Category: Book of Mormon Page 14 of 20

Richard G. Grant,”Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon”,Excerpt from cometozarahemla.org/hebraisms/hebraisms.html

Foolish or Hebrew?

In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon Alma 46:19 reads, “When Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent of his garment in the air.” Of course, the rent is the hole, the tear, the space that now separated what was once a whole. Yes, the Prophet made an error which has been corrected in later printings to read, “rent part.” But, perhaps not foolish. Rather, this almost silly omission has become one thread in a tapestry of evidence pointing to the truth of this young prophet’s claim: he was really translating a Hebrew text. “Waving the rent,” may be ludicrous English but it is a literal translation of perfectly good Hebrew. John Tvedtnes explains that in Hebrew, the noun modified by a verbal substantive like rent is assumed from its context. Thus, “part” would not be included in the Hebrew text. It must be supplied by the translator.⁽¹⁾ Yes, Joseph failed to supply the missing word, thus leaving us this interesting evidential strand.

Mark Twain called the Book of Mormon “chloroform in print,” and the 1830 edition would similarly impress most modern readers. Many Latter-day Saints are surprised to learn that there have been nearly 1400 changes in this most perfect of books since its original publication in 1830. These changes have principally been made to correct Joseph Smith’s abominable grammar. While these changes have certainly made the text more readable, there is still much language in the current edition that is strange to the English ear.

The problem is that many of the expressions found in this perfect book don’t really belong to the English language. Not only are they not good English, they are also not representative of the language of Joseph Smith’s rural upstate New York upbringing. Brother Tvedtnes contends “that the Book of Mormon, in its English form as provided by Joseph Smith, is in many respects a nearly literal translation.” The Book of Mormon shows all the signs of being a translation of an ancient Semitic record which has been translated into English by someone who had little skill in English grammar and phrasing. The sentence structure, word usage, and peculiar idioms of the original language have been nearly recreated in sometimes very awkward English phrases. Brother Tvedtnes concludes, “In most cases thus far investigated, Book of Mormon expressions which are ungrammatical in English are perfect Hebrew grammar.”⁽²⁾ Instances of Hebraic expression found in an English text are called Hebraisms. This paper will examine a number of Hebraisms that are found in the Book of Mormon. A more detailed discussion will be found in the references.

“And it came to pass“

Most have heard Twain’s quip that removing “and it came to pass” from the Book of Mormon would reduce it to a pamphlet. Who could blame him? Even in the present edition of the Book of Mormon “it came to pass” occurs 1297 times.

However, this phrase also occurs 457 times in the KJV of the Old Testament. There, it’s the English translation of the single Hebrew word, hâyâh. We tend to read this phase as indicating a passage of time. However, J Weingreen, in Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, suggests that it would best be given the meaning, “now it happened.” Strong’s Hebrew dictionary suggests “to exist” or “to become” as possible translations of hâyâh. Royal Skousen postulates that hâyâh represents a “discourse marker” and suggests that the phrase and it came to pass “may be considered equivalent to and then or and so.”⁽³⁾ The Hebrew Old Testament has 1114 occurrences of the word hâyâh. Most of these have either been ignored or reduced to simply “and.”

In his editing for the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith removed 46 occurrences of “it came to pass,” rendering them as “and,” just as was done by the King James translators. If Mark Twain was reading the 1830 edition he would have encountered passages like this:

2 Nephi 4:10: “and it came to pass that when my father had made an end of speaking unto them behold it came to pass that he spake unto the sons of Ishmael . . .”

Alma 8:18-19: “now it came to pass that after Alma had received his message from the angel of the Lord he returned speedily to the land of Ammonihah and it came to pass that he entered the city by another way yea by the way which was on the south of the city Ammonihah and it came to pass that as he entered the city . . .”

Many Old Testament examples could be given of similar construction which would result from a literal translation of the Old Testament Hebrew. One will suffice. The current KJV of Genesis 35:16-18 contains two instances of “it came to pass,” but, there are three in the Hebrew (the omitted text is shown in [ ]):

“And they journeyed from Bethel; and [it came to pass that] there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour. And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also. And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.”

In a recent interesting discovery, a Mayan language element has been translated “and it came to pass.” The function of this element in Mayan texts is rather well defined. Depending on context, it references the reader either forward or backward to a specific date or event. An analysis of the Book of Mormon has shown that many of the instances of “and it came to pass” are reasonably consistent with this Mayan meaning of this expression.⁽⁴⁾

Why is this phrase so common in the Book of Mormon? The answer is simple: Because Joseph was translating a Hebrew text. If “it came to pass” were not prominent in the Book of Mormon, the Hebrew claims for its origin would be absurd. Hâyâh is an integral part of Hebrew expression. Thus, “it came to pass” must be found as a common expression in any document that claims to be a translation from Hebrew to English. Does this prove the Hebrew origins of the Book of Mormon? No. But another thread is added to our tapestry of evidence.

And, and, and; Too Many “ands“

In Hebrew, words, phrases, and sentences are generally connected by a single character, usually translated “and.” Thus, in a literal translation of Hebrew into English “and” appears in many places where English would have a punctuation mark. In this literal translation, many sentences would begin with “and,” as in Alma 11 where 20 of the 23 verses begin with “And.” Lists in this literal translation would have each item set off by “and,” as in “all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of precious ores” (2 Nephi 5:15). Many other strange uses of “and” might also be expected to occur. The following paragraphs illustrate some of these.

“And” or “But”

This Hebrew conjunction translated and really has many possible meanings in English. In the Old Testament it has been translated: “or,” “then,” “certainly,” “perhaps,” “in order to,” “like,” “therefore,” “so,” “thus,” and “but.” This last, but, leads us to an interesting observation in the Book of Mormon. Consider this sentence from Moroni 9:4, “and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it.” Obviously, the sense of this “and. .” would, in English, be better expressed by the word “but. ..” However, if Joseph was making a near literal translation Hebrew, “and” is a correct rendering. Another example provides and even better illustration. A promise from the Lord is quoted by Lehi in 2 Nephi 1:20. In 2 Nephi 4:4, this same passage is again quoted, with one interesting difference: the “but” appearing in the first passage is replaced by an “and. .” in the second. The Hebrew for each of these passages would be identical and both renditions are fully acceptable translations of that Hebrew.

“And also”

Another unusual construction using “and” is the Hebrew use of “and also.” In this case, English also uses “and” but Hebrew must add “also.” In Hebrew this construct, “and also,” is used to denote a strong link between two things. Again, this structure is common throughout the Book of Mormon (it occurs 447 times). For example, in 1 Nephi 8:3 “and also” appears twice:

“And behold, because of the thing which I have seen, I have reason to rejoice in the Lord because of Nephi and also of Sam; for I have reason to suppose that they, and also many of their seed, will be saved.”

“If . . . . and”

Here is yet another place where the Hebrew “and” shows up in a strange place. The Hebraic equivalent of the English if-then clause is the Hebrew if-and clause. This is not found in the current editions of the Book of Mormon, nor is it found anywhere in and English Old Testament. But, it was in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. For example, this is how Helaman 12:13-21 appeared in that edition:

“. . . yea, and if he sayeth unto the earth Move and it is moved; yea, and if he sayeth unto the earth, Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours, and it is done; . . . And behold, also, if he sayeth unto the waters of the great deep, Be thou dried up, and it is done. Behold, if he sayeth unto this mountain, Be thou raised up, and come over and fall upon that city, that it be buried up and behold it is done. . . . and if the Lord shall say, Be thou accursed, that no man shall find thee from this time henceforth and forever, and behold, no man getteth it henceforth and forever. And behold, if the Lord shall say unto a man, Because of thine iniquities thou shalt be accursed forever, and it shall be done. And if the Lord shall say, Because of thine iniquities thou shalt be cut off from my presence, and he will cause that it shall be so.”

