LDS Did Joseph Smith and the 1830 BOM plagairize the 1823 book "View of the Hebrews"?

withwonderingawe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 4, 2015
3,592
510
71
Salem Ut
✟161,549.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A little more information

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...paperSummary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845&p=7

In June 1844, the church suffered the loss of its president and prophet, JS, and his brother, church patriarch Hyrum Smith. The Smith family, already devastated, endured another heartbreak a few weeks later with the death of JS’s brotherSamuel. That fall their widowed mother, Lucy Mack Smith, perhaps in part as a salve to her grief, began recording her family’s story. Writing to her only surviving son, William, on 23 January 1845, Smith informed him, “I have by the council of the 12 [Apostles] undertaken a history of the family, that is my Fathers Family and my own.” She added:
People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure—
To help defray the cost of publication she asked William to start a subscription to raise about $100 to buy paper to print her history (Lucy Mack Smith, Nauvoo, IL, to William Smith, 23 Jan. 1845, CHL).
Later that year on 8 October, at a general conference of the church being held in the Nauvoo temple, Smith spoke of the completion of her project. According to the conference minutes she “gave notice that she had written her history, and wished it printed before we leave this place” (“Conference Minutes,” Times and Seasons, 1 Nov. 1845, 6:1014). However, arrangements could not be made for its publication prior to the Saints’ departure from Nauvoo. It was eventually printed by Orson Pratt in 1853 in Liverpool, England.
Years later, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, writing from Provo, Utah, in June 1865, responded to a request from Brigham Young for information regarding her role in the drafting and publication of Mother Smith’s history. Regarding Smith, Coray wrote, “I was her amanuensis at the time the Book was written.” She then cited her own practice of “noting down everything, I heard and read which possessed any peculiar interest to me. . . . I was occupied, from time to time as occasion offered, in making notes of sermons, and other things which I thought reliable such as: discourses by yourself, the twelve, and other responsible men.” She then related that this practice “made it an easy task for me to transmit to paper” what Smith dictated to her. She added, “Hyrum and Joseph were dead, and thus without their aid, she [Lucy] attempted to prosecute the work, relying chiefly upon her memory. . . . There were two Manuscripts prepared, one copy was given to Mother Smith, and the other retained in the Church” (Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, Provo, UT, to Brigham Young, 13 June 1865, Brigham Young Office Files, CHL).
The two completed manuscripts Coray referenced in her letter to Young were preceded by a draft, sometimes referred to as the “rough draft manuscript.” Martha Jane Coray and her husband, Howard, composed this draft as they met with Smith during the fall and winter 1844–1845. Then, in early 1845, utilizing the rough draft and other notes and sources, the Corays apparently penned two revised, or “fair,” copies. The sole extant fair version is titled “The History of Lucy Smith Mother of the Prophet.” Miscellaneous fragments included with the rough draft copy suggest that the Corays may also have produced an intermediate draft prior to transcribing the two fair copies. Assuming an intermediate draft once existed in some form, most of it has been lost.
Smith obtained a U.S. copyright for her manuscript on 18 July 1845. (Copyright for Lucy Mack Smith, “The History of Lucy Smith,” 18 July 1845, Robert Harris, Copyright Registry Records for Works Concerning the Mormons to 1870, CHL). According to the “History of Brigham Young,” on 10 November of that same year, Young and several members of the Twelve “consulted on the subject of purchasing the copy right of Mother Smith’s History; and concluded to settle with Brother Howard Coray for his labor in compiling the same” (History of the Church, 7:519). No currently extant record indicates whether Smith was actually approached about selling her copyright to the church, nor is it known if the Corays were compensated as indicated above.
