Skip to comments.Lucy Mack's Copy of the Book of Mormon
Posted on 02/21/2009 3:01:07 PM PST by Colofornian
A rare 1841 copy of the Book of Mormon that likely belonged to Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph Smith, is now owned by the LDS Church, the gift of a church member who wishes to remain anonymous...
Her name imprinted on the base of the book's spine identifies it as Lucy's book, likely a "presentation copy" from the 1841 edition published in England. Because of superior and less-expensive printing and binding, the edition was made there, commissioned by LDS Church apostles on a mission in that land and acting at the behest of Joseph Smith.
It was the fourth edition of the Book of Mormon, the previous ones being the original, published in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1830, the 1837 edition published in Kirtland, Ohio, and the 1840 edition published in Nauvoo.
The book dealer from whom the donor acquired the copy wrote in documentation that the book was discovered in 2002 in Hamilton, Ill., 10 miles outside of Nauvoo, where Lucy died in 1855. It had been owned by descendants of Lucy Smith Milliken, daughter of Lucy Mack, who cared for her mother until Lucy Mack's death.
(Excerpt) Read more at mormontimes.com ...
"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us SOME OF THE MOST AMUSING RECITALS THAT COULD BE IMAGINED. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them. On the twenty-second of September, 1824, Joseph again visited the place where he found the [gold] plates the year previous... (p. 83).
How old was Smith here? (Age 17 to 18*).
[*This account is found in chapter 18, which starts off with her saying "the next day" -- (and you have to go back to chapter 17 to find the time frame she was talking about was September 21, 1823 -- found on p. 74). So she is writing about Joseph Smith telling these tall tales somewhere between the ages of 17 and 18...as p. 83 mentions September, 1824.]
Now why is this so important?
Because Lucy Mack Smith says that her son found the golden plates at age 17 and had not even taken the time to carefully examine all the contents of the box they came in, let alone examine these "foreign language" findings. No Mormon claims that he translated these golden plates in the early 1820s. Technically, they weren't even in his close possession because a supposed angel had told him to hide them for a year the same day he found them.
And yet, Smith's mom says of this 17-18 yo youth that he would tell ...SOME OF THE MOST AMUSING RECITALS THAT COULD BE IMAGINED. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them..." This was BEFORE Smith claimed to have "translated" the golden plates.
Lucy Mack Smith says Joseph, upon finding the gold plates, cut the bark off of an old log and hid them there, replacing the bark so as to hide them. OK, if you've found a box of gold plates with writing on them hidden in the ground, would you...
...take everything out of the "box" you found and fail to carefully examine all contents therein?
...If you answered you would, well, then, I guess you're not Joseph Smith. Because what does his mom say he did a year after hiding them?
Sept. 22, 1824: After telling his parents about these gold plates, he went to retrieve them and "fully expected to carry them home with him...he put forth his hand [into the log] and took them up, but, as he was taking them hence, the unhappy thought darted through his mind that probably there was something else in the box besides the plates, which would be of some pecuniary advantage to him." (Lucy Mack Smith, p. 83)
What? You mean he had failed to review all the contents of the box he found? (Really?)
So, what did 18 yo Joe do next?
(1) "...he laid them down very carefully... [which supposedly broke an injuction an angel had given him a year earlier]
(2) He covered it. Why? "...lest some one might happen to pass that way and get whatever there might be remaining in it..."
(3) "...he turned round to take the Record again, but behold it was gone, and where, he knew not, neither did he know the means by which it had been taken from him. At this, as a natural consequence, he was much alarmed." (Lucy Mack Smith, pp. 83-84)
(For breaking the injunction, he said the angel appeared again and told him why they were gone)
What happened next, says Lucy Mack Smith? Well, somehow the gold plates were returned to their original resting place (must have been by the angel -- tho she doesn't say how Joseph knew they had been returned there). He looked there, and behold, there they were. And it came to pass that he tried to reobtain the plates, but the angel abused him -- hurling him "back upon the ground with great violence."
So, here his parents were now expecting him to bring home the golden plates:
If your 17 yo son told you about some gold plates he found that he had been told by an angel to hide for a year, and then went to retrieve them a year later and came home empty-handed, what you do think the story might include as to why he was empty-handed?
Yup. That's right. To paraphrase Joe Smith, Jr., "The angel made me NOT do it":
"As he was aware that we would expect him to bring the plates home with him, he was greatly troubled, fearing that we might doubt his having seen them. As soon as he entered the house, my husband asked if he had obtained the plates. The answer was, 'No, father, I could not get them.'...'I would have taken them,' rejoined his father, with much earnestness, 'if I had been in your place.' 'Why,' returned Joseph, in quite a subdued tone, 'you do not know what you would say. I could not get them, for the angel of the Lord would not let me.'" (Lucy Mack Smith, p. 84)
Just wondering - didn’t he write that he did take the plates and ran home with them, or was that later?