The Parenthetical Insert

Hebrew does not use the parenthesis or comma, instead, the and character is used to set off what in English would be a parenthetical phrase or comment. In the English Old Testament, the translation has regularly expressed this using the normal English practice of parentheses and commas (leaving the and character untranslated). But, the Book of Mormon, particularly the 1830 edition, used the Hebraic form, usually introducing a parenthetical statement with a now, and ending with and. For example, we read in 3 Nephi 12:1, “When Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now. . the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize, was twelve) and. . behold, he stretched forth his hand” (remember, the punctuation was inserted by the printer). An example of the and . . . and construction is found in the 1830 edition of 1 Nephi 10:17. This reads, “. . . which power was received by faith in the Son of God and. . the Son of God was the Messiah who should come and it came to pass . . .” This is certainly not good English, but it is very good Hebrew.

There Have Been a Lot of Changes!

“Who” / “Which” / “Where”

In Hebrew, the relative “pronoun” ‘aser, which might be translated “which” in English, is used for both human and nonhuman references. This same pronoun is used in place references. The most common correction to the 1830 Book of Mormon grammar has been the change of which to who (891 times). In an additional 66 case, which has been changed to whom. This is another instance where the Hebrew structure of the first edition resulted in unacceptable English sentences. For example, Alma 46:34, in the 1830 edition read, “Now, Moroni being a man which was appointed by the chief judges . . . “

That’s Just Too Much

There have been 188 instances of the word that removed from the Book of Mormon since its 1830 publication. Even a casual reference to the original edition would confirm the need for this drastic revision. Yet, many instances of this Hebraic phrasing still remain in the current text. Here are two examples:

“And because that they are redeemed from the fall” (2 Nephi 2:26)

“because that my heart is broken” (2 Nephi 4:32)

John Tvedtnes explains that Hebrew “begins subordinate clauses with prepositions plus a word that translates into that in English.” This “that” is generally totally redundant in English. But, if the translation is literal, and the translator just doesn’t know any better, that’s what happens.

This Is Not the Way It’s Done in English

Why Not Adverbs?

The Book of Mormon often uses a prepositional phrase in place of an adverb. This is not good English, but then the book does not claim to be English. Joseph said he was translating from Hebrew and Hebrew has very few adverbs. In Hebrew, a preposition is used instead. Consider the following Book of Mormon Hebraisms:

“with harshness” instead of “harshly”

“with joy” instead of “joyfully”

“with gladness” instead of “gladly”

“with patience” instead of “patiently”

“with diligence” instead of “diligently”

“in diligence” instead of “diligently”

“in abundance” instead of “abundantly”

“in righteousness” instead of “righteously”

“in the spirit” instead of “spiritually”

“of worth” instead of “worthy”

“of a surety” instead of “surely”

John Tvedtnes makes this further observation about Hebrew adverbs: “At least one adjective (harebeh, ‘many, exceeding’) is used adverbially, but more often a prepositional phrase is used. The Book of Mormon is replete with adverbial usage of the adjective ‘exceeding’ (as in ‘exceeding great joy’–instead of ‘exceedingly’–in 1 Nephi 8:12).” Just another thread in our tapestry.

“Plates brass” and “Book Mormon”?

Where English uses possessives, Semitic languages like Hebrew and Arabic use what is called the construct state. Instead of saying David’s city, the Hebrew literally says city David. This is, of course, translated “city of David.” This word order also applies to descriptions. While the normal English phrasing would be brass plates, the Hebrew word order would be plates brass, translated “plates of brass,” the “of” being supplied by the translator. The phrase “brass plates” does not occur in the Book of Mormon, while “plates of brass” occurs 27 times. Both possessives and the normal English descriptive statements (like brass plates) are nearly absent from the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. Instead, the Book of Mormon is full of Hebraisms like:

Descriptives			Possessives
night of darkness	rod of iron		sword of Laban	record of Jared
words of plainness	land of promise		plates of Nephi	Brother of Jared
mist of darkness	skin of blackness		Book of Mormon	language of Jacob
state of probation	altar of stones		army of Moroni	people of Ammon

What’s with These Crazy Pronouns?

Pronouns in Hebrew are frequently overused by English standards. The following are two examples of this Hebraism which are common to both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon.

Redundant Pronouns: Hebrew often uses a pronoun in a subordinate clause which refers to the same person or object referenced in the main clause. For example, Nephi says, “I beheld, and saw the people of the seed of my brethren that they. . had overcome my seed.” (1 Nephi 12:20).

Possessive Pronouns: In Hebrew, pronouns used for possession are attached as suffixes to the noun. This is similar to the “plates brass” construction. For example, the literal Hebrew of his house would be equivalent to house-his. Just as in the case of the translation of “plates brass” the translator may supply an “of” resulting in a sometimes strange English expression in the form “house of him.” An example of this is found in Jacob 5:2, where Jacob says, “hear the words of me.” (Check it out, that’s the way it’s still written in the latest edition.) More often, this will be translated “his house,” or “my words.” Even this good English translation results in a strange construction when there is more than one object referenced. Since the pronoun is attached to the noun, a literal translation must repeat the relative pronoun. This is illustrated in 1 Nephi 2:4. Nephi, describing his father’s departure from Jerusalem says. “And he left his. . house, and the land of his. . inheritance, and his. . gold, and his. . silver, and his precious things. . . .”

“From before”?

The expression “from before” occurs 78 times in the King James translation of the Old Testament. These are expressions like: “from before thee,” “from before them,” “from before thy presence,” and “from before thy face.” This is a Hebraism and does not occur in the New Testament. This form of expression appears 21 times in the Book of Mormon. Some might say that Joseph just copied this from the Old Testament. With this in mind, one example is interesting. The Hebrew phrase mil-li-phnê can be literally translated “from before the face of.” or “from before my face,” or “from before the presence of.” Of the 21 Book of Mormon occurrences of “from before,” thirteen are closely related to “from before my face.” This is exactly the wording of six of these. Only once does “from before my face” appear in the KJV of the Old Testament.

“In” or “To”?

The Hebrew words translated into English as “in” and “to” are sometimes interchangeable in Hebrew sentence structure. Could this explain an interesting “error” in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon? In that edition, 1 Nephi 7:12 read, “Let us be faithful in him.”

Neither “more” Nor “er” ???

In Hebrew there is no equivalent for the normal English phrasing of comparisons. In English we might say, “He is more. . handsome,” or “She is taller. ..” Neither this use of more nor the addition of the suffix er, is possible in Hebrew. Instead of more, Hebrew uses above all. This should be very familiar to Book of Mormon readers as this “above all” comparison occurs 35 times in the current Book of Mormon text. There are many familiar examples: “choice above all other lands”; “sweet, above all that I ever before tasted”; “the tree which is precious above all. ..” And in 1 Nephi 13:30, it occurs twice: “and have been lifted up by the power of God above all. . other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands.”

Taxing Taxes

There exists in the Semitic languages a construction called the “cognate accusative.” It consists of a verb immediately followed by a noun derived from the same root, and is often used for emphasis. The Book of Mormon has many excellent examples:

“they are cursed with a sore cursing” instead of sorely cursed

“work all manner of fine work” instead of do fine work

“and he did judge righteous judgments” instead of judge righteously

“Behold I have dreamed a dream” instead of I had a dream

“taxed with a tax” Instead of taxed

Name that Name

In 1 Nephi 2:8, the following appears: “And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman. . . . ” In English, we would ordinarily expect to read “he called the river Laman,” or “he named the river Laman.” However, in both Hebrew and Arabic the construction of this phrase would be similar to the cognate accusative: “he named. . the name.” This construction is seen throughout the Book of Mormon. Almost always it’s the name that is named.