As previously noted, one of the two prepared fair copies was given to Smith by the Corays. There are varying accounts regarding what happened next, but by March 1853, Smith’s copy was in the possession of Orson Pratt inWashington DC. Pratt took it to England where he had it printed by the end of that summer under the title Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, by Lucy Smith, Mother of the Prophet. The fair copy adapted for the Liverpool, England, publication by Pratt apparently is no longer extant.
The second fair copy was apparently given to the church before the Saints departed from Nauvoo and was taken west by them. An entry for “Mother Smith’s History” is listed in the first extant Historian’s Office inventory, compiled in Nauvoo in 1846 by clerk Thomas Bullock. Records of a 4 April 1855 inventory of the Historian’s Office included an entry for “Mother Smiths Mss History” (Schedule of Church Records. Nauvoo 1846,” [1]; “Inventory, Historian’s Office, 4th April 1855,” [2], Historian’s Office, Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904, CHL). It seems that the Corays retained the rough draft and transported it to Utah.
Orson Pratt had not consulted with Brigham Young or other church leaders before publishing the 1853 Liverpool edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s history. Young had not authorized its publication and believed it contained historical errors. In 1865, Young and his counselors in the First Presidency of the church formally recalled the Liverpool edition. According to Wilford Woodruff’s journal for 22 April 1866, Young asked Woodruff to request church historian George A. Smithand JS’s uncle, Elias Smith, to revise the text so that it could be reissued in a corrected edition. However, despite expectations, a revised version was not issued during Young’s lifetime. It was not until 1901 that the church released an authorized edition, in serial form in the Improvement Era. The serial began in the November 1901 issue under the title “History of the Prophet Joseph Smith” and concluded in the January 1903 issue. When published in book form in 1902, it bore the title History of the Prophet Joseph Smith by His Mother Lucy Smith as Revised by George A. Smith and Elias Smith. Subsequently, other popular editions have appeared.
Much of the value of Lucy Mack Smith’s account lies in her offering a wife and mother’s perspective on her family’s role in the early church. She illuminates the family setting that fostered the birth of Mormonism and retells incidents and interactions recounted nowhere else. Though there are errors in the dating of some events and occasionally in place and individual names, overall her account is of inestimable value, providing a rarely heard woman’s voice as it traces JS’s life from beginning to end. She was present at many seminal events and offered insights no one else could provide.
Beginning with details of her New England ancestors, Smith related an account of her family’s early experiences and support of JS during the founding era of the church. Adversity and persecution are vividly evident, as are hard work, faith, love, and testimony. Many details that we know about early church history can be attributed to Lucy, such as JS’s leg operation when he was a child; the death of JS’s oldest brother, Alvin; the dreams, visions, and blessings ofJoseph Smith Sr.; and a wife and mother’s grief as she buries her “beloved husband” and many of her children. She also provided details and perspective about missions, moves, travels, mobbings, and arrests that are not available elsewhere.
Published here is the the Corays’ 1845 fair copy retained by the church. (The1844–1845 rough draft is also available on this website.)
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
So this is still true.---Young did not like what the first publication said and wanted it destroyed. He realized what she said was
damaging to the whole church, something she obviously didn't realized at the time she wrote it. So he rewrote that passage in the church approved version. Everything is irrelevant--that passage was rewritten to suite Young's purpose.