If he did, a story could be weaved that he did both. First took them home & then immediately hid them away from the home. (There had to be a wee bit of time between finding them & an angel “appearing” to him)
That original version, the fraud exposed and ripped apart in 1842, by Alexander Campbell:
Sorry, the actual one used that was ripped apart was the original version from 1837, as noted in the references:
1. “The Book of Mormon; by Joseph Smith, Jr., author and proprietor. Palmyra, printed by E. B. Grandin, for the author, 1836.”
It was from his and others’ critiques that the rewrites then attempted to make the fraud more consistent.
I’ve read the various stories about the plates and how they were translated and all that - like first he translted them (pictures showing him doing that) then an angel telling him what to write (with a picture of an angel pointing) - anyway, it was just curious is all ....
That is a very interesting site. Thanks for posting it.
The testimony of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon (the same individuals whose testimony appears in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon), as well as Joseph Smiths wife, Emma Hale Smith. They tell a similar story of Joseph dropping a magical seer stone into his hat, then burying his face in the hat and proceeding to dictate the Book of Mormon. Joseph claimed to see in the darkened hat the words he dictated. Several of the witnesses comment that the gold plates were sometimes not even in sight as Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon.
All three of these critiques appeared in the Millennial Harbinger, but, as the following says from the link below, the first set of articles critiquing the Book of Mormon was from 1831, many years before the link I first provided.
“This review of Mr. Campbell came out first in the ‘Millennial Harbinger’, a monthly periodical published by him in Bethany, Virginia, under date of February 7th, 1831.”
So what you’re saying is he didn’t sit down with the golden plates and read/translated them? I also read where he would be behind a curtain and pass out the translated pages - I guess then there were different ways he translated?
Alexander Campbell had reason to be mad at Sm,ith...
Campbell called his church the Church of Christ and Sidney Rigdon was one of his followers and preachers...
When Rigdon joined Smith, Smith started calling his own gang, the “Church of Christ” at first...
Although Smith didnt haqve a Christian message...
Campbell was preaching from the Bible ...
Campbell didnt want his name linked with the blasphemeous Smith...
Smith and Rigdon stole many of Campbell’s followers...
Rock in hat...
Face in hat...
I thought he was sick and throwing up ...
Yes, and no...
But the mess that landed on the paper has the same smell...
I’ve lived with a Mormon family, read their stuff. Their home was a magnet home (they assisted several missionaries, did their wash, had dinner, etc) - anyway, there was no way I could believe that stuff, no way. It is so contradictory.
Alexander Campbell was one of the founders of the Restoration Movement, which basically said that all the truth we need to know is in the Word of God, meaning the Bible. Additionally, the movement described the need for unity in core principles, but allowance in non-core principles. Of course, determining the line between such areas could be difficult.
This movement had no actual leader, though. Campbell, nor others, were ever “in charge.” It was a fully decentralized approach to Christianity.
That said, one movement that came out of that was the Disciples of Christ Christian church, which did start a centralized governing body. The other two lines of churches the movement spawned was the much larger collection of independent Church of Christs throughout the country, and the smaller collection of Christian churches, which somewhat mirror the Church of Christ, but have basically allowed musical instruments.
Of these, in order of liberalism in the current day, the Disciples of Christ is by far the most liberal (15 years ago it was endorsing gay rights parades), followed by the Christian church (many are now contemporary services and many don't have problems with divorced elders, etc.), followed by the Church of Christ (of which there are probably 20+ strains of mostly conservative bodies). The United Church of Christ has a small connection with the Disciples of Christ, but really came from the merger of the Congregational, Evangelical, and Reformed churches primarily.
I would never willingly attend a UCC or a Disciples of Christ church, as both are extreme to very liberal now.
(they assisted several missionaries, did their wash, had dinner, etc)
Isnt that unusual ????
from what I’ve read the missionaries are pretty much on their own...
They should be helped though...
Joseph Smith never specifically state HOW he translated the bom - he gave no details. The images of the plates being behind a curtain or smith busy writing the translation down are part of a myth passed on down. The following links evaluate what the documented translation process was by those very scribes he used to write the words he translated down!
this last one is a mormon site
Bottom line is the myth, and there is the eyewitness accounts from his scribes.
