Conference tecrus::mormonism

    According to what I have read, the Book of Mormon is a word for
    word translation.
    
    "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book
    of Mormon was translated.  Joseph would put the seer stone into
    a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his
    face to exclude the light, and in the darkness the spiritual light
    would shine.  A piece of something resembling parchment would appear
    and on thea appeared the writing."  
    
    "One character at a time would appear, and under it was the
    interpretation in English." 

    (An Address To All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, p.12)
    (Saints Hearld Nov. 15, 1962 p. 16)
    (How Did Joseph Smith Translate?  by Arch S. Reynolds p. 7)

    William Smith, Joseph's brother, said "The manner in which this
    was done was byl looking in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates
    lying near by covered up) and reading off the translation which
    appeared in the stone by the power of God."
    
    (reprinted in A New Witness for Christ in America, vol 2, p 417)
    
    Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal that the Lord gave
    Joseph Smith the exact English wording and spelling that he should
    use in the book of Mormon.
    (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, p. 168 of typed copy at Utah State
    Historical Society)

    
>    < Note 62.0 by FAST::LEIGH >
>
>    Joseph dictated his translation to a scribe, and the scribe wrote the
>manuscript.  In addition, the manuscript was copied to provide a second copy
>to be used by the printer.  Thus, we see that there were plenty of
>opportunities for mistakes to occur.
>
 
    Who was the scribe and how could he possibly have misunderstood
    or misrepresented lines such as the following:
    
    "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents"
    
    "and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists"
    
    "Moroni was a coming against them"
    
    "he found Muloki a preaching"
    
    			--Book of Mormon, First Edition   

    

    Since the translation was a slow process, how could the scribe have
    ad-libbed phrases such as "a coming?"  How could the scribe not hear
    Joseph say "which were" and then write "which was?"

    If Joseph was reading what God revealed, then God must not speak
    English very well.
    
    True, none of us were there.  Who's to say what went on?  Certainly
    not me and also certainly not anyone else.
        
        	--daniel
    
    

    Well, I can't quote sources right now, but here's an armchair response
    for what it's worth ...
    
    Back in the 1800's not all of the grammar rules and word spellings
    were as well established as they are now.  Oliver Cowdery was a school 
    teacher, so as scribe one would assume that he pointed out grammatical 
    errors when he detected them.  I suppose that the rules of the time 
    permitted some grammatical errors and misspellings to go into the 
    original transcripts.  There was an article in the Ensign on this some 
    time ago.  Also, Joseph Smith had only the equivalent of a third grade 
    education at the time that he began the translations, which could 
    probably account for more grammatical (though not doctrinal) errors.  
    
    Steve

Re .2

It is common for historical sources to disagree.  I discussed this in
note 69, Evaluating Historical Documents.  If people haven't done it yet,
it will be helpful if those who are following this discussion would read
the replies to that note.

Let's briefly look at the historical sources that have been mentioned so
far in this note.

1.  Revelation given to Joseph Smith describing the method to be used
    in translating the plates.  This revelation was given in April, 1829
    before the Book of Mormon was published and was recorded by Joseph
    Smith, the person who did the translating of the plates.

    The revelation is thus a primary record.


2.  "An Address To All Believers in Christ", by David Whitmer.

    The Book of Mormon was published in 1830 while David Whitmer published
    his "Address" in 1887.  Thus, the "Address" is a secondary record with
    a very large time-lapse occurring between the translation of the plates
    and the publishing of Whitmer's book.

    In addition, since David did not translate any of the plates, his 
    knowledge of the process is secondary.


3.  Saints Herald, Nov. 15, 1962 p. 16.

    If I recall correctly, this newspaper is published by the Reorganized
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The paper is a secondary
    source, and unless we can get a copy of it to hopefully learn of its
    sources of information, it has no value in this discussion.

    
4.  How Did Joseph Smith Translate?  by Arch S. Reynolds p. 7.

    I am not familiar with this book, but it's title and name of author
    suggests that it is of relatively modern origin.  At any rate, it is
    a secondary source.  In order to consider this book significant to this
    discussion, we would have to have a copy of it to see what sources it used.


5.  William Smith, Joseph's brother, as quoted in A New Witness for Christ
    in America, volume 2, p. 417.

    William Smith did not perform any translations, and his knowledge
    of the process is secondary.  Without having access to the "New
    Witness" book, we do not know the date of William's statement.


6.  Oliver B. Huntington's journal, p. 168.

    I looked in the index to History of the Church to read about Oliver
    Huntington.  The only mention of him was a note that he was ordained
    an Elder in Nauvoo.  This is significant, because it implies that he
    was a relatively new member of the Church in the Nauvoo period.  The
    reason for this is that it was common practice for men to be ordained
    to the Priesthood relatively soon after their baptism.

    Since Oliver did not perform any translations, his knowledge of the
    process is secondary, and it is likely that about 10 years had
    transpired between the publishing of the Book of Mormon and his
    baptism.  Thus, he is a secondary source with a significant time-lapse
    occurring before he could have talked with people about the translation
    process.

    In addition, his journal was published in 1892 and is a secondary 
    source with a very long time-lapse.


So, we have one primary source stating that God inspired Joseph Smith with
meaning but not word-for-word and five questionable secondary sources
stating the inspiration was word-for-word.

It seems to me that it is very clear that Joseph was inspired with meaning
and not word-for-word.

Allen

New Developments in Book of Mormon Research
(Ensign, February 1988, p. 16)

"John L. Hilton: For the past six years several other computer-knowledgeable
scholars--including non-Mormons--and I have furthered studies of wordprints
(stylometry) of the original Book of Mormon manuscript.  As the science of
examining word patterns has developed, we have shown that, when properly done,
wordprinting is an accurate, objective tool for measuring which authors did
not write large documents.

"We also extensively measured the accuracy of the printing in our present 
editions of the Book of Mormon, the degree to which Joseph Smith used the
language of the King James Version to express Book of Mormon ideas, and
the consistency of the English vocabulary in the book.  All of the measurements
verify long-known facts as published through Church circles.  Thus, precise
measurements now exist to correct faulty accusations and misestimations of the
work.