Numerals

In English compound numbers are hyphenated. We write twenty-five. In Hebrew the conjunction “and” is always used to express this compound (twenty and five). The Book of Mormon always uses this Hebrew form for expressing compound numbers.

Compound Subjects

In proper English, when a person speaks of themselves and another, the reference to the speaker should always come last. In Hebrew, this is reversed. Thus, “my brother and I” would be “I and my brother.” The Book of Mormon consistently uses this Hebrew form.

Compound Prepositions

While rare in the English Bible, the Hebrew compound preposition is found throughout the Book of Mormon. Here are some examples:

by the hand of your enemies instead of “by your enemy’s hand”

by the mouth of all the prophets instead of “said by all the prophets,” or “by the prophet’s mouth”

down into the land of Nephi instead of “down to Nephi,” or “down to the land of Nephi”

fled from before my presence instead of “fled from me,” or “fled from my presence”

Repeated Prepositions

In Hebrew when a preposition refers to multiple objects, it is usual for the preposition to be repeated with the mention of each object. In English we might say, “I was pleased with the work of Tom, Dick, and Harry.” In Hebrew this would be: “I was pleased with the work of Tom, and of Dick, and of Harry.” It might even be: “. . . the work of Tom, and the work of Dick, and the work of Harry.” This can be seen in 2 Samuel 6:5, where we read, “Even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals.” This construction is also common in the Book of Mormon. For example, in Lehi’s instruction to his son, Jacob (2 Nephi 2:5), he says:

“And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.”

Prophetic Perfect

This one is interesting. Angela Crowell tells us that in Hebrew an action is either completed or uncompleted–there are no past, present, or future tenses. Instead, they have what are called the perfect and the imperfect tense. The perfect tense is used when speaking of the past and the imperfect when speaking of the future. However, in a fascinating exception to this rule, Hebrew prophets generally use the perfect tense when speaking of future events. This is called the prophetic perfect. Thus, the prophet will describe a future event as if it had already occurred. “For unto us a child is. . born,” is a familiar example from Isaiah. Anyone who has read the Book of Mormon is aware that this pattern is followed throughout. The Nephi prophets continually speak of Christ as if he had already come. They continually speak of the atonement as if it had already occurred. They continually speak as if they were Hebrew prophets.

Plural Forms

The plural form in Hebrew would seem strange and ambiguous to most of us. There are words that are always plural, like: hayyim (“lives”); samayim (“heavens”); mayim (“waters”). Some words, like hand, head, moth, tongue, and voice are generally singular, even when referring to more than one person. Plurals are used for emphasis and the plural form of “God” (elohim) always takes a singular verb. This is strange and complex stuff. It’s so far from English usage that any translator whose primary language was English would be expected to convert these plurals to standard English form. But, what if this translator had limited education, perhaps not sufficiently familiar with his mother tongue to even compose an intelligible letter? Joseph just told Oliver what he saw in the words of the record and this educated, yet humble, scribe just wrote as he was told. So we have:

“Great slaughters with the sword” (1 Nephi 12:2)

“I did exhort them with all the energies of my soul” (1 Nephi 15:25)

“and did reap with your mights” (Alma 26:5 – 1830 edition)

“by the voice of his angels” (Alma 10:20 & 21)

“by the mouth of his holy prophets” (2 Nephi 9:2)

Word Plays?

Did the original Book of Mormon contain word plays which are not apparent to us in the English translation. We know that the Hebrew of the Old Testament is replete with cleaver word selections, names being the principal example. Of course, without reference to the original language, these kinds of word plays are really impossible to identify in the Book of Mormon. At the same time, if we assume that the original language had a Semitic derivation, there are some interesting coincidences that can be observed. I here look at four of these: the place names Nahom, and Jershon, together with Lehi’s river and valley. Dr. Nibley, in his consideration of the origin of proper names in the Book of Mormon, provides many more interesting examples.⁽⁵⁾

Nahom

Nahom (or NHM, the vowels must be added) is a Hebrew word meaning “consolation” or “comfort.” In Arabic, this same word has the meaning of “to sigh” or “to moan.” As Lehi’s party were traveling in the wilderness, they buried Ishmael “in a place called Nahom.” Is it just coincidence that in describing this event, Nephi commented that Ishmael’s daughters “did mourn exceedingly.”

Jershon

In Hebrew, Jershon means “place of inheritance.” Jershon was the name that the Nephi’s gave to the land given as a refuge to Ammon’s convert Lamanites. In Alma 27:22 we read that this land was given to these Lamanites “for an inheritance.”

A “nhr” and an “êtn“

Nhr is a Hebrew word for river. It comes from a root meaning “to flow” and also has the secondary meaning of “to shine.” Similarly, êtn is a Hebrew word for valley. More specifically, it speaks of a valley that is “perennial, overflowing, enduring, and firm.” Could these be the words Lehi used when he admonished Laman to, “Be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness”; and Lemuel to, “Be like this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable”?

Conclusion

Yes, the original text of the Book of Mormon, and even our current edition, contains many expressions that are not characteristic of English. It is true that in many places that original text betrayed the scanty schooling of its translator. As the above examples have illustrated, that translator appears to have been unable to go far beyond the literal representation of the text before him. That the word order and semantic expression of that text was Semitic and at least a near cousin to Hebrew can hardly be questioned.

Does this prove the Book of Mormon true? No. But, the book certainly isn’t the product of the imagination of an uneducated New York farm boy.

---

References:

1. John Tvedtnes, “The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon,” included in, Sorenson & Thorne, Ed., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, p. 78. The general sources for this paper include this article by John Tvedtnes together with:

Angela Crowell and John Tvedtnes, “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS pamphlet, C&T-82

John Tvedtnes, “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon: A Preliminary Study,” BYU Studies, Vol. 11. No. 1, pp. 50-60. Also included in FARMS pamphlet, C&T-82.

I Have a Question,” Ensign, October 1986, answered by John Tvedtnes. Also included in FARMS pamphlet, C&T-82.

John Tvedtnes, “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS pamphlet, TVE-VIT.

2. John Tvedtnes, “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon: A Preliminary Study,” BYU Studies, Vol. 11. No. 1, p. 50.

3. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, p. 37

4. John Welch, Ed, Reexploring the Book of Mormon. “Words and Phrases,” p. 284.

5. See, Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, chapter 2, “Men of the East.”

© Copyright 1999 by Richard G. Grant.
Free use is granted, with attribution, for any non-pecuniary purposes.

“How do you know the Book of Mormon comes from God?”,Excerpt from aboutthemormons.com

 
Preston wrote a comment on December 15, 2008

Well, it’s pretty simple. I asked Him. I asked God if the book of Mormon was true or if it was a fake. If you think that God doesn’t answer prayers, you are very wrong. He answered me by filling my heart with joy and happiness. This was the way I knew the Book of Mormon is true. You can ask Him too. Just read it, even just a little of it and then ask Him. He’ll answer.

 

Eric Strom wrote a comment on December 15, 2008

There is only one way to know if the book of mormon is from god. That is to ask god him self. He is our Heavenly Father. He loves us. Just like you ask your parents Questions in search of Awswers. You can do the same with god. At the end of the Book of Mormon the last author Moroni says this “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye should pray and ask God the Eternal Father in the name of christ if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart with real intent having faith in Christ, he shall manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power if the holy ghost.”
I promise you if you pray really wanting to know if the Book of mormon is of god. And you ask. You will get an answer.