"In 1865, Young ordered the church members to have their copies destroyed. There was no "corrected" version until the church published a 1901 serialization and 1902 book, which were done under the direction of Joseph F. Smith, Lucy’s grandson.[1]"
 
Upvote 0

withwonderingawe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 4, 2015
3,592
510
71
Salem Ut
✟161,549.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So this is still true.---Young did not like what the first publication said and wanted it destroyed. He realized what she said was
damaging to the whole church, something she obviously didn't realized at the time she wrote it. So he rewrote that passage in the church approved version. Everything is irrelevant--that passage was rewritten to suite Young's purpose.

"In 1865, Young ordered the church members to have their copies destroyed. There was no "corrected" version until the church published a 1901 serialization and 1902 book, which were done under the direction of Joseph F. Smith, Lucy’s grandson.[1]"

No, he knew there where the two different versions and he was upset with Pratt for publishing the other shorter one and not the complete version without his says so. You also have to remember Lucy was a pretty old woman there and was remembering things 25 years before just off the top of her head. She may have gotten dates wrong and stuff like that. I'm not sure what he felt would damage the church? Lucy and BY had a good relationship as far as I know.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You know, I bought it the first time around--she was quoted out of context or some such thing was said when I had brought up that passage before--and the other version was quoted. However, I had not known about BY at thy time. But, demanding the 1st publication be destroyed ----I, for one, no longer am.
I've always maintained this one thing about JS--that even if it was truly determined that the BOM is false, no one has a right to claim he was a liar or charlatan as no one can ever really know the heart of anyone and we can not discern if he were genuinely deceived by a false angel, or if he was a genuine deceiver himself. However now, I really have to fight believing he really had any kind of angel visit him and that he came up with these stories even as a child. That mother was just bragging on her kid, proud of his fertile imagination--rightly so---any real mother would have been. That is an image no mother forgets. Even when my stepmother was forgetting everything, and sometimes even who someone was, she kept her memories of us in tact down to the ages we were when something grabbed her heart. My oldest brother painting a red cardinal--(bird)-our brother the clown saying yet one more funny thing that left her in stitches, she remembered down to the date the very first little dress I had made on my toy sewing machine for my Barbie and the first time I sewed a skirt for myself on that same machine and the awesome notebook the youngest boy had made for his grade school project that earned him his one and only A+--a 3 ring binder chuck full of photos of all manner of animals he pasted together and labeled. And she never even gave birth to us. She was 93 when she died--still remembering us as children, though she couldn't remember what she had just said 2 minutes before.
BY tried to destroy the truth of what she said---that makes him even worse and I have to really struggle to believe he did not do it knowing full well what he was doing and why.
 
Upvote 0

withwonderingawe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 4, 2015
3,592
510
71
Salem Ut
✟161,549.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know, I bought it the first time around--she was quoted out of context or some such thing was said when I had brought up that passage before--and the other version was quoted. However, I had not known about BY at thy time. But, demanding the 1st publication be destroyed ----I, for one, no longer am.
I've always maintained this one thing about JS--that even if it was truly determined that the BOM is false, no one has a right to claim he was a liar or charlatan as no one can ever really know the heart of anyone and we can not discern if he were genuinely deceived by a false angel, or if he was a genuine deceiver himself. However now, I really have to fight believing he really had any kind of angel visit him and that he came up with these stories even as a child. That mother was just bragging on her kid, proud of his fertile imagination--rightly so---any real mother would have been. That is an image no mother forgets. Even when my stepmother was forgetting everything, and sometimes even who someone was, she kept her memories of us in tact down to the ages we were when something grabbed her heart. My oldest brother painting a red cardinal--(bird)-our brother the clown saying yet one more funny thing that left her in stitches, she remembered down to the date the very first little dress I had made on my toy sewing machine for my Barbie and the first time I sewed a skirt for myself on that same machine and the awesome notebook the youngest boy had made for his grade school project that earned him his one and only A+--a 3 ring binder chuck full of photos of all manner of animals he pasted together and labeled. And she never even gave birth to us. She was 93 when she died--still remembering us as children, though she couldn't remember what she had just said 2 minutes before.
BY tried to destroy the truth of what she said---that makes him even worse and I have to really struggle to believe he did not do it knowing full well what he was doing and why.

Did you go look at the website I gave, they have the original transcripts in the handwriting of the woman who was helping Lucy. I think you are doing your best to find fault .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Did you go look at the website I gave, they have the original transcripts in the handwriting of the woman who was helping Lucy. I think you are doing your best to find fault .


