Hey Guys,

Just talking to my wife about the Charles Anton transcript and how its accompying story from Harris is so flawed. The fact that Anthon said the translation was correct (When nobody knew Egyptian nor especially reformed in that case), that he denied ever authenticating it, and that the story Harris gave fits so well with a prophecy. We were discussing the last point about how it appears Harris just made the whole story up to fit with the Isaiah 29 prophecy and fulfill it like all the out of context fulfillments the church has stated. So it seemed impressive that JS and the other conspirators would have found such a connection with Isaiah and use it as a prophecy. I mean, they'd have to know the scriptures extremely well and to that level it is impressive. Unless of course, they created the story later on down the road as they were actively engaged in studying and manipulating the scriptures (Like Rigdon and Smith doing their translation).

Does anyone know when the first mention of the plates having a sealed portion was published and how this fits in with the Anthon story. If the sealed portion was declared at the very beginning then it is quite impressive that Isaiah 29 existed and was used later on down the road. I should thing knowledge of Isaiah 29 would have preceded the plates having a sealed portion.

Thank you

Don't forget that Joseph Smith was familiar with the book of Isaiah and plagiarized portions of it in the Book of Mormon.

That is true, but did he mention the Book being sealed before the translation commenced or at least before the Book of Lehi script was lost?

IIRC there was always a sealed portion. Under the Rigdon/Spaulding theory, the sealed portion represented future works that Rigdon had in the pipeline, apparently based on the remainder of Spaulding's manuscript. Rigdon to some extent stage managed the presentation of the manuscript to the public.

If you are unfamiliar with this theory, which has some considerable support, including published (peer-reviewed) quantitative authorship studies, Craig Criddle has a presentation here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utDU45lm210

Uncle Dale Broadhurst has collected a massive amount of early information on the early church and the environment it developed in here:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/

An important thing to remember is that the theory does not overturn or invalidate other findings made under the assumption that Smith wrote the BoM alone, rather the S/R theory complements or illuminates them.

I started out sitting on the fence, but the quantitative authorship studies had me sold on the S/R theory. (So I am now biased). Uncle Dale's website collects the original material so you can check it out for your self.

Just looking at Craigs presentation at Part 3. 1:22. He is quoting testimony from a friend of Spalding (commenting on Spaldings lost works appearing in the Book of Mormon): "Spalding had many other manuscripts which I expects to see when Smith translates his other plates."

As to whether there was a specific sealed section prior to losing the Book of Lehi, I am not sure. Rigdon claimed later in life, after leaving Mormonism, to know what was in the sealed section. Craig does discuss some very interesting issues concerning the missing pages here:
http://truthandgrace.com/Rigdon2.htm

Thanks for the interesting research project! Here's what I can find:

The visit with Charles Anthon occurred on Feb 25, 1828.

2 Nephi 27, which contains a modified copy of Isaiah 29, was "translated" sometime in June, 1829. This contains all the references to the book being delivered up to the learned man, etc... and is clearly tailored to fit the Charles Anthon thing, which occurred well over a year earlier. Note also that this came after Joseph Smith Sr. dream copy, which indicates that Joseph and Oliver had probably taken over creative license a this point. Also note that Isaiah 29 was translated alone, as opposed to the other Isaiah chapters in which a string of chapters were translated together. This indicates emphasis on the sealed portion.

David Whitmer is the only witness that I can find who claimed that a portion of the plates were sealed, and he didn't "see" them until June 1829, so that's of little help. Orson Pratt is the other person who claimed the sealed portion, but he didn't see them, and worked of the witnesses testimonies (most likely Whitmer's).

I can't find any reference where Joseph himself talked about the sealed portion. You would think this would have been an important detail. I hope someone here finds something, because I sure can't. This would indicate to me that the sealed portion was invented around June 1829, or a little before, which is a time where Joseph and Oliver were studying together - most likely Isaiah.

In the canonical Joseph Smith History, written 1838, Joseph tells the Anthon story with the "I cannot read a sealed book" rhetoric. A great deal of this history has been proven false. But even if not, Anthon would have said "sealed book," not "sealed portion." And the fact that part of the book was sealed would not have been justification for Martin not to bring it, so he wouldn't have worded it like that. He most likely would have said "I cannot, because nobody is allowed to see it."