 

Brian wrote a comment on December 16, 2008

I don’t bare my testimony much, but when I saw this, I really just wanted to share how I know. There is only one way to know if the Book of Mormon comes from God, we have to ask God himself. When I was about seven years old, my sunday school teacher, Brother Guilliam, told us that the book of mormon was true and all we had to do was pray about it. I was a very restless kid, didn’t think much about anything in life. I pretty much ran around in circles till I couldn’t run anymore. But when I heard that I could know for myself, I had an overwhelming desire to want to know for myself. So once I got home from church, I went into my room. I knelt down and offered a prayer to My Heavenly Father. I asked him if the Book of Mormon was true. And the moment the thought entered my mind, I was rushed with a feeling of love, comfort and joy. My prayer was answered. The Book of Mormon is true, and I know that anyone can find out for themselves if they will open their heart to the promptings of the spirit. I am so thankful that my teacher shared this with a seven year old boy. It is the reason I have become who I am today

 

Felis H wrote a comment on December 17, 2008

To be frank, I just know. I’ve never doubted the Book of Mormon because I know that it is true. I’m a history major, and the fact that I can compare what is written in the Book or Mormon to what is written in history just further edifies the fact that it’s true. I know that everything written in that book is written for a reason and can be applied to everyday living. It’s like a handbook to life, you just have to read, apply, and have faith.

 

Elder Eric James Martin wrote a comment on December 18, 2008

Through divine revelation from the Spirit of God to my spirit and by no other way.

 

Rachel Miranda wrote a comment on December 21, 2008 “>

I always thought it was true having been raised in the church and baptized at age 8. My own conversion did not happen until I was in the MTC preparing to go to Argentina. I had been practicing teaching certain gospel principles (Joseph Smith, prophets, Book of Mormon, etc) and our teacher invited us to pray about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Up to that point in my life, I had never prayed and asked God for myself if the Book of Mormon was true or not. I felt it was true and never doubted it. Anyways, I wanted to pray and know for myself. I prayed for several days and got the answer in class later that week as I was teaching/testifying of the Book of Mormon. I will never forget what I felt – it was peace and joy. My spirit was enlightened; God answered my prayer. I continue to receive revelation as I read it that it is a true book. Joseph Smith did translate the gold plates with the power of God and we are so blessed to have it today to guide us in these latter days and perilous times.

 

Tyler Andersen wrote a comment on December 24, 2008

I know the Book of Mormon comes from God for many reasons. One, I have read the book in its entirety and from a neutral point of view, I can honestly say the Book of Mormon could not have come about were in not by the inspiration and power of God, through His Prophet, Joseph Smith. External evidences, such as the discovery of “Nahom” a place mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being somewhere in the Arabian desert and it actually being found validate these believes I have, but those came after I already believed. Uto-Aztecan language links to Hebraic and Semitic languages are other good examples.

 

Rebecca wrote a comment on December 28, 2008

A few years ago, I made a resolution to read the entire Book of Mormon. When I finished, I decided take the invitation written near the end in Moroni: to ask God with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ. I got on my knees and prayed to God, probably more sincerely then I ever have in my life. A warming, comforting feeling surrounded me, almost like God was wrapping his arms around me. I felt happy, enlightened, peaceful, and emotional all at the same time. God answered my prayer, as insignificant as I was. I knew from that point on that the Book of Mormon was true, and I could not deny it. Now every time I read it, I get that same feeling of joy and peace that the book comes from God. That is how I know. God revealed it to me through his spirit.

 

Kirill Klimov wrote a comment on January 4, 2009

I was asking to God to know if the Book of Mormon is true. And God has answered me. He said “Yes” by gentle voice of Holy Ghost.

 

Ryan White wrote a comment on January 7, 2009

Number one I have read it and things that are in the Book of Mormon apply to me today. I learn how I can be a better Christian and while I read it the Holy Ghost testifies to me that it is true. Just by reading I feel peace, love, happiness which are feelings that come from the Holy Ghost who testifies the truth.
Number two I have prayed to know if the Book of Mormon is true. I can’t explain in words but I know that the Holy Ghost testified to me that this Book is true. I love the Book of Mormon and I know it helps us to draw closer to Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven. I know that anyone can pray to know if the Book of Mormon is true because Heavenly Father loves all of his children and he wants his children to know the truth!

 

melinda wrote a comment on January 8, 2009

Do you think God got the bible wrong the first time?

 

admin wrote a comment on January 8, 2009

That’s a great question, Melinda. What most people don’t understand about the Book of Mormon is that it doesn’t actually replace the Bible. We, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, believe equally in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is similar to the Bible and they support one another but in no regards does the Book of Mormon try to replace the Bible or its teachings.

 

Lee Brent wrote a comment on February 1, 2009

I always believed in the power of prayer. It really is quite simple as pointed out by Preston. Sometimes, it seems irrational to talk to an unseen being and expect an answer back. To a natural man who has little faith in God, it would seem a little bit odd and some would think it’s crazy. But if you do believe in God and have faith in Him, it is time to put that faith into the test of asking Him whether the Book of Mormon is of Him. It took me a lot of courage, faith, prayers, and desire before I came to know that the Book of Mormon was indeed from God. I had my doubts, but God did answer my prayers. I felt peace and a loving assurance that it is indeed true. And I knew that it was from the Holy Ghost, the testifier of all truth. We are all entitled to answers to our questions. It’s just a matter of turning faith into action, acting on that desire we have in our hearts.

 

Patrick Alejandro wrote a comment on February 1, 2009

How amazing it is that this particular question was already answered by a prophet-warrior named Moroni almost 1,500 years ago. He proclaimed that if we want to know if the Book of Mormon is true, SEARCH its pages, PONDER on them, and ASK GOD if it is true.

These 3 steps will surely answer our every humble desire to know if the Book of Mormon is true.

 

Teri wrote a comment on February 2, 2009

I grew up in the church, although we were the only Mormons in town. We were not what you called “actively involved” in the church. We were in a town in Mexico, and hence I grew up also attending mass and other services in the Catholic church. I even taught catechism to younger kids when I was in elementary school. However, all my live I felt a force within me “communicating” with me that the things I learned through the Mormon church were true. I could “feel” the whisperings of the Spirit in my heart and in my mind, and I simply just KNEW that this was the true church. However, when I got to be a teen, I rebelled, I lost my way, I was completely inactive and wanted nothing more to do with God. Luckily, the Lord has a way of watching out for us and helping us along the way. I was reactivated when I was 19 and by the time I was 20 I wanted to REALLY know for myself, once and for all, whether or not this church was “TRUE”.  I had heard it all my life, but I had never taken the time to study it out, and pray about it myself – just between God and me – no one else. I knew that I could never go on and be fully active unless God Himself made it manifest to me that yes, indeed, this was HIS church on earth. I knew that all the other churches taught part of the gospel of Christ, they all had something good to share. But I also knew that if God had a Church on earth, that church would contain all the truths, not part of them. I knew that His true church would somehow not “argue” about doctrine and try to bash other churches, as I have personally experienced the Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, First Christian Church, and Methodist churches doing. If they all read the Lord’s Bible – how could they possible interpret it so differently. Each Church having their own theology and “training” for their ministers. If God’s word is true, in the Bible, then the churches should not be differing on its meaning and interpretation. But differ they do. Just as Joseph Smith Jr. experienced, I have experienced.