Quite the contrary.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
OK--the woman who wrote this down for Lucy made 2 copies, one went to Smith, the other to the church. The one that went to Lucy ended up being the one that was printed first, of which nothing exists and BY had destroyed. Not a good move, but-----.This is apparently the 2nd copy. But there is no way of comparing the 2 copies. Only the copy that BY wanted exists. So, I will have to take back what I said and say this much---

According to this handwritten account by Corey, the discussions that JS was having with his family were after he had the visions, not before as a child. She writes that she really has nothing to say about JS until he was 14 years old as nothing extraordinary had happened to him before that. To quote just the part of the family conversations without having the account that these were held after the visions, is misleading.

However, things would have been better all the way around had BY not gone about destroying the first publication----leads to too much speculation and no way of checking and clearing the whole thing up completely. It leaves the door open to BY could have exerted pressure on Corey to rephrase parts of the manuscript, in her own handwriting, to his liking. Should have just stated in the following publication what the corrections were---the destruction of books is frowned upon, even when the books are of a less than of a "good and moral" type.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
two very informative articles. both the national geographic society and the smithsonian institute have denounced the bom as a genuine archeological article!

Have you been keeping up with our posts? I ask as I've noted at least twice now that the Smithsonian was forced to retract their statement. In fact, the Smithsonian hasn't issued that statement in almost twenty years, which should clearly indicate how obsolete those claims are that you're seeing.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/smithsonian.shtml

Nutshell: not only was the letter 100% unprofessional in the first place, the letter also reflects multiple areas in which the author was ignorant of then-current discoveries in the relevant archaeology and several other related fields.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

withwonderingawe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 4, 2015
3,592
510
71
Salem Ut
✟161,549.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK--the woman who wrote this down for Lucy made 2 copies, one went to Smith, the other to the church. The one that went to Lucy ended up being the one that was printed first, of which nothing exists and BY had destroyed. Not a good move, but-----.This is apparently the 2nd copy. But there is no way of comparing the 2 copies. Only the copy that BY wanted exists. So, I will have to take back what I said and say this much---

According to this handwritten account by Corey, the discussions that JS was having with his family were after he had the visions, not before as a child. She writes that she really has nothing to say about JS until he was 14 years old as nothing extraordinary had happened to him before that. To quote just the part of the family conversations without having the account that these were held after the visions, is misleading.

However, things would have been better all the way around had BY not gone about destroying the first publication----leads to too much speculation and no way of checking and clearing the whole thing up completely. It leaves the door open to BY could have exerted pressure on Corey to rephrase parts of the manuscript, in her own handwriting, to his liking. Should have just stated in the following publication what the corrections were---the destruction of books is frowned upon, even when the books are of a less than of a "good and moral" type.

No No No, her first copy still exist. It was printed in England, there was no way to gather them all up. You did make me go look it up. archive.org/details/BiographicalSketchesOfJosephSmithTheProphet

But now I'm a little more than confused my first assumption was wrong, the two versions aren't all that different on this point.

This is the quote from Day's 20 Concerns
Joseph's mother recorded that long before Joseph had received the gold plates he was well aware of the stories contained therein .......Joseph told these stories well before his brother Alvin's death in November, 1823. Yet he never got the plates until September, 1827. Where did all this specific information come from? We have no record of these kinds of details being given to Joseph through his annual interviews with Moroni. Where else but from Joseph's fertile imagination and the source materials to which he had access?

He's counting on you not going and looking it up, Lucy says Joseph received his visitation from Moroni the year before Alvin died and she felt it wasn't just a once a year visit that I always thought it was. She says "from this time forth Joseph continued to receive instruction from the Lord and we continued to get the children together every evening...."

It seems to me Day was relying on a very small knowledge of our history and then just pulled a quote from some other source without checking it himself. It wasn't long before Alvin's death at all. Like me he had been taught in high school seminary classes that Joseph was visited by the angel once a year for 3 years, that's all Joseph himself wrote about. Day didn't check the date of Alvin's death and then quoted a source he didn't actually read or miss quoted on purpose.