That is my understanding, as well.
You are well-informed on this topic.
Is that the modern Church of Christ with no music etc ???
Yes, although I do understand that a few Church of Christs allow musical instruments.
Campbell didn’t start any church or group, but he encouraged people to go back to what the Bible said and faithfully interpret straight from God’s Words. This, of course, meant that some things started similarly, but have wound up very different, than congregations had originally intended when following Campbell’s encouragement.
Does look like he’s using an air sickness hat in the picture, hayna?
***Alexander Campbell had reason to be mad at Sm,ith...
Campbell called his church the Church of Christ and Sidney Rigdon was one of his followers and preachers...
When Rigdon joined Smith, Smith started calling his own gang, the Church of Christ at first...***
And we have evidence that Rigdon wrote much of early LDS theology, not Smith.
The Alexanders pere et fils both were guilty of creating their own churches along with Barton Stone, but they did not rise to the creation of such as the LDS. So it was the scope of the project that separates them, although they both engaged in church creation. A mitigating factor might be that the Restoration movement merely created new theologies out of existing Scripture, and the LDS wrote new scripture.
It should have read ‘the Campbells pere et fil’. Sorry for the mistype.
So, which church did Alexander Campbell found? It wasn’t the Church of Christ, the Christian church, or the Disciples of Christ, which were formed independently of him, but with the encouragement from his publications and such.
There has been quite a few wars with Campbellites here on FR in the past.
You Hateful bigots are at it aGAIN!!
Posting FACTS from the LDS’ history to make us look BAD!
And without even the COURTESY of pinginging fellow Christians!!
—MormonDude(Whut Would Joseph Smith Do?)
***So, which church did Alexander Campbell found?***
To begin with, the Brush Run Church in Pennsylvania, and if it were not for the the Campbells and Stone, the Churches of Christ or the Disciples of Christ and all their splinters would not exist.
The Campbells left the Presbyterians and adopted some Baptist thinking before they went headlong into the Restorationist movement, which acted to jettison all liturgical theology and towards a personal theology created from whichever Scripture that one happened to read that day.
The more conservative Churches of Christ will often refer to themselves as Campbellian (versus the Stone Disciples of Christ churches).
So, that is the denomination you believe he started?
I haven't heard of that. If helping start one private church makes someone guilty of starting a church, then you must believe hundreds of thousands of people are guilty of such blasphemy.
Whada mad I’m not sharing my popcorn? Its not WOW certified
And, mormons now expect (actually, demand) Christians today to accept that "new" scripture as "Christianity", even though for more than 100 years mormons and mormon leaders boasted of NOT being part of Christianity.
Who fought the wars and who won? ;)
***Who fought the wars and who won? ;) ***
Well. I’m still here and they ain’t. One hasn’t posted in six months.
Do a search for Bremenboy.
Them arrogant fools also DEMAND that people who actually FOLLOW MORMON scripture (D&C 132) not be ALLOWED to call themselves MORMONS!!
What blatant hypocrits!
***The Alexanders pere et fils both were guilty of creating their own churches... The Brush Run Church
So, that is the denomination you believe he started?
I haven’t heard of that. If helping start one private church makes someone guilty of starting a church, then you must believe hundreds of thousands of people are guilty of such blasphemy.***
Creating new theologies apart from the Church is heresy by definition. Perhaps you may have heard of that.
***A mitigating factor might be that the Restoration movement merely created new theologies out of existing Scripture, and the LDS wrote new scripture.
And, mormons now expect (actually, demand) Christians today to accept that “new” scripture as “Christianity”, even though for more than 100 years mormons and mormon leaders boasted of NOT being part of Christianity.***
That’s the way it goes, doesn’t it? We have the Church. They pulled their theology out of a hat.
***Them arrogant fools also DEMAND that people who actually FOLLOW MORMON scripture (D&C 132) not be ALLOWED to call themselves MORMONS!!
What blatant hypocrits!***
I think that they are simply revising to the point where they can fit in better and not advertise points which Christians will take umbrage to.
Ah, so you must be a supporter of one of those centralized corrupt churches from the top, down. You also probably believe the Bible isn’t all you need to know and that other edicts of man are as important.
***Ah, so you must be a supporter of one of those centralized corrupt churches from the top, down.***
Why would you say that? My tagline quotes St. Augustine so it ought to be plain what I believe in. I do not support a centralized corrupt churches from the top down, from the bottom up or any kind of diagonal.
I do have the privilege of following the institution that Jesus Christ created and the Holy Spirit commissioned at Pentecost.