So…. I took it upon myself to read the Book of Mormon all the way through for the first time in my life. At the same time, i was attending a “Religions of the world” class in college. After weeks of studying the scriptures, fasting and praying, I arrived in class one day to find that the professor had a movie for us to watch that day. it was a movie I had never seen before in my life. It was “The First Vision”, an LDS movie put out by the Church. As I sat in the back of the room watching this movie, I cannot describe the feeling and depth of the way the Holy Ghost burned it into my soul at that very moment that what I was watching on the screen had, indeed, taken place in reality and had truly occurred, just as Joseph Smith Jr. had described. I knew in the depth of my soul – by a heavenly manifestation- that Joseph Smith Jr. was, indeed, a true prophet of God. And I knew instinctively that, that being true, all the other things I have learned about and been taught about the Gospel and about the Mormon church, were also true. I walked out of that classroom in what seemed like a cloud of exultation. I couldn’t talk, I couldn’t walk, I simply stood propped against the hallway wall and cried. My heart wanted to scream out to the world “It’s TRUE! It’s TRUE!!! It’s ALL TRUE!!!” I knew for myself…. between God and me…. that this is in fact HIs true and only authorized Church upon the earth. I knew it holds the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, in order to run the affairs of the Kingdom of God upon the earth and to perform and ordinances that are essential to all of humanity’s eternal life!

What a glorious day that was! Words cannot describe how the Spirit speaks to man. To say the feelings and thoughts and whispers rush into one’s mind and heart and seems to “brand” the message into your very DNA is nothing compared to the experience of having the Holy Ghost TESTIFY to your entire soul that this particular message is true.

But that is exactly what happened to me that day… and I shall never forget it for as long as I live.

I am so thankful for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I pray I may be a good example to the world, that I may be able to speak up and share the Good News with my brothers and sisters in this world who are walking about, looking for that eternal truth, and not knowing where to find it.

God bless us all in our search for that Happiness.

I share this with you, the world, in the name of our Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father…. Amen.

 

John wrote a comment on February 26, 2009

Well I know it is true- How do I know? Well about the age of 19 I decided the entire church was a fabrication- I was a frequent visitor to the anti mormon sites- And pretty soon the most simple gospel concepts were lost to me.

Suddenly free from rules and regulations- I proceeded to do every single thing I have ever been taught not to do. In short order I dug myself into a hole so deep I thought to myself even if there is a God not even he can’t get me out of this…

I did everything I wasn’t supposed to, and distanced myself from God as much as possible. Then when I was at the lowest point any man can be at, I cried, knelt down on my knees and asked God to save me from the mess I put myself in-

In utter amazement when I was done praying I was perfectly fine. I can’t explain how much of a miracle it was since I can’t really explain the utter mental agony I was in. Alma the younger is really the only comparison I can give.

I went from being in a hell I thought I was never coming out of, to complete peace of mind. People that say miracles don’t happen any more, well they do I have experienced them.

“Where there changes from the 1830 Book of Mormon?”,Excerpt from realmormonism.com

Were there changes from the 1830 Book of Mormon?

A common question (or criticism) of the Book of Mormon is whether there have been changes to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. The answer is “yes”, there have been changes. However, it’s important to understand the nature of and reasons for the changes.

First, let’s review the translation process. Joseph Smith, separated from the scribe, would read aloud the translation. The scribe (who changed periodically throughout the translation) would record what he/she heard Joseph say. If you read aloud 500+ pages to a friend who was writing, do you think errors would result?

Second, a scribe transcribed from the original manuscript to the printer’s manuscript. A study by FAIR found that on average, scribes made two to three textual changes per manuscript page. Again, if you quickly transcribed 500+ pages by hand, do you anticipate that there would be mistakes?

Next, after the printer’s manuscript was delivered to the printer, the printer added in a lot of punctuation to the text. Some of this punctuation was not in accordance with the original translation.

Finally, the press was typeset by hand for each of the 500+ pages of the 1830 Book of Mormon. Undoubtedly, more human errors influenced the final text.

To me, there are three important takeaways from this discussion. First, there were human errors in every step of the translation, transcript and printing process. Second, the “changes” to the Book of Mormon that critics point to are defined almost entirely by ever-so-slight punctuation or grammatical changes to correct for these mistakes. Third and most importantly, changes in the text from the 1830 Book of Mormon show only that there was human error, and in no way influences the fact that the Book of Mormon was brought forth through the gift of God.

On the title page of the Book of Mormon are these words:

Wise advice indeed. I would encourage you to pick up a replica of the 1830 Book of Mormon and a current copy and review the “changes” for yourself.

“Importance of the 1830 Book of Mormon”,Excerpt from realmormonism.com

Importance of the 1830 Book of Mormon

If you’re not familiar with how the Book of Mormon came to be, I’d encourage you to visit http://www.mormon.org or http://www.lds.org which give more historical details.

After the prophet Joseph Smith Jr. had finished the translation of the Book of Mormon, he contracted with E.B. Grandin in Palmyra, New York to print the first run of 5,000 copies.  As they rolled off the press, Joseph and others began to share them with believers, non-believers, and other truth seekers.  Soon, the story of Joseph Smith and the golden plates was spreading throughout the United States and in other areas of the world.

Missionaries took the Book of Mormon to many states, to England and other countries in Europe, and ultimately throughout the world to share the 1830 Book of Mormon.  Why?  Because it was another testament of Jesus Christ and with the Bible, gave additional insight into the divine mission of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Historians, both Mormon and non-Mormon, have questioned, “Is the Book of Mormon the most influential book printed in the 19th century?”  Perhaps an even more intriguing question is “Will it become the most influential book ever printed aside from the Bible?”  I don’t intend to discount the many classics that have been penned, or the many other religious books like the Koran that have touched the lives of hundreds of millions.

But if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be–another testament of Jesus Christ written by ancient prophets in the Americas–there will in the future likely be no ambiguity about its importance in history.

John P. Pratt, “Miraculous Printing of the Book of Mormon?” Meridian Magazine.com

Latter-day Saints have from their beginning believed that a series of miracles led to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. But among the many recorded miracles, including an angel revealing where golden plates were buried and special interpreters being used so that they could be translated by the gift and power of God, to my knowledge the actual printing of the first edition of the Book of Mormon passed almost without comment among Church historians until recently. It took an “old-time” printer turned L.D.S. Institute of Religion teacher named Gordon Weight to notice that it may have been miraculous to print 5,000 copies of the Book of Mormon in only seven months with the technology of that time. This article reviews and evaluates the evidence from his booklet entitled Miracle on Palmyra’s Main Street.^[1]

Why is this article appearing in my Science and Religion column of Meridian Magazine? It seems appropriate for three reasons. First, it involves several calculations concerning the “science” of printing, which require a technical review. Second, long ago I was an “old-time” printer myself, and hence have some qualifications to critique his work.^[2] And finally, I believe I can supply one missing piece of the puzzle, namely, just what was the approaching publication deadline that might have required angelic intervention to attain.

Historical Review

The seven months it took to print the Book of Mormon are well documented. The contract with E. B. Grandin’s print shop to print the book was signed on Tue 25 Aug 1829, and the completed book was on sale by Fri 26 March 1830.^[3] Should we suspect anything is unusual just by knowing that it took only seven months?

Business as Usual?

Seven months has seemed like plenty of time to print a book, so it is not surprising that almost nothing more has been stated in official histories of the Church. For example, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s History of the Church passes over the printing in one phrase: “Whilst the Book of Mormon was in the hands of the printer, we still continued to bear testimony . . .” (DHC I:74-75).