"For example, to examine the appropriateness of the wordprint measurements
from translated works, we have extensively measured the wordprints of various
foreign authors' writings that have been translated into English by the same 
translator.  We have compared these translations to the personal English
writings of the translator.  These tests disprove the speculation that a
translator's own wordprint would necessarily obscure the uniqueness of the
original author's own word patterns.  The wordprints we measured in the 
writings of different German authors, all translated by the same German-to-
English translator, differ from each other and from the original English
writings of the translator himself as much as do any control writings of
completely different authors.

"We show a nonambiguous difference between the distinct word patterns of the
Book of Mormon authors and word patterns in the noncontroversial personal
writings of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Solomon Spaulding.
For the two Book of Mormon authors, Nephi and Alma, who have written enough for
unambiguous statistical evaluation, we have found internal consistency when
each author is compared against himself, but when Nephi is compared to
Alma, we measure the different patterns typical of indepent authors.  In
other words, comparable writings of Nephi and Alma, while consistent
within themselves, differ from each other as much as control authors'
writings differ from one another."

John L. Hilton is a project physicist for Physics International and lives
in Walnut Creek, California.

The following is from The TRUTH About "The God Makers", by Gilbert W.
Scharffs, Publishers Press, Salt Lake City, 1986.

    The plates were written in an ancient language (called reformed
    Egyptian in the Book of Mormon) and the translator, Joseph Smith,
    put them into the best English of his day of which he was capable.

    Wouldn't any good translator put his translation into the vernacular
    of the people he was translating for?  Isn't a translation considered
    to be a poor one when it doesn't use the word order, grammar or language
    that is currently in common usage?  The vernacular for scripture in
    Joseph Smith's day was the King James Bible.  It is not known whether
    Joseph was actually told by the Lord the King James wording or
    whether there is another explanation.  Possibly, when the scriptures
    to be translated were almost identical to those in the King James
    version, Joseph Smith opened up his Bible and whenever something was 
    close to what these translators had said, he thought to himself, "That's
    good enough for me."  Latter-day Saints don't claim to know what happened.
    It would seem odd for Joseph Smith not to see what the King James
    translators said when he was covering similar ground on the plates.  We
    do know that the Book of Mormon translation required studious effort on
    the part of the translator (D&C 9:8) (pp. 171,172)

    ...over 93 percent of the Book of Mormon plates are not direct biblical
    quotes or paraphrases (p. 172)

    Why don't the authors [of The God Makers] point out the remarkable
    differences in Christ's great Sermon on the Mount that he delivered both
    by the Sea of Galilee and in America, the Book of Mormon account of which
    adds greater understanding to this great masterpiece? (p. 172)

    Joseph Smith quotes 433 Isaiah verses of which 199 are word for word,
    but 234 are different than the King James version.  One verse (2 Nephi
    12:16) is not only different from the King James version but adds a
    completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea."  This non-King
    James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible,
    which had not been translated into English in Joseph Smith's day.
    (p. 172)

    The so-called Isaiah problem with the Book of Mormon is not a new one.
    In 1903, H. Chamberlain of Spencer, Iowa wrote a letter to church
    leaders, in which he said: 
    
         I have found no difficulty in arriving at the point where I can
         honestly say that if the original gospel of Jesus Christ is
         possessed and practiced by any Church on the earth today, it is
         with your Church; but the obstacle that I have run up squarely
         against and cannot harmonize, is the Book of Mormon. I have read
         it a great deal, and I have no quarrel with the way it was found,
         or the manner in which it was brought into existence; for God in
         so doing made use only of natural laws, and human instruments to
         do it, but I do find this difficulty with the book itself. 

         I find that Christ in quoting to the people on this side of the
         water, the third and fourth chapters of Malachi, quotes, according
         to the Book of Mormon, in the identical text of King James'
         version, not missing a word. I find chapters of Isaiah quoted
         practically in the same way. I find that in many instances, in his
         talks with the people, and to his disciples here, he used the
         identical language of King James' version, not even omitting the
         words supplied by the translators. Now I know that no two parties
         will take the same manuscript and make translations of a matter
         contained therein, and the language of the two translators be
         alike; indeed, the language employed by the two parties will
         widely differ. These translations are from different manuscripts
         and from different languages, and still it appears in the Book of
         Mormon as King James' translation. I can conceive of no other way
         in which such a coincidence could have occurred, within the range
         of human experience, except where one writing is copied from
         another, and then it takes the utmost care to get them exactly
         alike, word for word, and letter for letter as this is... Now,
         what I want to know is, how do you as a Church account for these
         things appearing in the Book of Mormon in the identical language
         of King James' version, when we know his version is faulty, and
         the same translators could not have made it twice alike
         themselves? Did Joseph copy it from the Bible or did the Lord
         adopt this identical language in revealing to Joseph? 
         
    In his reply Brigham H. Roberts states:
         
         First, it is a fact that a number of passages in the Book of
         Mormon, verses and whole chapters, run closely parallel in matter
         and phraseology with passages in Isaiah, Malachi, and some parts
         of the New Testament. 
         
         Second, it is a fact that no two persons will take the same
         manuscript and make translations from one language into another,
         and the language of the two translations be alike. 
         
         Third, it is a fact that the translations of the words of Isaiah,
         or Malachi, and the words of the Savior, in the Book of Mormon are
         generally supposed to be independent translations from different
         manuscripts or records and from different languages. 
    
    While the translations of the words of Isaiah, of Malachi, and of the
    Savior are generally supposed to be independent translations in the
    Book of Mormon, yet in some parts the exact words are used that appear
    in the King James translation of the Bible. 
    
    Brigham H. Roberts answers this objection as follows: 
    
         When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the
         prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, and the words of the Savior, he
         took the English Bible and compared these passages as far as they
         paralleled each other, and finding that in substance, in thought,
         they were alike, he adopted our English translation. 
         
    Another situation that requires consideration is the fact that there
    are many additional words in the Book of Mormon to those in the King
    James translation and many quotations from the Prophet Isaiah in the
    Bible that are made more meaningful by the material changes found in
    the Book of Mormon translation. 
    
    What is the explanation for this condition? Brigham H. Roberts again
    replies: 
    
         These differences unquestionably arise from the fact that the
         Prophet compared the King James translation with the parallel
         passages in the Nephite records, and when he found the sense of
         the passage of the Nephite plates superior to that in the English
         version he made such changes as would give the superior sense and
         clearness. This view is sustained by the fact of the uniform
         superiority of the Book of Mormon version wherever such
         differences occur. 
         