There in lies the problem with most anti Mormon material!
 
Upvote 0

withwonderingawe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 4, 2015
3,592
510
71
Salem Ut
✟161,549.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Background[edit]

Shortly following the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, and into 1845, Lucy Mack Smith dictated her recollections and family story to Nauvoo schoolteacher Martha Jane Coray. Coray worked with her husband to compile these books of notes and other sources into a manuscript, which was then copied.

One copy was given to Brigham Young, and the other stayed with Lucy Smith in Nauvoo. Eventually, LDS Apostle Orson Pratt obtained Lucy's copy and published it in 1853, to great controversy.[1]

Brigham Young's opposition[edit]

After its publication, Brigham Young declared the book to be a "tissue of lies" and wanted corrections made.[2] In the Millennial Star in 1855, he said,

There are many mistakes in the work… I have had a written copy of those sketches in my possession for several years, and it contains much of the history of the Prophet Joseph. Should it ever be deemed best to publish these sketches, it will not be done until after they are carefully corrected.[3]

In 1865, Young ordered the church members to have their copies destroyed. There was no "corrected" version until the church published a 1901 serialization and 1902 book, which were done under the direction of Joseph F. Smith, Lucy’s grandson.[1]

Later historians theorized that Young opposed the book because of his own conflicts with its publisher, Orson Pratt,[4] as well as the book's favorable references to William Smith, Young's opponent and Lucy's son.[2] Lucy Smith portrayed the Smith family as the legitimate leaders of the church, which Young may also have seen as a challenge to his leadership.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Joseph_Smith_by_His_Mother

"Later historians theorized...." there in is the problem, no one can see into Young's thoughts no knows his reasoning. The second edition using the the longer transcript was edited by George A. Smith and Elias Smith both cousins to Joseph Smith so they knew the family well. They have the original so any changes they made can be documented.
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Have you been keeping up with our posts? I ask as I've noted at least twice now that the Smithsonian was forced to retract their statement. In fact, the Smithsonian hasn't issued that statement in almost twenty years, which should clearly indicate how obsolete those claims are that you're seeing.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/smithsonian.shtml

Nutshell: not only was the letter 100% unprofessional in the first place, the letter also reflects multiple areas in which the author was ignorant of then-current discoveries in the relevant archaeology and several other related fields.
I read parts of it (it is too long, you should have copied and pasted the relevant text) it only said that they did not use it as a guide for archaeology, I don't see that as much of a retraction.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
I read parts of it (it is too long, you should have copied and pasted the relevant text) it only said that they did not use it as a guide for archaeology, I don't see that as much of a retraction.

Most critics are citing the original 1996 letter in which someone who didn't know the first thing about Mesoamerica went on a tirade because someone dared to ask if a religious work was used as a guide by archaeologists.

The whole thing blew up in the Smithsonian's face once word got out, both because of how completely unprofessional it was (people usually get fired for writing letters like that, regardless of whether or not they have their facts correct) and because the person who wrote it was years behind on the relevant research.

In response, within two years the Smithsonian replaced this letter with a generic "We don't use any holy books in guiding our work" form letter that was both more professional in nature and less prone to being shown as wrong.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
One of the things about the BOM that always bothered me, as I've mentioned before, is the writing itself, how it sounds so biblical. And, of course, the "that's the way they spoke at the time" and I've always responded with "None of the other contemporary writers, wrote like that"--Which hasn't been responded to.
But what really cracked me up tonight: As I was reading the book by Lucy Smith I realized that not even his mother wrote that way!! LOL---Is there a better answer to the problem of the way it's written??
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
One of the things about the BOM that always bothered me, as I've mentioned before, is the writing itself, how it sounds so biblical. And, of course, the "that's the way they spoke at the time" and I've always responded with "None of the other contemporary writers, wrote like that"--Which hasn't been responded to.
But what really cracked me up tonight: As I was reading the book by Lucy Smith I realized that not even his mother wrote that way!! LOL---Is there a better answer to the problem of the way it's written??