B. H. Robert’s Comprehensive History of the Church doesn’t elaborate much more on such a mundane issue as taking a book to be printed. He does include excerpts from the account of the typesetter John H. Gilbert that he did most of the punctuation of the book, notes that there was a special second manuscript produced just for the printer, and includes the account of Esquire Cole printing his own newspaper at nights and on Sunday at the same print shop. Cole was illegally including “one form per week” of the Book of Mormon in his newspaper, peppering it with vulgarity, so that his readers could read it without paying the Smiths for it.^[4] The Prophet Joseph’s mother’s account includes this story in detail.^[5] While none of these accounts addressed anything special about the printing operation per se, they include some useful details, such as that the printing of the Book of Mormon was not done at night, nor on Sundays, and that it was being completed at a rate of at least “one form per week.” We will consider below just what a “form” was, and what technical information that gives us. Sister Smith notes that her son Hyrum discovered that Cole had been publishing the excerpts for some 6 to 8 weeks before he was caught and stopped.

If official church histories noted nothing unusual in the actual printing, why should anyone think that yet another miracle might have been required to accomplish the task? It is here that we need the expertise of an “old-time” printer to enumerate the difficulties that had to be surmounted.

Estimate of Required Production Time

Gordon Weight was well qualified to make the calculations he did of just what it would take to print the Book of Mormon in 1830. He was a compositor (typesetter) for the Deseret News newspaper in Salt Lake City, when it was still typeset by hand in the 1950’s. Soon afterward that process would be replaced with the linotype machine which pours hot lead to form an entire line of type at a time, and which was set by an operator at a typewriter keyboard. When I worked in 1964 in a print shop, handset type had nearly all been replaced by the linotype machine. At that time I purchased all of what remained of their handset type, cases and accessories for pennies on the dollar for my own handpress business. Thus, I too have experience both in typesetting by hand as well as running several hand presses. In his book, Gordon tells how they had contests to see who could set type the fastest, because it was a critical skill needed to make press deadlines for breaking news stories. Thus, he was used to timing himself and was very familiar with exactly how long it took the fastest typesetters to set type.

Typesetting Time

Having set thousands of lines of type myself, I am a second witness to Mr. Weight’s review of the difficulty of setting type. First, the typesetter needs to be able to read letters set upside-down because that his how the print looks in the hand held composition “stick” into which the type is set. But that is not much of a problem because a compositor learns to read type upside-down almost as easily as normally.

Typesetting in the composing stick

The real problem is getting all of the lines to be the right length. After a line of type is set in the composing stick, different size spaces must be inserted so that all of the lines are “justified,” that is, made to be exactly the same length. That can take as long as setting the entire line. It is necessary so that every piece of type is held in place by the side pressure exerted on it by the wooden blocks (called “furniture”). If a line is too short, it tends to fall out, and it if is too long, all the other lines fall out. Even in a flat bed press, loose type will tend to “work-up” and cause problems.

Another tedious part of typesetting is that after use, it all has to be “broken down,” that is, redistributed one letter at a time back into the two type cases. By the way, if you have ever wondered about why we call capital letters “uppercase” and small letters “lowercase” it is because the handset type was stored at that time in two cases, with the capitals in the upper case. In my day, it was all put into one case, but that single “California” case was not invented until the 1880’s.

Weight points out that at his best typesetting rates, it would have taken all seven months of the allotted Book of Mormon production time just to set and break down the type. That point alone caused him to suspect that there may have been some “outside help” because there was only one typesetter, and he could not work full time on typesetting because he was also one of the two pressman for the first three months of work. That typesetter was John H. Gilbert, from whom the 23-year-old E. B. Grandin had bought the Wayne Sentinel newspaper. Fortunately, Gilbert prepared a statement for the LDS exhibit at the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago of some of the details of the printing, which is readily accessible on the internet.^[6]

It is necessary to understand something about the printing process at the time to appreciate some of the logistic details that caused Weight to conclude that miracles must have been occurring. After the type was set for 16 pages, the 16-page “form” (now usually called a “signature”) was locked down and printed. Then that type was broken down and the next 16-page form was typeset. Thus, typesetting could not be done continually for two reasons. First, the typesetter was also one of the two pressmen, the other being J. H. Bortles. Secondly, Weight argues that he sees no way that Grandin would have had enough type to have Gilbert be setting another 16-page form while one form was being printed. That argument was based on the fact that Joseph Smith required “new type” in the contract, and that was not easy to come by quickly at that time. Thus, he argues that the press time must be added to the typesetting time because the two operations could not be done simultaneously.

Printing

The actual process of printing was painstakingly slow in 1830. The work was accomplished on a recently purchased Smith press, of which a near-perfect replica has been produced by Steve Pratt of Beaver, Utah (see illustration^[7]). The printing was done with all 16-pages printed with one impression on one side of a piece of paper about 18 x 30 inches in size. Then those same 16 pages were printed on the other side in such as way that opposite pages were in the correct places, and then paper then cut in half so that each sheet made two 16-page signatures. Thus, the 5,000 impressions required 2,500 sheets of paper for each of the 37 signatures needed. That’s a lot of paper, which would have made a stack about forty feet high.^[8]

Replica of the press used to print the Book of Mormon.

The printing process required that the type be inked by hand with a leather ball filled with sand. That fact shocked me. Why didn’t they use a rubber ink roller like I did, which would have been so much faster? Because Charles Goodyear didn’t learn how to vulcanize rubber until 1843! It was a very different world in 1830.

After a sheet of paper was placed on the inked type, the bed with the type and paper was cranked over under the platen, and the lever was pulled to print the form. This process was repeated 5,000 times for each of the 37 signatures. Weight estimated that it would have taken an hour to make 100 impressions, which would require nearly three days (25 hours) to do the 2,500 impressions on one side of a piece of paper. He equates that with Gilbert’s statement that it took “nearly three days to print each form.” If so, then it would require 50 hours for each of 37 signatures, which Weight estimates to have taken some 8.5 months for the printing alone. Considering that Weight believed that the printing could not be done simultaneously with the typesetting, that would require 15.5 months for the two jobs together. But that does not include the binding time.

Binding

The laborious job of binding the 5,000 books by hand required that all of the signatures be completed before the final binding of the first book could begin. As each signature was completed the sheets were cut in half, then folded three times and clamped in a device which Grandin invented, called the Grandin Clamp. That part of the work could keep up with the press work. But only after the last signature was completed could the signatures be sewn together by hand through the back of each signature. Then the books were removed from the clamp and trimmed to size with a hand paper cutter. Then the leather-wrapped cardboard covers were attached. Weight estimates that two months would be required to bind the copies of the Book of Mormon after all the press work was completed. Thus his total estimate of the time that should have been required to produce the first edition of the Book of Mormon was 17.5 months. But it was completed in almost exactly 7 months. Thus, he concludes that some sort of miraculous intervention must have occurred, but doesn’t speculate on just what it might have been.

Other Unusual Events

Weight asks several other questions and implies that the lack of good answers also points to miraculous events. To me they clearly point the way where future research is needed before any compelling evidence for miracles can be drawn. These questions include:

Why did E.B. Grandin change his mind about printing the book, after having originally refused to have anything to do with Joseph Smith’s “Gold Bible”? Weight hints that Angel might have visited him to assure him all would be well. He does not speculate that any supernatural source might have given Grandin the idea for the binding clamp he invented.

Where did the large amount of new type come from to print the book, as required in the contract? Historians have suggested Albany, but Weight claims there were no local foundries and that all type at the time came from Germany or China. Weight estimates that it would have weighed at least 760 pounds just to be able to set 16 pages at a time.