    Dr. Sidney B. Sperry wrote some articles on the Isaiah Problem in the
    Book of Mormon. He writes the following: 
    
         There are 433 verses of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. Of these,
         234 verses were changed or modified by the Prophet Joseph Smith so
         they do not conform with the King James version. 
         
         Some of the changes made were slight, others were radical.
         However, one hundred ninety-nine verses are word for word the same
         as the Old English version. We, therefore, freely admit that
         Joseph Smith used the King James version when he came to the text
         of Isaiah on the gold plates. As long as the familiar version
         substantially agreed with the text on the gold plates record he
         let it pass; when it differed too much, he translated the Nephite
         version and dictated the necessary changes. 
         
    Dr. Sperry points out how the many changes of Isaiah in the text of the
    Book of Mormon tend to prove the claims of Joseph Smith concerning its
    writing and translation. 
         
         We are now able to extend greatly, thanks to Grant Vest's
         [Master's] thesis ["The Problem of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon"],
         the number of verses that definitely reveal translation phenomena
         in the Book of Mormon text of Isaiah, and that together give
         relative indications of its age. That is to say, these verses,
         when studied in connection with ancient versions of Isaiah, give
         substantial evidence that the translator of the Book of Mormon had
         before him a version if Isaiah more ancient than any now in
         existence, and that he actually translated. Following is a list of
         references that we offer for the examination of textual critics: 2
         Nephi 12:16,20; 13:9,12,14; 14:3, 15:5,7,11; 16:9; 19:3;
         23:3,11,14; 24:3,4; 27:6,19; 1 Nephi 20:5,13,14; 2 Nephi 7:2;
         8:5,15,18,21; Mosiah 14:6. (Others might be added.) 
         
         The version of Isaiah in the Nephite scripture hews an independent
         course for itself, as might be expected of a truly ancient and
         authentic record. It makes additions to the present text in some
         places, omits material in others, transposes, makes grammatical
         changes, finds support at times for its unusual readings in the
         ancient Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions, and at other times no
         support at all. In general, it presents phenomena that will be
         found of great interest to critics in many fields. 
         
    Faith in the translation of the book by divine power is not decreased;
    it is built up by the understanding of all the facts of the text of the
    Book of Mormon. 
    
    (The above has been adapted from the material found in "A New Witness
    for Christ in America", chapter XVII, by Francis W. Kirkham.) 
    
    Rich

    Joseph Smith was very poorly educated as a young man. While this is
    universally acknowledged, some have suggested that others helped him
    "write" the Book of Mormon, which was beyond his own ability, and that
    it was thus a work of man, and not a translation "made by the gift and
    power of God". 
         
    Those in Joseph Smith's day were familiear with the physical facts of
    the translation... They also knew that no one had assisted him and that
    the book was entirely beyond his own ability. The scribes who wrote for
    him could not have been deceived. 
         
    Regarding this fact, N.L. Nelson writes:
                                     
         Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon, without apparent
         hesitation, as fast as a scribe could write it in long hand. There
         is no chance of error on this point. The entire Whitmer family,
         besides Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Joseph's wife, sat and
         listened, or had free access to listen, to the record as it grew
         day by day during the entire month of June, 1829. 

    A direct statement confirming this fact has been left us by Emma Smith
    Bidamon, the wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The questions to her
    were by her son, Joseph Smith, and were asked in the presence of Bishop
    Rogers, W.W. Blair, and H.A. Stebbins. A part of the interview follows: 
    
         Q. Could not Father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you,
         Oliver Cowdery, and others who wrote for him after having first
         written it, or having first read it out of some book? 
         
         A. Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and
         well worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of
         Mormon, and though I was an active participant in the scenes that
         transpired, and was present during the translating of the plates,
         and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous
         to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to anyone else. [A
         private journal written by Joseph Smith in his own hand writing is
         evidence of the above statement. This journal is preserved in the
         Historian's Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.] 
         
         Q. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin
         of the Book of Mormon? 
         
         A. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity
         - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man
         could have dictated the writing of the manuscript unless he was
         inspired: for, when [I was acting] as his scribe, your father
         would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after
         meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had
         left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any
         portion of it read to him. It would have been improbable that a
         learned man could do this; and, for one so... unlearned as he was,
         it was simply impossible. 
         
    (This has been adapted from "A New Witness of Christ in America"
    p 194-196, by Francis W. Kirkham)
    
    Rich

    Did Joseph Smith Plagiarize the Bible in the Book of Mormon?
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    
    Some say that much of the Book of Mormon is copied word-for-word from
    the Bible, and amounts to Joseph Smith plagiarizing the Bible. Some
    cite this as evidence that the Book of Mormon is a work of man, and not
    "translated by the power of God" as Joseph Smith claimed. 
    
    How Much of the Book of Mormon Compares Closely to the Bible Wording?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The Book of Mormon consists of 531 pages of chapter and verse organized
    text. The passages which compare similarly to the text found in the
    Bible consist of chapters amounting to about 38 pages, or about seven
    percent of the pages of the Book of Mormon. These passages compare as
    follows: 
    
    					Book of Mormon	Bible
    
    Quotations from Isaiah		1 Nephi 20-21	Isaiah 48-49
    					2 Nephi 7-8	Isaiah 50-51
    					2 Nephi 12-24	Isaiah 2-14
    					2 Nephi 27	Isaiah 29
    					Mosiah 14-15	Isaiah 53,52
    					3 Nephi 22	Isaiah 54
    
    Sermon on the Mount			3 Nephi 12-14	Matthew 5-7
    
    Quotations from Malachi		3 Nephi 24-25	Malachi 3-4
             
    
    How Closely do These Passages Compare?
    --------------------------------------
    
    30 of the 38 pages that compare closely to the Bible are quotations
    from the Prophet Isaiah. These consist of 433 verses quoting Isaiah, of
    which 199, or about 46 percent, are word-for-word the same as that
    found in the King James Version of the Bible. Some of the remaining
    verses are not found in the Bible, or they are rendered differently. 
    
    The Sermon on the Mount and the quotations from Malachi are also
    rendered differently than those found in the Bible, though some of the
    verses agree word-for-word. 
    