Back then, Jacobean English was the "standard" form of English used among a goodly chunk of Protestants whenever they did anything religious (I seem to recall even some sermons being done this way), so it's not that much of a stretch to presume the translation would be done in such a fashion.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
LOL--same OLD sad song---does not hold water. Like I said, you can open any book written at the same time--they don't sound like biblical English--I even posted several book titles once and not one of those books were written in that manner. In Sermons??---There will be verses said during a sermon, not the whole sermon, unless you're a Quaker, were ever spoken that way. It's actually more difficult to talk in that way then just normal speech. Contemporary works were written just as was spoken back then. the English was more formal than today---but not biblical sounding. To write that way you have to stop and put those words in because they are just not natural, and you will mess up and speak normally sometimes---When I've made sarcastic comments and spoken in biblical wording, I had to go slower and make corrections--just takes longer---makes no sense to write whole book in the manner, unless you're doing it on purpose. Gods prophets wrote what they were shown in their own language for their time and culture.
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I read part of a sermon by JS and it was not spoken like the Bible at all or the BOM.

The other thing I find odd is that the history says that around the time of Noah is when these people migrated to North America, but this seems very odd because at that time the Hebrews (since the history says the people are part of the 12 tribes of Israel) would not have left Israel. That is part of their inheritance from God. Why would this particualar group just walk away? The Israelite's took the inheritance of the promised land very seriously. Very seriously. They would not have left it.
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
A little more information

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...paperSummary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845&p=7

