seer" who translated the Book of Mormon aided by Urim and Thummim. This his statement: "Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God."[22] Mark these words—"I translated the record,"—not the Urim and Thummim. Of course the Prophet recognizes in this, as he did in all his prophetic work and his seership work, his obligation to the inspiration of God, and surely I do not wish to detract from the inspiration of God as a factor in his work. I merely desire to emphasize here that it was the Prophet under the inspiration of God that did the work, and that the divine instrument, Urim and Thummim, however wonderful, was merely an aid to the Prophet, as "glasses" may be an aid to the dim-sighted. But notwithstanding this aid provided by man's ingenuity, it is the eye after all that does the seeing, though this contrivance called "spectacles" helps the vision, and makes it more perfect. So, analogously, but in some way unknown to us, the Urim and Thummim aided the Prophet in his work of translation.
The defense of written revelation then against the existence of human elements in it—evident limitations in the knowledge of prophets concerning things other than the immediate matters on which they are inspired of God; unequal expression of ideas, falling sometimes from the sublime to the commonplace; lack of clearness and directness in expression, circumlocution;[23] grammatical blunders; tautology; sometimes long suspension of thought (a frequent fault of both Old and New Testament writers), and some thought never completed at all—all these and many other faults of mere construction,—disarrangement of the mere garments of thought—are to be attributed to the weaknesses of men and their limitations in knowledge, rather than to any fault in the inspiration supplied of God. It is the body that is defective, not the soul; the expression that is defective, not the inspired truth struggling for utterance through the faulty diction of prophets, ancient or modern—"If there be faults, they are the faults of men; therefore, condemn not the things of God because of the faults of men," will yet come to be regarded as a golden text in defense of written revelation.
II.
Objections Based Upon the Existence of Passages in the Book of Mormon Which Follow King James' Translation of the Bible Verbatim.
It is objected to the Book of Mormon that there are found in it whole chapters, besides many minor quotations, from King James' English translation of the Bible. Since these chapters and passages in some cases follow the "authorized English version" verbatim, and closely resemble it in others; and as it is well known that in translating from one language into another almost infinite variety of expression is possible, the question arises, how is it that Joseph Smith in translating from the Nephite plates by divine assistance follows so closely an independent translation made in the ordinary way, by dint of scholarship and patient labor, and by diligent comparison of former translations.[24] This King James' translation was made by scholars of the sixteenth century. It is well known that no two translations of the same matter from one language to another, by different scholars, would ever be alike, hence these passages from the Hebrew scriptures found in the Book of Mormon, so closely resembling and in places following word for word the language of the King James' translation, constitute a difficulty, and what is regarded by some as an insurmountable objection to the claims of the Book of Mormon. Nearly all the Anti-Mormon writers raise this objection, though perhaps John Hyde,[25] 1857, makes the most of it. Following him the Rev. M. T. Lamb,[26] 1887, and last, but not least, Linn,[27] 1902.
This objection was most carefully and intelligently stated recently (October 22, 1903), by Mr. H. Chamberlain, of Spencer, Iowa, U. S. A., in a letter of inquiry on the subject to President Joseph F. Smith, of Salt Lake City, in the course of which he said:
I find that Christ in quoting to the people on this side of the water, the third and fourth chapters of Malachi, quotes, according to the Book of Mormon, in the identical text of King James' version, not missing a word. I find chapters of Isaiah quoted practically in the same way. I find that in many instances, in his talks with the people, and to his disciples here, he used the identical language of King James' version, not omitting the words supplied by the translators. Now, I know that no two parties will take the same manuscript and make translations of a matter contained therein, and the language of the two translators be alike; indeed, the language employed by the two parties will widely differ. These translations are from different manuscripts, and from different languages, and still it appears in the Book of Mormon as King James' translation. I can conceive of no other way in which such a coincidence could have occurred, within the range of human experience, except where one writing is copied from another, and then it takes the utmost care to get them exactly alike, word for word, and letter for letter as this is. * * * Now, what I want to know is, how do you as a Church account for these things appearing in the Book of Mormon in the identical language of King James' version, when we know his version is faulty, and the same translators could not have made it twice alike themselves? Did Joseph copy it from the Bible, or did the Lord adopt this identical language in revealing it to Joseph?[28]
This communication was referred to the writer by President Smith for an answer, which was written, and from which I quote:
"The difficulty which you point out of course has been recognized by believers in the Book of Mormon, but I do not know that I can say that the Church as yet has settled upon any explanation which could be regarded as an authoritative view on the subject. Each one has been left to settle the matter upon the lines which seem most reasonable to him. As a matter of fact, though our opponents have frequently called attention to the difficulty in question, it has not occasioned any particular anxiety in the minds of our own people. Accepting the overwhelming evidences that exist for the truth of the Book of Mormon, we have regarded that difficulty, with some others, as of minor importance, which would in time be satisfactorily settled. Still, I realize the reasonableness of the objection that may be urged against the Book of Mormon from the point of view from which you present the subject, and realize that it constitutes a real difficulty; and one, too, in which we have no word from the Prophet Joseph Smith, or those who were immediately associated with him in bringing forth the Nephite record, to aid us in a solution of the matter. We are left, therefore, very largely to conjecture, based on the facts in the case, which facts are most tersely put in your esteemed communication, viz:
"First. It is a fact that a number of passages in the Book of Mormon, verses and whole chapters, run closely parallel in matter and phraseology with passages in Isaiah, Malachi, and some parts of the New Testament.