    How Does the LDS Church Explain the Bible Passages in the Bible?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The LDS church claims that the Book of Mormon was authored by ancient
    prophets of a people who left Jerusalem about 600 BC and traveled to
    America. They carried with them the scriptures of their day, which
    included much of the Old Testament, including the writings of Isaiah.
    These prophets particularly valued the teachings of Isaiah and quoted
    extensively from his writings. It is interesting to note that Isaiah is
    also the most quoted prophet by the writers of the New Testament. 
    
    The LDS church further claims that Jesus Christ himself visited these
    people in America after his resurrection. He taught them many of the
    same teachings that he taught in Palestine. Thus we find a sermon given
    to them that is very similar to the Sermon on the Mount found in the
    Bible. He also gave to them some of the words of Malachi. These people
    had left Jerusalem before Malachi lived, and so they did not have his
    writings. The Savior considered it important that they have these
    words. 
    
    Why are Some Verses the Same and Some Different Than the Bible?
    --------------------------------------------------------------- 
    
    The LDS church claims that the Bible is the Word of God so far as it
    has been translated correctly. We also believe that some plain and
    precious things have been removed from the Bible, since it's books were
    first written. 

    The LDS church claims that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon
    by the power of God, from ancient writings on Gold plates. In those
    places where the writers of the Gold plates quoted teachings that are
    similar to those found in the Bible, some verses are identical and some
    are rendered differently than found in the Bible. 
    
    We claim that the similarities are accounted for because these people
    had some of the writings of the Old Testament, from which they quoted,
    and they received from the Savior some of the same teachings as found
    in the Bible. In some cases the verses are different because of
    incorrect translations of the Bible over time. In other cases, the
    people of the Book of Mormon may have received the teachings from the
    Savior in a slightly different format than did those in Palestine. 
    
    Many who have studied the differences in detail have come to the
    conclusion that the renderings of many of these passages in the Book of
    Mormon add additional and valuable understanding to the passages that
    are found in the Bible. When examined closely, it will be found that
    these verses that differ do not disagree with those found in the Bible,
    but support them, and help us to understand them better. 

    Below are a couple of excellent examples of this that are found in the
    Book of Mormon version of the Sermon on the Mount. The marked portions
    are not found in the Bible: 
    
         Yea, blessed are the poor in spirit *who come unto me*, for
         theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 
         
         And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after
         righteousness, for they shall be filled *with the Holy
         Ghost*.  3 Nephi 12:3,6 
    
    Did Joseph Smith Plagiarize the Bible?
    -------------------------------------
    
    In order to plagiarize, one must represent another's work as his own.
    Joseph Smith did not represent the Book of Mormon to be his own work.
    He only claimed to translate the writings of others. A small portion of
    his translation is similar, yet different, than some Bible passages. In
    every case, credit is given by both the writers of the Book of Mormon,
    and by the translator of the Book of Mormon, to the original authors of
    the text in question. Certainly, this is not plagiarism. Certainly, the
    Book of Mormon is rich with original material, and the vast majority of
    the Book of Mormon text is not found in the Bible. 
    
    The key questions to resolve are whether or not Joseph Smith was a
    prophet of God, and is the Book of Mormon the word of God? The LDS
    church claims that there is only one way to know the answers to these
    questions. You must read the Book of Mormon and ask God with a sincere
    heart if it is true. I have done this, and I know these things to be
    true. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
    

62.0>    The 1981 edition contains the following statement.

>    About this edition:  Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated
>    in past editions of the Book of Mormon.  This edition contains corrections
>    that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with
>    prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph
>    Smith.

    How does one find out:
    
    o     what the minor errors are 
    o     what is meant by CORRECTIONS THAT SEEM APPROPRIATE
    o     what are and how does one obtain copies of the prepublication
          manuscripts and early editions edited by Joseph Smith

"I have a question"
Ensign, March 1980, p. 40

Robert J. Matthews, [in 1980] chairman Department of Ancient Scripture, BYU

Why do the Book of Mormon selections from Isaiah sometimes parallel the
King James Version and not the older--and thus presumably more accurate--Dead
Sea Scrolls text?

First, we should remember that the Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon come
from the brass plates of Laban, which were compiled at least as early as
600 B.C., some four hundred years before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written.  The
Isaiah source for the King James Version was written much later.

With that in mind, let me suggest two reasons why the Isaiah passages in the
Book of Mormon are more like those in the King James Version than those in the
Dead Sea Scrolls.

The first reason is that part of the Dead Sea Scrolls are of questionable 
authenticity.  Some scholars have thought the scrolls would be more reliable
than the King James Version because the scrolls' text is older--recorded more
closely in time to the events depicted.

But this is not unfailingly the case.  For example, the St. Mark's Isaiah scroll
of the Dead Sea collection dates from about 200 B.C., but differs considerably
from parallel accounts in the Greek Septuagint, also of second century
B.C. vintage.

We learn from the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 13-14) and the eighth Article of Faith
that the Bible has been deliberately altered by men.  The variant texts of both
the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that fact and tell us that the
alteration was in process at least by 200 B.C.  The St. Mark's Isaiah scroll,
particularly, is regarded by some scholars as a text written by amateur scribes,
and containing many errors.  The quality of the penmanship and the number of
on-page corrections also tend to put this scroll in a less than
reliable position.

Thus, textual preferences cannot be determined simply by dating.  Even though
the Dead Sea Scrolls may be older than the King James sources, they are not
necessarily more accurate.

A second reason why the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages differ from similar
passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls is that the translation of the Book of Mormon
may not always reflect a minute and highly detailed analysis of every word on
the gold plates.  It is evident that Joseph Smith was closely allied to the
text of the King James Version, and it is possible that he used it in the
translation of passages that parallel the Book of Mormon, particularly when
Isaiah is concerned.   That doesn't mean that he copied it from the Bible, but
that he might have relied upon the language of the King James Version as a
vehicle to express the general sense of what was on the gold plates.

Basically then, I would emphasize that the Book of Mormon, as an independent
witness, tells us that the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Isaiah is not as good
as some scholars think it is, and also that the text of the King James Version
is not as bad as some of them think it is--remembering that we are dealing with
details and matters of tense, punctuation, and the like.