In June 1844, the church suffered the loss of its president and prophet, JS, and his brother, church patriarch Hyrum Smith. The Smith family, already devastated, endured another heartbreak a few weeks later with the death of JS’s brotherSamuel. That fall their widowed mother, Lucy Mack Smith, perhaps in part as a salve to her grief, began recording her family’s story. Writing to her only surviving son, William, on 23 January 1845, Smith informed him, “I have by the council of the 12 [Apostles] undertaken a history of the family, that is my Fathers Family and my own.” She added:
People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure—
To help defray the cost of publication she asked William to start a subscription to raise about $100 to buy paper to print her history (Lucy Mack Smith, Nauvoo, IL, to William Smith, 23 Jan. 1845, CHL).
Later that year on 8 October, at a general conference of the church being held in the Nauvoo temple, Smith spoke of the completion of her project. According to the conference minutes she “gave notice that she had written her history, and wished it printed before we leave this place” (“Conference Minutes,” Times and Seasons, 1 Nov. 1845, 6:1014). However, arrangements could not be made for its publication prior to the Saints’ departure from Nauvoo. It was eventually printed by Orson Pratt in 1853 in Liverpool, England.
Years later, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, writing from Provo, Utah, in June 1865, responded to a request from Brigham Young for information regarding her role in the drafting and publication of Mother Smith’s history. Regarding Smith, Coray wrote, “I was her amanuensis at the time the Book was written.” She then cited her own practice of “noting down everything, I heard and read which possessed any peculiar interest to me. . . . I was occupied, from time to time as occasion offered, in making notes of sermons, and other things which I thought reliable such as: discourses by yourself, the twelve, and other responsible men.” She then related that this practice “made it an easy task for me to transmit to paper” what Smith dictated to her. She added, “Hyrum and Joseph were dead, and thus without their aid, she [Lucy] attempted to prosecute the work, relying chiefly upon her memory. . . . There were two Manuscripts prepared, one copy was given to Mother Smith, and the other retained in the Church” (Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, Provo, UT, to Brigham Young, 13 June 1865, Brigham Young Office Files, CHL).
The two completed manuscripts Coray referenced in her letter to Young were preceded by a draft, sometimes referred to as the “rough draft manuscript.” Martha Jane Coray and her husband, Howard, composed this draft as they met with Smith during the fall and winter 1844–1845. Then, in early 1845, utilizing the rough draft and other notes and sources, the Corays apparently penned two revised, or “fair,” copies. The sole extant fair version is titled “The History of Lucy Smith Mother of the Prophet.” Miscellaneous fragments included with the rough draft copy suggest that the Corays may also have produced an intermediate draft prior to transcribing the two fair copies. Assuming an intermediate draft once existed in some form, most of it has been lost.
Smith obtained a U.S. copyright for her manuscript on 18 July 1845. (Copyright for Lucy Mack Smith, “The History of Lucy Smith,” 18 July 1845, Robert Harris, Copyright Registry Records for Works Concerning the Mormons to 1870, CHL). According to the “History of Brigham Young,” on 10 November of that same year, Young and several members of the Twelve “consulted on the subject of purchasing the copy right of Mother Smith’s History; and concluded to settle with Brother Howard Coray for his labor in compiling the same” (History of the Church, 7:519). No currently extant record indicates whether Smith was actually approached about selling her copyright to the church, nor is it known if the Corays were compensated as indicated above.
As previously noted, one of the two prepared fair copies was given to Smith by the Corays. There are varying accounts regarding what happened next, but by March 1853, Smith’s copy was in the possession of Orson Pratt inWashington DC. Pratt took it to England where he had it printed by the end of that summer under the title Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, by Lucy Smith, Mother of the Prophet. The fair copy adapted for the Liverpool, England, publication by Pratt apparently is no longer extant.
The second fair copy was apparently given to the church before the Saints departed from Nauvoo and was taken west by them. An entry for “Mother Smith’s History” is listed in the first extant Historian’s Office inventory, compiled in Nauvoo in 1846 by clerk Thomas Bullock. Records of a 4 April 1855 inventory of the Historian’s Office included an entry for “Mother Smiths Mss History” (Schedule of Church Records. Nauvoo 1846,” [1]; “Inventory, Historian’s Office, 4th April 1855,” [2], Historian’s Office, Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904, CHL). It seems that the Corays retained the rough draft and transported it to Utah.
Orson Pratt had not consulted with Brigham Young or other church leaders before publishing the 1853 Liverpool edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s history. Young had not authorized its publication and believed it contained historical errors. In 1865, Young and his counselors in the First Presidency of the church formally recalled the Liverpool edition. According to Wilford Woodruff’s journal for 22 April 1866, Young asked Woodruff to request church historian George A. Smithand JS’s uncle, Elias Smith, to revise the text so that it could be reissued in a corrected edition. However, despite expectations, a revised version was not issued during Young’s lifetime. It was not until 1901 that the church released an authorized edition, in serial form in the Improvement Era. The serial began in the November 1901 issue under the title “History of the Prophet Joseph Smith” and concluded in the January 1903 issue. When published in book form in 1902, it bore the title History of the Prophet Joseph Smith by His Mother Lucy Smith as Revised by George A. Smith and Elias Smith. Subsequently, other popular editions have appeared.
Much of the value of Lucy Mack Smith’s account lies in her offering a wife and mother’s perspective on her family’s role in the early church. She illuminates the family setting that fostered the birth of Mormonism and retells incidents and interactions recounted nowhere else. Though there are errors in the dating of some events and occasionally in place and individual names, overall her account is of inestimable value, providing a rarely heard woman’s voice as it traces JS’s life from beginning to end. She was present at many seminal events and offered insights no one else could provide.
Beginning with details of her New England ancestors, Smith related an account of her family’s early experiences and support of JS during the founding era of the church. Adversity and persecution are vividly evident, as are hard work, faith, love, and testimony. Many details that we know about early church history can be attributed to Lucy, such as JS’s leg operation when he was a child; the death of JS’s oldest brother, Alvin; the dreams, visions, and blessings ofJoseph Smith Sr.; and a wife and mother’s grief as she buries her “beloved husband” and many of her children. She also provided details and perspective about missions, moves, travels, mobbings, and arrests that are not available elsewhere.
Published here is the the Corays’ 1845 fair copy retained by the church. (The1844–1845 rough draft is also available on this website.)
The Bible did not have drafts, because it is the Word of God. God breathed.