Where did the paper come from? At the request of Joseph Smith, the contract also called for thin white paper, opaque enough not to see the print on the other side of the page. Weight claims that the process for producing such paper used had not been developed by that time and that most books were printed either on one side of the page, or on thick paper. Moreover, the paper was apparently all delivered mysteriously one night.^[9] Why would Grandin agree to such an unreasonable request? And who paid for all this new type and special paper, seeing as Martin Harris had not yet sold his farm to make any payment at all for materials?

Why wasn’t the work stopped by mobs destroying the press as with other publications of sacred works of the restoration? Here Weight offers folklore accounts of attempts to do so that were thwarted by miraculous methods, which also need more research to verify. They included an account that when the mob tried to disassemble the press they found it one solid piece held together by “angel glue.” When they further tried to push the press through the wall out onto the street from the third floor of the building, the building was said to “groan” so much, apparently on the verge of collapse, that the mob left in a panic. Those are great stories, but much more verification is needed.

My Commentary

Weight leaves the reader with the definite conclusion that some sort of divine intervention was required to get the Book of Mormon printed in a mere seven months. He does not provide any specifics on just how those miracles were accomplished. He convinced me that something out of the ordinary was going on, but I cannot leave the subject without some attempt to explain what really happened. So here is my attempt at an explanation, which is calculation mixed with speculation.

Economy of Miracles

Before I begin, I must state my own personal prejudice, which could even be dignified by being called a theory of miracles. I call it the “Economy of Miracles” or “Economy of Revelation” principle. It is that the Lord will always provide the minimum miracle or revelation that will fulfill his purpose. In this case, for example, he won’t employ angels to do typesetting and presswork at night, which would surely be discovered, if the same result could be accomplished by hiring another pressman or getting some more type. This is especially true when he is trying to remain low-profile and not have the miracles noticed. The exception to my proposed rule may be the cases when he wants to be high-profile and let people know with certainty that his arm has not been shortened, in which case he might use a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. But even that seems to me to be the smallest miracle to get the job done as he wishes. This principle also ties in with Ron Millett’s “Fair Test” principle in last month’s article that the Lord cannot make it so obvious that his work is true that people would not have a fair test of their faith.^[10] So we cannot expect Angel Moroni to come down in a pillar of light to deliver the type nor the paper. The Lord finds much more subtle ways to get “mini-miracles” accomplished, which often go entirely unnoticed.

Justifying a line was tedious.

Typesetting

With that in mind, let us consider each of Weight’s estimates in the light of knowing the answer in advance: the work indeed was completed in seven months. I must agree with Weight that is hard to imagine setting, proofing, justifying, and making ready a page of the Book of Mormon in less than two hours. It would have taken me much longer than that. That implies 4 months of 60-hour weeks (six 10-hour days), which is about what I think it actually took. As for redistributing the type after setting, I think his estimate of 2.5 months is too high. I could break down the type in about a quarter of the setting time because it could just be dropped quickly into the compartments, rather than having to set it carefully in position, and there is no time required for proofing or justifying. Thus, my estimate would be only about one more month needed for redistribution, for a total of five months of typesetting operations.

In the “Folklore” section of his booklet, Weight notes that John Gilbert’s sister reportedly claimed that “on several occasions, he [John Gilbert] would go into the shop in the morning expecting to have to redistribute the type from the previous night’s press run in order to start setting type for the next pages. However, when he arrived, he found the type had already been redistributed back into the type case, and further that every piece of type was neatly standing on its feet, face up, rather than being randomly scattered in its individual compartment.” ^[11]

That is a very interesting claim, which needs more research to substantiate whether or not such a letter still exists. It definitely fits my economy of miracles theory that if angelic intervention was necessary, it would be in breaking down the type rather than setting it.

The principal place where I believe that Weight made a faulty assumption is in the amount of type that was available. He argues that there could only have been enough type to set one 16-page signature, and concludes that even getting that much type would have required a minor miracle. Well, if a miracle is required, then let’s be aggressive and assume that enough type was obtained to set 32 pages at once, so that Gilbert could be setting the next signature while one was being printed. To me this conclusion is almost forced for two reasons. First, the book was indeed completed in only seven months, so somehow the work had to be done faster, and this seems like the easiest way to explain it. Second, another pressman, Thomas McAuley, was hired in December, at which time Gilbert was freed up to spend full time on typesetting. If there had not been sufficient type to keep Gilbert busy, then the second pressman would not have been needed. A simple thing like twice as much type would allow the compositor to work in parallel with the two pressmen, preparing the next form for them to print. Simply having the amount of type necessary to do the job falls neatly into the Economy of Miracles idea. That is, it might have taken a miracle, but it would have been so small as to have gone unnoticed all this time.

The Presswork

I mostly agree with Weight’s estimates of the amount of time it would take to print each page. When I had my own hand press, which could print one 5 x 8 page at a time, it was a much faster operation where one hand could pull the ink rollers across the type while the other hand simultaneously fed the paper. The press on which the Book of Mormon was printed clearly required two men to operate efficiently, with each doing one of those functions. One would ink the type and pull the printing lever while the other would put the paper in place on the type, and then lift it off to dry somewhere. How long would that take?

I estimated charges for my own press work at 600 copies per hour, but I only actually attained that speed when everything when well. Weight estimates 100 impressions per hour for the Book of Mormon. The inking for each page was not done by automatic rollers, or even by a hand roller, but with a ball, which required at least 7 seconds for each impression. Turning the handle to crank the type into position would have required at least 5 seconds each way, the printing level could be pulled in 3 seconds, and the paper put in position and removed in 2 seconds each. So my estimate is 24 seconds each, or 150 per hour. But this estimate is really optimistic and Weight’s estimate of 36 seconds each seems more reasonable. I’m just trying to calculate what it would take to get the job done in the time it actually took. Look again at the earlier illustration of the replica of the press used and ask yourself if you would accept the job of pressman if you knew that was the printing speed expected.

Gilbert says it took 3 days per “form” and it is clear that he meant both sides of the signature, not just one side as Weight assumes. Gilbert is reporting on what actually happened and Weight is estimating what he believes the fastest rate possible in 10-hour days would have been. Three days for each of 37 forms is 111 days, which is less than four months of total printing, not 8.5 months that appeared more reasonable to Weight. My estimate of 150 per hour means it would take 33 hours to complete one form. Redistribution time does not have to be added because the other pressman could have done that while the press was idle. That is three 11-hour days, which was not an uncommon work-day at that time. Thus, a printing rate of 150 per hour and 11-hour days agrees with Gilbert’s recollection of 3 days per form and a total printing time of under four months. That does not require a night shift of printing, which fits with the Esquire Cole story that he was using the press at night.

Here is my proposed scenario. At first there were only two men, so the typesetting could not be done at the same time as the printing. During those first three months, the typesetting of one form required 32 hours (Weight’s estimate) and the printing 33 hours (my estimate). That is 65 hours, which is one 6-day week of about 11 hours each. That rate of one form per week is exactly what Squire Cole had promised his readers, so that fits well. Thus, the work proceeded at one form per week for three months, so that 13 forms were completed by that time. Then a second pressman began, which doubled the production rate because now the 32 hours of typesetting time could be done simultaneously with the 33 hours printing time of the previous form.^[12] That means that thereafter, two forms could be completed in a 66-hour week. That would require another twelve weeks for the last 24 forms, to complete the 37 required. Thus the entire printing could have been done in six months given that there was enough type to set 32 pages concurrently. That would leave one month to bind enough books to begin sales. Do we know that all 5,000 books were bound before the first ones went on sale?