In 1961 a master's thesis at BYU compared the St. mark's Scroll of Isaiah, the
Book of Mormon portions of Isaiah, the King James Version, and Joseph Smith's
Inspired Translation.  The author, a member of the RLDS Church, concluded that 
the differences were too slight and of not sufficient frequency and regularity
to form an interpretive pattern. (See Wayne Ham, "A textual Comparison of the
Isaiah Passages in the Book of Mormon with the Same Passages in the St. Mark's
Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Community.)

F.A.R.M.S. (see note 125.1) has some publications available that concern
the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Cat #   Author          Title                                   Price
----    ------          -----                                   -----
RIC-84  Ricks, Stephen  Joseph Smith's Means and Methods of
                          Translating the Book Mormon           0.50

ROB-04  Roberts, B.H.   Bible Quotations in the Book of Mormon  0.75

ROB-06    "             Translation of the Book of Mormon       0.50

SP-BMT  Sperry, Sidney  The Book of Mormon and Textual
                          Criticism                             0.50

SP-BMA    "             The Book of Mormon as Translation
                          English & Hebrew Idioms in the
                          Book of Mormon                        0.50

W&R-86  Welch & Rathbone Historical Information about the
                          Translation of the Book of Mormon     2.25

Re .11

>    How does one find out:
>    
>    o     what the minor errors are 
>    o     what is meant by CORRECTIONS THAT SEEM APPROPRIATE
>    o     what are and how does one obtain copies of the prepublication
          manuscripts and early editions edited by Joseph Smith

Note 143.1 gives some references to papers that discuss the changes made to
the Book of Mormon.  That article comments on the two prepublication manuscripts
and the three editions of the Book of Mormon published during Joseph Smith's
life and the 1981 edition published in our time.

Allen

Note 143 has been created to focus on changes to the Book of Mormon.  This
will allow this note to continue to focus on the methodology of translation.

The example of a change given in .0 of this note has been reproduced in
143.2, and .1 of this note has been moved to 143.3.

Allen

================================================================================
Note 153.1            B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon                1 of 5
CASV01::PRESTON "NO Dukes!!"                         17 lines   4-AUG-1988 13:58
                                  -< Hebrew? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> In his study, Roberts bluntly states two main problems.  First, he
> questions passages in the Book of Mormon that are arguably absurd or
> erroneous.  On closer examination, however, we can see today that few of
> these oddities are problematic.  In fact, many end up strengthening the
> credibility of the Book of Mormon.  For example, Roberts thought someone
> might argue that it was impossible for Captain Moroni to have waved a
> "rent" (Alma 46:19, 1st ed.) in the air.  In Hebrew, however, that
> expression is perfectly acceptable. 

Since we are talking about a statement in English and not Hebrew, how, 
then, can the suggestion be made that because the expression is "perfectly 
acceptable" in Hebrew it somehow cancels out the absurdity or error in
the English statement and even strengthen the credibility of the Book of
Mormon? Of what relevance is Hebrew in this matter at all?

Ed

================================================================================
Note 153.2            B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon                2 of 5
SQUEKE::LEIGH                                        43 lines   4-AUG-1988 17:06
                               -< Easy my boy! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> In his study, Roberts bluntly states two main problems.  First, he
>> questions passages in the Book of Mormon that are arguably absurd or
>> erroneous.  On closer examination, however, we can see today that few of
>> these oddities are problematic.  In fact, many end up strengthening the
>> credibility of the Book of Mormon.  For example, Roberts thought someone
>> might argue that it was impossible for Captain Moroni to have waved a
>> "rent" (Alma 46:19, 1st ed.) in the air.  In Hebrew, however, that
>> expression is perfectly acceptable. 

>Since we are talking about a statement in English and not Hebrew, how, 
>then, can the suggestion be made that because the expression is "perfectly 
>acceptable" in Hebrew it somehow cancels out the absurdity or error in
>the English statement and even strengthen the credibility of the Book of
>Mormon? Of what relevance is Hebrew in this matter at all?
>
>Ed

Easy.  Hebrew is a semitic (sp?) language, and therefore related to the language
the BoM was originally written in. (implies similar constructs, etc)
Because he was translating (perhaps literally) from this semitic language,
he translated literally literally, i.e., same words, word order, etc., that
are correct in this semitic language (and also Hebrew), though incorrect in
'correct' english.

For example, in German one can say:

Ich wei�, da� er in die Schule gegangen ist.
--------------------------------------------

A word for word English translation would be:

I know, that he in the school gone has (is).
--------------------------------------------


Now obviously, this English is incorrect, but nevertheless comes from the German
in word for word translation.   Ditto for Hebrew (or BoM original Semitic lang)
and English.  While one doesn't wave a 'rent' in the air in English, a word
for word translation of it to English would say that in English.

CHad

huhhh, (breath of air)

================================================================================
Note 153.3            B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon                3 of 5
TEMPE1::LARSEN                                        3 lines   4-AUG-1988 20:22
                                 -< Well said >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: -1 
    	Thanks, Chad.  I thought that was a very clear and well said
    illustration. 

================================================================================
Note 153.4            B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon                4 of 5
GENRAL::RINESMITH "GOD never says OOPS!"             14 lines   5-AUG-1988 09:21
                                -< Correction >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    Easy.  Hebrew is a semitic (sp?) language, and therefore related to the
>    language the BoM was originally written in. (implies similar
>    constructs, etc) Because he was translating (perhaps literally) from
>    this semitic language, he translated literally literally, i.e., same
>    words, word order, etc., that are correct in this semitic language (and
>    also Hebrew), though incorrect in 'correct' english. 

    Maybe I missed something somewhere, but I was not aware that anyone
    was familiar enough with Reformed Egyption to say that it is related
    to Hebrew.  Secondly - I also thought that the Mormons maintain
    that he DID NOT TRANSLATE literally.  Could you please either correct
    my understanding or your answer!
    

================================================================================
Note 153.5            B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon                5 of 5
MIZZOU::SHERMAN "socialism doesn't work ..."         20 lines   5-AUG-1988 12:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methinks this is splitting hairs.  The translation may not be word
    for word, but rather concept for concept.  That's why, for example,
    there are chiasmus in the text (see note 31.*).  My own personal
    feeling is that the original translation, though presenting correct 
    concepts (the 'most correct' of any such book published), had
    grammatical errors due to the Prophet's lack of education in
    grammatics and due to the lack of established grammatic standards.  
    