These 'drafts' and wording changes show that this book is not God breathed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

withwonderingawe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 4, 2015
3,592
510
71
Salem Ut
✟161,549.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
LOL--same OLD sad song---does not hold water. Like I said, you can open any book written at the same time--they don't sound like biblical English--I even posted several book titles once and not one of those books were written in that manner. In Sermons??---There will be verses said during a sermon, not the whole sermon, unless you're a Quaker, were ever spoken that way. It's actually more difficult to talk in that way then just normal speech. Contemporary works were written just as was spoken back then. the English was more formal than today---but not biblical sounding. To write that way you have to stop and put those words in because they are just not natural, and you will mess up and speak normally sometimes---When I've made sarcastic comments and spoken in biblical wording, I had to go slower and make corrections--just takes longer---makes no sense to write whole book in the manner, unless you're doing it on purpose. Gods prophets wrote what they were shown in their own language for their time and culture.

Well since the 1830s people have been laughing at the grammar of The Book of Mormon but recently that laughing has died down and puzzlement has emerged. The English used in the Book of Mormon is older the KJV English for in many places there are examples of Early Modern English some dating back to the 1300s.

I have two articles one from Dr. Daniel Peterson who is explaining the other by Dr. Stanford Carmack. Dr. Camack has a linguistics and a law degree from Stanford University, as well as a doctorate in Hispanic Languages and Literature from the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in historical syntax.

Why anyone would find that interesting enough to make a career out of it is beyond me. And, I certainly don’t understand the ends and outs of the English langue let alone the history of it. Carmack’s article A Look at Some “Nonstandard” Book of Mormon Grammar is very long and detailed, so I went through it and found this one item which is simple to explain.

“Dative impersonal constructions like it supposeth me, it sorroweth me, and it whispereth me are also not found in the KJV, ..”

I did find the word sorroweth used once in 1Sam10:2 but it’s not the word but the sentence structure they are getting at.

From Sam “thy father hath left the care of the asses, and sorroweth for you…”

From the 3 Nephi 27 “But behold, it sorroweth me because of …”

‘Sorroweth me’ is bad English but not historically

From Jacob 2: 8 “And it supposeth me that they have….

From Words of Mormon 1:7 “And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord …”

Now from the article giving some examples of Early Modern English

“1390 Gower Conf. II. 128 Bot al to lytel him supposeth, Thogh he mihte al the world pourchace.

There is also this example taken from Early English Books Online (EEBO):
1482 Caxton polychronicon me supposeth that they toke that vyce of kynge Hardekunt

The next impersonal construction it sorroweth me is also attested in the EModE record (see, for example, the EEBO and OED quotations below), and it whispereth me is exemplified with many similar quotations from EModE and ModE (see, for example, the OED quotes below):

It sorroweth me to thinke of the Ministers of England
Adam Hill, The crie of England (1595)

1574 Hellowes Gueuara’s Fam. Ep. (1577) 189 The ague that held you, sorroweth me.
1637 Heywood Royall King ii. iv, It sorrows me that you misprize my love.

1605 Shakes. Macb. iv. iii. 210 Giue sorrow words; the griefe that do’s not speake, Whispers the o’re-fraught heart, and bids it breake. 1640 S.

Harding Sicily & Naples iii. i. 33 This day (There’s something whispers to me) will prove fat all. 1713 Addison Cato ii. i, Something whispers me All is not right.

In other words the sentence structure dates back to the 1300s BUT why? Joseph didn’t speak like that so no one knows, we don’t have answer for it at all.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ng-language-of-the-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=all
 
Upvote 0