So were any miracles required? I believe that several of the questions that Weight raised may turn out to require miracles. And just how small can a miracle be to qualify as a miracle? Was the arrival of the second pressman a miracle? He arrived just in time to double the production rate to barely finish the job “on time.” I don’t have those answers, so let us turn to the question of just what was the publication deadline, which was so important that angelic intervention might have been required to meet.

Book of Mormon “Resurrection” Date

One point that eluded Weight was knowing just what was the great importance of having the Book of Mormon finished in March, 1830. Who set that publication deadline, which was so important that extraordinary efforts were required to get the job done on time? After all, the Prophet Joseph Smith had had the plates since the fall of 1827, and Satanic forces were allowed to delay the work for a year and a half until it began in earnest with the arrival of Oliver Cowdery on Sun 5 Apr 1829. Much has been written about the miracle of translation of the book in only three months of concentrated work, with the manuscript being done by August. Combining that amazing speed of translation with the unusually high speed of printing suggests there was some sort of big deadline involved. What was that deadline?

Weight concludes that it must have been that the Book of Mormon was needed for the Church to be founded, and implies that the founding date of Tue 6 Apr 1830 must have been the important deadline. But he mostly raises the question with his section entitled “Why the Rush?” which he really leaves unanswered.

I believe my research has already supplied the answer to this question. There was a deadline carved into the Lord’s sacred calendars for the Book of Mormon to be published. At my current level of understanding, that date is much more important that the date of the founding of the Church, which I believe was chosen mostly to reveal to us what the Savior’s birth date had been. In other words, the date of the founding of the Church on Tue 6 Apr 1830, was not a huge date on sacred calendars to the best of my current knowledge. I believe it was chosen as a commemoration of the Savior’s birth on the evening prior to Thu 6 Apr 1 B.C.^[13] That provides the symbolism that the birthday celebration of the Church corresponds to the celebration day of the Savior’s birth.

That is all well and good, but was it absolutely necessary to have the Book of Mormon completed before the Church was officially organized? If not, then just what was the mysterious deadline for the Book of Mormon which may have been worthy of divine intervention to achieve?

My answer is it was the “Resurrection Date” of the Book of Mormon. This subject has been treated elsewhere in depth and requires some knowledge of three proposed sacred calendars to appreciate. Those are the Hebrew calendar, the Venus calendar and the Mercury calendar.^[14] Suffice it here to state only that to me there is compelling evidence that the Savior’s resurrection occurred before sunrise on the morning of Sun 3 Apr AD 33. That day was Easter on the Hebrew calendar (the Offering of the Firstfruits of Barley), it was 1 Resurrection on the Venus calendar (when the planet Venus also “resurrects”), and it was 1 Creation on the Mercury calendar (the beginning of the cycle). The Savior’s resurrection day was also sacred on several other calendars, but it is only these three that are needed here.^[15]

The day Thu 25 Mar 1830 was also 1 Resurrection on the Venus calendar, and also 1 Creation on the Mercury calendar. Thus, on both calendars it was on exactly the same day as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, hence a perfect day to represent the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the earth. The Book of Mormon is a Native American book, and it seems totally appropriate for its resurrection to be a red-letter day on those two Native American calendars. Moreover, it was also a sacred day on the Hebrew calendar, being New Year’s Day. That triple alignment is so rare that only once in about five hundred years on the average do those two dates on the Venus and Mercury calendars align with any of the ten principal holy days on the Hebrew calendar. Moreover, even the Hebrew holy day adds meaning to the symbolism, namely that the day represented the beginning of a new era for the restored Church. I have not been able to find any date in Church history, with the possible exception of the proposed date of the first vision, Sun 26 Mar 1820,^[16] which is more important that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the dust. The next day, Fri 26 Mar 1830 the Wayne Sentinel announced that the book was already on sale, and to me it is clear that is was precisely the previous day on which the volume officially went on sale.

While knowing the importance of that date explains just what the deadline was, still there are many questions that Weight has raised that also demand answers, such as whether or not miracles were required to produce the type and paper. We can do much more research to discover those answers, but many final explanations may have to await a future date when all things will be revealed (D&C 101:32-34).

Conclusion

Gordon Weight’s book, Miracle on Palmyra’s Main Street, indeed raises several questions about the technical details of just how the Book of Mormon could have been printed in a mere seven months with the equipment of that day. He claims that many miracles were required but that they could have been done with so little fanfare that they have gone unnoticed until now. His work makes no attempt to explain how they were accomplished, but it definitely is an implied call for more research in this area. Clearly, the first indications are that something extraordinary may indeed have been involved, which is not surprising in a work that which already claimed to have an angel, and even the Lord himself, guiding every step of the way. The day will come when we shall learn just how many miracles were actually required to bring forth this amazing volume of scripture.

Notes
1. Weight, Gordon L., Miracle on Palmyra’s Main Street, (Murray, Utah, 2003). It is available at 4649 S. 345 East, Murray, UT 84107, 801-262-9290.

2. I worked for Printers, Inc., in Salt Lake City in 1964, at which time they were ready to dispose of all of their old-fashioned hand-set type. I bought all of it from them to augment my own printing company’s fonts. I had three hand presses, used mostly to print business cards, wedding invitations, labels, and other small jobs on my 5″ x 8″ press. I also had all needed accessories such as furniture, leads, a lead cutter, and a large cabinet to hold the cases of type.

3. Conkling, J. Christopher, A Joseph Smith Chronology (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1979), p. 12 and p. 14.

4. Roberts, B. H., A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Provo, Utah: L.D.S. Church, 1965), pp. 157-162.

5. Smith, Lucy Mack, History of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), pp. 164-167.

6. Gilbert, John H., “Recollections of John H. Gilbert” (Palmyra, N.Y.: 8 Sep 1892). Transcript at www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/JHGilbert.html.

7. Smith press from the Briar Press Museum at www.briarpress.org/briarpress, then select “Museum” and then “Iron Press Examples.”

8. Weight notes that several LDS histories have spoken of signatures of 32 pages each, with 16 on each side of a single large sheet of paper. He point out that even though it was printed with 16 pages per side, they were really only 16-page signatures, as Gilbert explained in his statement (see fn. 6).

9. Weight, Miracle, p. 31 in his “Folklore” section: “Early on a September evening, after dark, there was a loud commotion behind the the Grandin Print Shop building. Accordingly, the constable was contacted to investigate. He stated that as he rode up the street he could hear men and wagons. When he bridled the horse and ran to the back of the building, he found no one there. All was quiet and everything in order — except for the large pile of paper neatly stacked on the back porch and numerous recent footprints and wagon wheel ruts found in the dirt.”

10. Pratt, John P. & Millett, Ron, “Petrified Wood: Days or Millions of Years?Meridian Magazine (16 Mar 2005), Section 1.3.

11. Weight, Miracle, pp. 31-32.

12. Here I have omitted the type redistribution time, which probably needs to be included. It is after the arrival of the second pressman that the compositor could have used some help in breaking down the type in order to keep up with the press. If his sister’s letter about the type having been mysteriously redistributed at night is ever found, it would most likely refer to the time after the third man was hired in December.

13. Pratt, John P., “Passover: Was it Symbolic of His Coming?” The Ensign 24, 1 (Jan, 1994), pp 38-45.

14. Pratt, John P., ” “Venus Resurrects This Easter Sunday,” Meridian Magazine (27 Feb 2001), and A Native American Easter: How the Ancient American Calendar Testifies of Christ,” Meridian Magazine (28 Mar 2001).

15. Pratt, John P., “Religious Chronology Summary” lists these and all of my published sacred dates, along with the references where they are discussed.

16. Pratt, John P., “Enoch Calendar: Another Witness of the Restoration,” Meridian Magazine (5 Aug 2002), Section 1.1.