***You also probably believe the Bible isnt all you need to know and that other edicts of man are as important.***
Wow, you know a lot about me. Perhaps you oughta know that the Bible is the creation of the Church which is the Creation of Jesus. If you could tell me where your particular church history starts, I could fill the rather large gaps between now and when Jesus Christ was God’s revelation to man 2000 years ago.
Yup, you come from one of the corrupt ones.
Do you enjoy having your donations go to pay for the hundreds of perverts your church trained?
***Yup, you come from one of the corrupt ones.***
Sorry, you may be confusing me with one of your fellow heretics.
***Do you enjoy having your donations go to pay for the hundreds of perverts your church trained?***
Hundreds of perverts trained by the Church? You oughta look at the study by UCLA which showed a much higher occurrance of child molesting by mainline Protestant and especially ‘independent’ churches.
But enough of the polite chatter. May I enquire which flavours your particular beliefs encompass? Or would you say that you are of the Bible believing crowd, with the beliefs of the moment being coloured by the state of your stomach, the barometric pressure or the winning record of the New York Yankees?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Thank you for the reminder.
Oh, I think it's more than that. IMO they are attempting to substitute mormon theology for Biblical and Christian theology with sites like the one discussed HERE
"Christianity Defined"....what a deceptive ploy to suck in those who are searching for Christian study guides.
***”Christianity Defined”....what a deceptive ploy to suck in those who are searching for Christian study guides.***
I was just given a little booklet innocuously entitled: What the Bible Really Says. Jehovah’s Witnesses. The LDS is not alone; even what might be considered more conventional Christianity is littered with con men, snake handlers, mallfront churches, and all of whom have their own particular little twist on theology.
That’s a powerful argument for my homies; the Church defines orthodoxy going back to Christ so it is arguably easier to recognize and therefore head off these strange beliefs, especially when they walk up to your door all nice and neat and polished and smiley. But I don’t want to move this thread off of where it is going. This is a deceptive ploy and one that we must all be on guard for.
I is interesting that he was unable to reproduce those 140 pages that were stolen from him (or rather he gave to his friend to show his wife who kept them). I read his ‘spin’ on why the new pages were different.
Significant details & problems that most LDS are not aware of
The official story taught and recorded by the church is nonsensical for the following reasons:
The evil men that were conspiring to alter the original documents could not have done so without it being very obvious that the original document was altered. When Martin Harris was scribing for Joseph, he didn’t use a pencil and paper. Martin wrote with ink on foolscap. Any alteration would be very noticeable and not convincing to anyone.
In addition to the rubbing out of old words and rewriting of new words, the handwriting would have been different. Any rudimentary handwriting inspection would have determined that it had been altered, especially easy to determine given that the new handwriting would have occurred in the same spot as the rubbed-out and re-written words.
If the evil men, that were planning on changing the stolen 116 pages, thought their plan of changing some words from these pages would work to discredit Joseph, they would not have been completely foiled by Joseph translating from different plates to tell the first part of the Book of Mormon story. If they thought their alterations would have gone unnoticed then they would have still tried to alter the 116 pages to discredit his work.
For example, they could have changed some names of people or places or altered events that are central to the beginning of the Book of Mormon and thereby prove that Joseph’s new translation was in error. If they really thought their alterations would have gone unnoticed they could have changed the names of Nephi’s brothers or the cities they came from or many other items that would have been included in both sets of plates. But they never did this - why? If opponents of the Church really had the lost 116 pages as Joseph claimed, they would have resurfaced in some form to at least attempt to discredit Joseph, even if they would not have been successful.
The general belief at the time was that Martin Harris’s wife burned the 116 pages. If she destroyed them, then this entire story is simply made up by Joseph Smith. But the prophet Joseph evidently was afraid she had not, but had secretly hidden them, for the purpose of entrapping him, should he ever attempt to reproduce the pages. If the work was really of God, the manuscript could be reproduced word for word without a mistake. If, however, Joseph created it himself, his memory would hardly be adequate to such a task, without numberless changes or verbal differences-and thus “give himself away,” since he loudly professed to be all the time aided “by the gift and power of God.” Since the lost pages never surfaced in any form, it is likely that they were destroyed immediately by Martin Harris’s wife. Therefore, the entire story about someone altering pages is impossible and just made up by Joseph because he knew he could not reproduce those same pages as he was not really translating the Book of Mormon story.
It is convenient that the prophets of old just happened to make an extra set of plates 1500 years ago to cover this contingency, isn’t it? Not only are the 116 pages lost, we have an explanation of how it was fixed right in the document itself written thousands of years before the event happened.