    I would suspect that in the case of word order, if they happen to 
    fit that of the Hebrew language, that is probably coincidence.  But,
    if the concepts are represented consistently in the same order as in 
    Hebrew (or another Semitic language),  that is not coincidence.
    Though they wrote in Egyptian it was reformed to represent the
    Hebrew in which they spoke (Mormon 9:32-33).  They used Egyptian
    *characters* to represent Hebrew thought.  As indicated in the
    scriptures, the plates weren't big enough to write in Hebrew and 
    their version of Hebrew was changing.  (In a similar fashion, Hebrew 
    in the old world was and still is changing.)
    
    Steve

The phrase "word for word" is being used in two different ways, so please
let me clarify the meanings in both cases.

Many of the replies at the beginning of this note have discussed whether
the Book of Mormon was translated in thoughts or word for word.  In the
context of those replies, the phrase "word for word" meant that God
would have dictated the translation and Joseph would have read the words to
a scribe, the result being that the words themselves would be God's words.

Chad, in his reply in 62.17/153.2 spoke of a word for word translation, but
he was referring to a word for word "mapping" or conversion of reformed
Egyptian to English and not to dictation by God.

In 62.19/153.4, Roger commented about a literal translation.  If I understand
his comment correctly, I think he was referring to the earlier replies to this
note that discussed my thoughts that God did not dictate the book word for word.
Roger said,

>Secondly - I also thought that the Mormons maintain
>that he DID NOT TRANSLATE literally.

If I've misunderstood your comment, Roger, please forgive me and correct me.

There is a difference between a word for word translation (dictation by God)
and a literal translation.  As discussed earlier in this note, I don't
believe that God dictated the translation, and from my reading I would
hazard a guess that most LDS agree.  We do believe, however, that Joseph
Smith performed a literal translation in which language style, idioms, etc.
carried through from the original authors.

That is, based on Section 9 of the D & C, we believe that Joseph had to
study the characters and form meanings in his mind as to the translation.
During this process, he was aided by the Urim and Thummim in a way that
he never explained.  In addition, I assume he was also guided by the Holy
Spirit, because he said the translation was by the power of God.

Various LDS scholars have explained that the Book of Mormon does contain
many characteristics of Hebrew literature, indicating that to some extent
Joseph apparently did perform a word for word mapping of the characters
into English.  I said 'to some extent' because I am not claiming that
all words in the original manuscript came from a word for word mapping.

Note 137 is discussing a Hebrew literary form called 'Chiasms' that has
been found in the Book of Mormon.  Reply 137.3 gives references to several
inexpensive booklets that discuss the Hebrew literary style of the Book
of Mormon.

Allen

    Today in Sunday School I happened to come across some passages in the
    Old Testament that refer to iron and steel. Some people say that the
    Book of Mormon claims of use of these metals predate the known use of
    these metals in the Old World, let alone in the Americas. However,
    according to the King James Version of the Bible, iron and steel were
    known by the people of the Bible, prior to the time period that the
    Book of Mormon covers.

    I came across the  following references in the topical guide:  (Iron)
    Gen 4:22, Deut. 8:9, 27:5, Josh 8:31; Kings 6:6; Ps 2:9, Prov 27:17,
    Eccl. 10:10, Isa 60:17; Jer 1:18, 17:1, 28:13; Ezek 4:3; Dan 2:33,
    2:41, 7:7. (Steel) 2 Sam. 22:35, Ps 18:34, Job 20:24, Jer 15:12.

    Rich

     Sorry, but I believe if you'll do a little research you'll find that
    the King James authors mis-translated the Hebrew word when they used
    the word STEEL.  
    
    So, you really can't say that steel was known by the people of the
    Bible.  
    
    Roger

    Hi, Roger!
    
    I'm curious.  What is the Hebrew word and the correct translation?
    Thanks!
    
    Steve

    Do a little bit of research and tell me what you think it is and how
    you came to that conclusion.  I'll dig out my reference books tonight
    when I get home and let you know what my research turns up and where
    I found the information.
    
    Roger

    Well, according to my copy of Smith's Bible dictionary (p. 649) the
    true rendering of the word "steel" from Hebrew is "copper".  However,
    it also points out that it is not clear as to whether it is really
    steel or copper because, for example, in Jeremiah 15:12 there is
    reference to steel in a way that indicates it to be stronger than iron.
    This indicates that the use of the word "steel", though not a literal
    translation, is a correct translation.  There is reference to a Hebrew 
    word "paldah" (not quite spelled correctly here) which only occurs in 
    Nahum 2:3-4 and translates to "torches" but which may make reference to 
    steel or hardened iron.  In the discussion it is indicated that the 
    Egyptians knew about steel.  The discussion does not list the 
    actual Hebrew word used for which the literal translation is "copper",
    so I don't have that information yet.
    
    Steve

I checked in Strongs for the words "iron" and "steel".   There are four
words in the KJV that were translated "iron", and the Hebrew meaning for
them is in fact "iron".  There are two words in the KJV that were
translated "steel", and the Hebrew meaning is, as Roger said, "copper".

We have to be careful when we take the Hebrew meaning of isolated words,
because we're ignoring context.  The information that Steve posted from
Smith's dictionary indicates the metals referred to in the scriptures
may not have been the copper we know of but may have been a harder material.

Another consideration should be made: what did the word "steel" mean to
the King James scholars.  I don't remember the history of the steel making
industry, but I would guess that steel as we know it today was invented
later on, and that the word "steel" meant something different to the KJV
scholars.

Similarly, we need to understand what the word "steel" meant to Joseph Smith
when he translated the BoM passages about Nephi's bow.  Was it "steel" as
we know it today, or was it something different?  I don't know US history
well enough to speculate on this.

The important point, I think, is that, as Sorenson has pointed out, words
today may have a different meaning than they had in the 19th or 16th centuries.

Allen

    
    I also look to the Strong's for the meaning of words.  So, Thank You
    Allen for pointing out that the Hebrew meaning is "copper".
    
    As for what the word meant at the time of translation, I believe that
    we will have to consult the history books to get the history of steel.
    
    Could someone do just that and post your conclusions?
    
    If steel was known at the time Joseph Smith wrote the passages about
    Nephi's bow, then Joseph Smith meant steel when he wrote that passage.
    
