[Tex]

There's a little too much for me to respond to here, point by point. Let me just try to make a few final comments. Sorry if I miss someone ... it's not on purpose.

1. Did Joseph Smith copy the KJV? And does it matter?

I don't know (but I don't think so), and yes.

I'm not scholarly enough to get into the textual analysis details. I wish I were, but I'm not. Thus, I don't have a good counter explanation as to why they match so well, including mistakes common to both. I form my opinion on two predicates: (1) there is no indication the historical record, such as it is, that Joseph did this, and (2) it seems inconsistent with what we DO know about the translation process.

I really do have a hard time reconciling the prophetic gift in this manner. While there are large contiguous passages of KJV-like scripture, there are also small inserts peppered throughout the Book. I have a hard time imagining Joseph reading "And now I Nephi will quote Isaiah" and him cracking open his KJV to follow along, making modifications as he went. This he did with the JST, and made no secret of it. Why do it here, and pretend it was written by ancient prophets?

I don't buy the "Joseph had the KJV memorized" line either, incidentally. Also seems implausible.

2. But the record is incomplete.

Doesn't matter to me. I am very cautious to fill in blanks either accidentally or purposely left blank without some historical basis to do so. I remember reading once (wish I had the reference) that Joseph had said the Lord did not wish the mechanics of the BofM translation to be made known.

3. Did the New Testament translators violate this principal by borrowing from the Septuagint rather than from the Masoretic Text?

It does seem to be a little disingenuous to me to translate a text, supplant what is actually written with something else, and then claim that the translation is an accurate representation of the original. Does it not?

But I think it's a hard thing to compare their work to Joseph's anyway. Theirs was essentially an academic endeavor; Joseph's was spiritual. Their credentials were of man; Joseph's were of God.

4. What did the plates actually contain?

Despite being accused of "appealing to the masses," the question of how the early Saints thought of the plates is a relevant one. Without looking at them ourselves, we cannot really know what was on them (indeed, we've even seen a bone-headed allegation that they never existed). So, the opinions of the people closest to the plates' translator matter. It's stating the obvious to say that they believed the Book was a translation of what was actually on the plates.

I know of no reading of any history or journal or publication from that period to suggest that any of the believers thought it contained anything else. Perhaps they were all wrong, but they got their impressions of what it contained from the 11 witnesses and from Joseph. This is not a logic proof, but it does make sense.

---

In conclusion, I don't have good answers to some of the difficult (and valid) questions that come from the translation story. But in the absence of solid data about the process, I am resistant to suppositions that I feel detract from the prophetic call.

If that means weathering some accusations that I'm denying 2+2, then so be it. It would not be the first time that something "obvious" has proven wrong in the long run.