"Second. It is a fact that no two persons will make translations of the same matter from one language into another, and the language of the two translations be alike.
"Third. It is a fact that the translations of the words of Isaiah, of Malachi, and the words of the Savior, in the Book of Mormon, are generally supposed to be independent translations from different manuscripts or records and from different languages.
"Then, of course, comes your question: how can the strange fact be accounted for, viz., that the translations in the Book of Mormon corresponding to Isaiah, Malachi and the words of the Savior, are in the language of King James' translation?
"Of course, you will remember that according to the Book of Mormon, the Nephite colony carried with them to America so much of the Old Testament as was in existence at the time of their departure from Jerusalem (600 years B. C.). The prophecy of Malachi, chapters 3 and 4 quoted in the Book of Mormon was supplied by the Savior. The Nephites engraved portions of these scriptures in their records, and this both in the Hebrew, and what the Nephites called the reformed—i.e., altered—Egyptian. I simply mention this in passing, that you may remember afresh how these passages came to be in the Nephite record, and that you may remember that the Nephites had the Jewish scriptures in much the same form as they were to be found in Judea, 600 B. C. When the Savior came to the western world and appeared to the Nephites, he had the same message to present to them that he had presented in Palestine; the same ordinances of the gospel to establish, a similar church organization to found, and the same ethical principles to teach. The manner of the Savior's teaching would doubtless lead him to present these great truths in the same forms of expression he had used in teaching the Jews, so that in substance what he had taught as his doctrines in Judea he would repeat in America. This is mentioned also, by the way, that it may appear reasonable to you that in a general manner the Savior must have taught the people in the western hemisphere substantially the same things that he taught the people in Palestine. With this remembered, I think we find a solution of the difficulty you present in the following way: When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, or the words of the Savior, he took the English Bible and compared these passages as far as they paralled each other, and finding that in substance, they were alike, he adopted our English translation; and hence, we have the sameness to which you refer.
"It should be understood also, in this connection, that while Joseph Smith obtained the facts and ideas from the Nephite characters through the inspiration of God, he was left to express those facts and ideas, in the main, in such language as he could command; and when he found that parts of the Nephite record closely parallel passages in the Bible, and being conscious that the language of our English Bible was superior to his own, he adopted it, except for those differences indicated in the Nephite original which here and there made the Book of Mormon version of passages superior in sense and clearness. Of course, I recognize the fact that this is but a conjecture; but I believe it to be a reasonable one; and indeed the only one which satisfactorily disposes of the difficulty you point out.
"There exists, however, another difficulty; and that is, while the foreging explanation may account for the sameness in phraseology between these Book of Mormon passages and King James' translation, there remains to be accounted for the differences that exist between these Book of Mormon passages and those which parallel them in King James' translation. I am led to believe that you have been so absorbed, perhaps, in tracing out the sameness in the expression that you have failed to note the differences to which I allude, for you make the claim of strict identity between the Book of Mormon and King James' translation too strong when you say that there is used the "identical language of King James'[29] version, not even omitting the words supplied by the translators." Throughout the parallel passages, there are here and there differences (with the single exception, perhaps, in the chapters from Malachi, and even in these is a slight difference), and a close comparison of these differences will show that in the matter of supplied words by King James' translators, there are very frequent changes, and in all the changes that appear, the Book of Mormon passages are far superior in sense and clearness. I quote you a few passages in illustration:
BOOK OF MORMON. BIBLE.
Thou hast multiplied the nation and increased the joy; they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoils!--II. Nephi xxix: 3. Thou hast multiplied the nation _and not_ increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil!--Isaiah ix: 3.
Here you will find the Book of Mormon passage more in harmony with the facts in the case. How inconsistent the passage is in Isaiah, "Thou has multiplied the nation and not increased the joy!" And yet that statement is followed by this one—"they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil!" But in the Book of Mormon it is perfectly consistent, for there it says "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and increased the joy." The following passages also indicate the superiority of the Book of Mormon version:
BOOK OF MORMON. BIBLE.
And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and mutter; should not a people seek unto their God, for the living to hear from the dead?--II.Nephi xvii: 19. And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have faniliar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and mutter; should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead.--Isaiah viii: 19.
If you will carefully compare the passages in the Book of Mormon, and some of the chapters in Matthew, say the 12th chapter of III. Nephi, with Matthew v; the 13th chapter of III. Nephi with Matthew 6th chapter; the 14th chapter of III. Nephi, with Matthew 7th chapter, you will also find throughout that there are differences between the two, as much so as between the Catholic Bible (generally called the Douay Bible) and King James' translation, which, of course, are independent translations by different scholars. I give the following passages by way of illustration:
KING JAMES' BIBLE. BOOK OF MORMON. DOUAY BIBLE.
Matt. ch. v: verse 3. verse 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. III. Nephi ch. xii: Yea, blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me[30] for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matt. ch. v: verse 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Verse 4. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Verse 4. And again, blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. Verse 5.[31] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Verse 6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Verse 6. And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.[32] Verse 6. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Verse 7. Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. Verse 7. And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Verse 7. Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.
Verse 10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for............