    Roger

    From what I read in Smith's, the use of the word "steel" may vary, but
    its existance may not vary significantly over time:
    
    	Steel appears to have been known to the Egyptians.  The steel
    	weapons in the tomb of Rameses III., says Wilkinson, are painted
    	blue, the bronze red.
    
    Lehi, being a merchant, could likely have had access to Egyptian
    technology which may likely have included what was needed to make
    steel.
    
    What I don't know is why Hebrew writers would use a term for "copper".
    Could it be that they did not have a term for steel and used a close
    approximation?  Could the use of terms for "copper" and "torches"
    been indication, not of the technology used to form the metal, but of the 
    color as it appeared, for example, in battle?  Remember, steel can turn 
    red when it rusts.  It's shiny when it's polished and sanded.  It could
    also have been painted, as were weapons mentioned above.  This is 
    probably a question that 16th century English writers had to deal with 
    when translating.  Too bad they don't have more commentary included about 
    the translation.  If it will help, I'll see what my Dansk Biblen has to 
    say since those translators were probably faced with the same dilemma,
    it being common knowldege that copper is not a very hard metal and its
    use was not consistent with the context.
    
    I find the metal issue to be relatively minor.  The B of Ms use of the 
    term "steel" is a minor detail that hs little or nothing to do with the 
    Gospel.  It could well be, for example, that Joseph Smith chose to use an 
    accepted interpretation (that of King James scholars) for references to 
    the same or similar ancient technology.  He wouldn't necessarily have to 
    use an interpretation from 18th century metallurgy because there was 
    another accepted standard in the Bible.
    
    Steve

Just for kicks I looked up copper in Smith's and found:

	Copper, Heb. nechosheth, in the Authorized Version always rendered
	"brass," except in Ezra 8 : 27 and Jer. 15 : 12.  It was almost
	exclusively used by the ancients for common purposes, and for
	every kind of instrument, as chains, pillars, lavers and other
	temple vessels.  We read also of copper mirrors, Ex. 38 : 8, and 
	even of copper arms, as helmets, spears, etc.  1 Sam. 17 : 5, 6,
	38; 2 Sam. 21 : 16.

For reference, TAHD defines copper as ductile and malleable, hardly the type
of thing I'd like to wear as a helmet!  ;)  So, apparently, translators have a
problem with calling it copper and would rather call it "steel" or "brass".


Steve

Here's what I've found in the Dansk Biblen (Danish Bible) and Mormons Bog
(Book of Mormon).  I'm only including three of the references (the first
three) that translate in the KJV and AV to "brass" since these may not be of 
direct interest.  There are a lot of "brass" references.  Basically, it
appears that the translators for the Danish Bible chose to continue with
the literal translation of the Hebrew.  

English		Danish
reference	version			English translation

Gen. 4:22	kobber, jern		copper, iron
Ex. 30:18	kobber			copper
Deut. 8:9	kobber			copper

2 Sam. 22:35	kobberbuen		copper bow
Ps. 18:34	kobberbuen		copper bow
Job 20:24	jern, kobberbuen	iron, copper bow
Jer. 15:12	jern, jern, kobber*	iron, iron, copper

1 Nephi 16:18	staal			steel
2 Nephi 5:15	jern, cobber, messing,	iron, copper, brass, 
		staal			steel
Ether 7:9	staal			steel

* there is a note here that the translation is unclear.

I wonder what the Danes think about the effectiveness of copper bows ... :)

Steve

RE: Note 155.12 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN

> I wonder what the Danes think about the effectiveness of copper bows ... :)

    If the Hebrew word can be literally translated to copper then why try
    to change it by translating it as steel?   What's the point?  It
    doesn't matter how effective we may think copper bows are, it matters
    what the original text said.  

    Back to the original note that begged these responses.  The BOM does
    mention steel when steel was not known to exist at that time.  

    Roger

    Tempered copper, eh?  Hmm.  I could be wrong about bows.
    
    But, as to the translation issue, the idea of translating literally has
    been discussed a lot already.  To summarize, a literal translation may
    often be incorrect, making it necessary to provide another translation
    that is not literal.  This is apparently what translators for the KJV
    and AV versions of the Bible were trying to do.  As they established
    a standard and it was widely accepted, it seems only fair to allow Joseph 
    Smith to abide by that standard in his translations.
    
    As to the assertion that steel was not known, it seemed pretty clear to 
    me from the references from Smith's that steel and brass were known 
    anciently by the Egyptians.
    
    
    Steve

>    If the Hebrew word can be literally translated to copper then why try
>    to change it by translating it as steel?   What's the point?  It
>    doesn't matter how effective we may think copper bows are, it matters
>    what the original text said.  

It seems to me that it is important for us to understand why the KJV scholars
used the word "steel" in their translation.  I doubt they meant "steel" as
we know the word today, because I don't think the steel industry existed
back them (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this).  If I'm right, then the
KJV scholars meant something else when they used the word "steel".  This
conclusion, if correct, is very significant.

It is also important for us to understand what Joseph Smith meant when he
used the word "steel" in the BoM translation.  Did he mean "steel" as we
use the word today.  I doubt it.  Since it is likely that the KJV scholars
had something different in mind, I think we have to give Joseph Smith the
same latitude.  It seems reasonable to me to assume that Joseph Smith had
reference to the same metal that the KJV scholars had, which I do not think
was our "steel".

Archaeologists have discovered tempered copper knives in South America, so
copper could be a viable metal for objects like a bow.  I understand that
this is a *parallel* and does not prove that Nephi's bow was tempered copper,
but it does point out that the correct Hebrew meaning to the KJV word "steel"
may be compatible with the use of the word "steel" in the BoM.

I think we all agree that Joseph Smith followed the wording of the KJV in
translating portions of the BoM.  When he translated the part about Nephi's
bow, it seems obvious to me that he used the KJV wording in that instance,
not to indicate that the bow was "steel" as we know it, but to indicate that
the bow was "steel" as the KJV scholars knew it.  

I think that before we become dogmatic about either the KJV for the BoM, we
have to understand what the KJV scholars meant by the word "steel".  Anyone
have information to contribute about this point?

Allen

    As I understand the tempered copper issue, I seem to recall it being
    said that we do not now know how they tempered the copper to make it so
    hard. Apparently, they (ancient Americans, whoever they were) had some
    metallurgical knowledge that we do not now have.

