So this image is from the 1838 (or slightly later) history and some have argued the * in there was a placeholder, but that makes no sense because there's no reason to leave that out if you're going to add it back in later.
What's even more interesting is that this story was originally written in the 1832 history of the church and does NOT mention the sealed book comment. From the 1832 history:
"Because of his faith… the Lord appeared unto [Martin Harris] in a vision and showed unto him his marvelous work which he was about to do. He immediately came to Susquehanna and said the Lord had shown him that he must go to New York City with some of the characters, so we proceeded to copy some of them.
And he took his journey to the Eastern Cities and to the learned, saying, “Read this, I pray thee.” And the learned said, “I cannot, but if he would bring the plates they would read it.” But the Lord had forbid it, and he returned to me and gave them to me to translate.
And I said “I cannot, for I am not learned.” But the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book; therefore I commenced translating the characters, and thus the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled which is written in the 29 chapter concerning the book."
Flash forward to the story as we now are taught it... this was written in 1838 after Martin Harris was excommunicated from the church, meaning that he could not be the one telling the story even though it is written in his voice. Of course Anthon himself does not give this account in his two retellings of the story, and the only other account I'm aware of is from a newspaper that talked with Martin Harris that also doesn't mention the sealed book comment:
"Harris with several manuscripts in his pocket, went to the city of New York, and called upon one of the Professors of Columbia College [presumably Anthon] for the purpose of showing them to him. Harris says that the Professor thought them very curious, but admitted that he could not decypher them. Said he to Harris, “Mr. Harris you had better go to the celebrated Dr. Mitchell and show them to him. He is very learned in these ancient languages, and I have no doubt will be able to give you some satisfaction.” “Where does he live,” asked Harris. He was told, and off he posted with the engravings from the Golden Plates to submit to Dr. Mitchell. Harris says that the Doctor received him very “purlitely,” looked at his engravings — made a learned dissertation on them — compared them with the hieroglyphics discovered [by] Champollion in Egypt — and set them down as the language of a people formerly in existence in the East, but now no more." (Morning Courier & New-York Enquirer, 1831)
Am I missing something here, or is this a massive problem for a story that the church claims fulfills the prophecy in Isaiah? And that doesn't even get into why Joseph Smith's interpretation of Isaiah appears to be wrong as well.
concerning Joseph Smith.