    Rich

    The Lutheran German Bible uses the word Eisen (Iron) in all of the
    references mentioned in the previous note except the following:
    
    Proverbs 27:17 makes no mention of metal type but states a knife
    sharpens another.
    
    2 Sam 22:35 and Psalms 18:34 use the word ehernen "brass or bronze"
    
    No term for steel is used.
    
    His work done in the 1520s was based on the Greek and Hebrew originals
    available at the time.  He was certainly aware of iron and most likely
    some early types of steel made by the crucible process at the time.  So
    Martin Luther could have selected the word "steel" in his translation
    but did not. 
    
    I think that not a great difference should be made in applying the terms
    steel and iron in the pre-1800 periods.  This is the time of the
    invention of the Bessemer process which formed the base of modern steel
    making.  It was also the period when chemical composition began to be
    studied and refined to produce the uniform alloyed steel products we
    are familiar with today.  Indeed many of our "iron" products are really
    steel due to cost; such as, wrought iron fences (now mostly steel).
    
    The major components of steel are only iron and carbon; both available 
    during entire time iron was being worked.  In fact many "iron" artifacts 
    contain varying amounts of carbon indicating that the primative methods of 
    iron making produced steel-like products early in the "Iron Age".  The
    problem was always maintaining a uniform product when using batch
    methods and very nonuniform raw materials.
    
    As with glass making I am sure iron was being worked in some limited
    fashion before the "official" begining of the Iron Age (around 1000
    BC).  My own understanding of technology would point to starts and
    stops, rediscovery after rediscovery until a given technology takes
    hold.  I see no evidence that iron making and use would be any
    different than countless of other inventions.  Even with DECnet and all
    our communication capabilities I've seen many groups in DEC work on the
    same product in complete ignorance of each other's parallel efforts,
    and in complete ignorance of solutions generated years before by other
    groups.
    
    Dennis C.
     

    Once again I have failed to state the obvious!  Modern steel was not
    available to either KJV translators or Joseph Smith.  Steel to them
    would have been carbon iron alloys worked to enhance their strength. 
    Therefore, we have to conclude that both translations were not trying
    to convey chemical composition (or perhaps even manufacturing process),
    but they were trying to describe a property of the metal used which
    would be like the "steel" products they knew.
    
    If we were to tanslate this today we may use the words high strength iron 
    or tempered iron or forged iron depending on what we wanted to convey. 
    We could also use the word steel to convey the properties of the iron
    metal product rather than the composition or process.
    
    Sorry about the fragmented reply.
                                                 

    Could you please give reference to your source that states steel was
    not available at the time of Joseph Smith.  History states that 
    modern steel was being developed as early as the 1300's.

	I had not hoped to provide a history of steel making in this note.
	- My appologies to those who find metalurgy less than exciting. -

    	Please note that I stated "Modern" steel (uniform composition,
    	standard forms, Etc.)  My point was that ancient iron and steel
    	had much in common and were most likley designated as being
    	different by their characteristics rather than the production
    	process.
    	
	Dictionary definition of steel is 1) Any hard, strong, durable, 
	malleable alloy of iron and carbon. 2) To make hard or strong.

	SOURCES: Encyclopedia of Sciences, New American Desk Encyclopedia,
	         a degree in chemistry, and former employee of Northwest
	         Industries (Lone Star Steel).

	The Bessemer process is the basis of modern steel making.  
	It provided a process which could be controlled for uniform 
	output of raw steel.  It used compressed air blasted through the 
	molten iron to remove impurities and adjust the amount of carbon.
	After this step manganese, carbon and other elements are added to 
	the iron to adjust the composition to the desired concentrations.
	It was invented by Henry Bessemer (1813-1898).  You can see from
	the dates that Joseph Smith would be quit unfamiliar with steel made
	by this process at the time he worked on the Book of Mormon.

	The open hearth process is used for finer quality steel and was 
	developed in 1866 again too late for Joseph Smith.  The electric
	induction furnace process was invented even more recently.

	The crucible process is the oldest process for making steel.
	Steel was made in small batches with this process during Joseph 
	Smith's & KJV time.  Interestingly it is the process that is used to
	produce the hardest steel today (but in small batches).
 
	It was the natural outgrowth of iron smelting and working. 
	The ore or raw iron was placed in a container and heated
	until liquid.  In order to get a fire hot enough charcoal or coal 
	was needed.  (Charcoal or coal was the source of carbon for steel.)  
	In order help the batch heat faster charcoal was often heaped on 
	top of and around the container.  Some charcoal (or carbon) 
	inevitablely wound up in the liquid iron.  This of course created 
	steel.  So early iron usually had some carbon mixed in.  
	The problem was how to replicate the composition from
	one batch to another.

	This nonuniformity is why certain weapons and impements made in 
	certain places took on a fame of their own for their strength and
	luster.  They were often the product of a fortunate set of 
	occurances; just the right amount of carbon, just the right amount
	of other trace metals to make a superior product.  This very strong
	steel would be the reason for the word steel to mean hard and strong,
	to differentiate from iron made by the same process, 
    	and the most likely reason that Joseph Smith used the word.

	It has been mentioned in other replies that iron was known before
	the "official" Iron Age date of around 1000 BC.  The New Am. Desk
	Encyc. states that iron articles were found as early as 4000 BC
	in Egypt and Mesopotamia, but due to the difficulty of working
    	steel it was mostly reserved for ornaments.  This problem of
    	working iron was only made worse by accidental or purposeful
    	creation of steel which is harder still to work.  Thus it is 
    	very possible that the ancients did not use steel as recorded
    	in the Book of Mormon or Bible but some other metal of like
    	properties.

	Also there are quite a number of alloys of copper which are very
	strong.  Monel is an example of a modern copper (30%) and nickel
	(70%) alloy which is used in heavy machinery for its superior
	corrosion restistance coupled with its strength.  It is very 
	likely that ancient peoples were able to produce at least limited 
	amounts of very strong "steel-like" metals based on copper, zinc,
	tin and iron; all available to the Old Testament and Book of
	Mormon peoples.  So it is reasonable that Joseph Smith could have
	been translating a unique metal which had no equivalent in the 
	English language.  The closest would be our word "steel" to describe
	its properties.  Or it could be that the "steel" references were
	indeed early crude steel (alloy of iron and carbon).  Both are possible.

                           Dennis C.
    

    Nice note, Dennis!  Thanks!
    
    Steve