Malachi 3:14 (King James Bible) and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance
The Book of Mormon text here differs from the King James Bible in the form of the question (“what doth it profit” versus “what profit is it ”). Since is it is in italics in the King James Bible, the form of the question is subject to variation, so the difference in question form is undoubtedly intended. Moreover, both the 1830 edition and the printer’s manuscript read “what doth it profit”. The expression “what doth it profit” is found one more time in the Book of Mormon (namely, in Alma 30:34: “what doth it profit us to labor in the church”); there are no examples of “what profit is it” in the Book of Mormon text. The King James Bible, on the other hand, has instances of both types: “what profit is it” occurs not only in Malachi 3:14 but also in Genesis 37:26, while “what doth it profit” is found twice in James 2 (verses 14 and 16).
This verse in 3 Nephi 24 also has a textual variant for the word ordinance(s). The 1830 edition agrees with the King James Bible in having the singular ordinance. Modern English speakers feel uncomfortable with the singular here, so the tendency in the transmission of the Book of Mormon text has been to replace the awkward use of ordinance with the expected ordinances. The printer’s manuscript and the 1840 edition (and perhaps even the 1920 LDS edition) independently introduced the plural reading. Since the 1830 ordinance follows the King James reading, the original manuscript probably read in the singular. Despite its strangeness, the singular ordinance will be restored in the critical text.
One could argue that here the 1830 typesetter, John Gilbert, proofed his copytext against the King James Bible and thus made the change to the singular ordinance (that is, 𝓞 read in the plural and the 1830 typesetter was the one who made the textual change). There is evidence that Gilbert sometimes referred to the King James Bible—for instance, to get the spelling fullers’ soap in 3 Nephi 24:2. But it is doubtful that he actually proofed the whole text. He seems to have referred to the King James Bible only when something difficult showed up. If the original manuscript had read ordinances, it would have been so natural that it is very doubtful he would have checked it against his Bible. In this regard, note that in the next verse the Book of Mormon text reads them that in both 𝓟 and the 1830 edition; here one naturally expects they that, the King James reading. Even so, the 1830 typesetter did not adopt that reading; in this case, he simply let the Book of Mormon reading stand without consulting his Bible. (For discussion regarding them that versus they that, see immediately below, under 3 Nephi 24:15.)
In the expression “keep … ordinance(s)”, the King James Bible has four other examples in the singular and five in the plural, including one in Malachi 3:7 (and quoted in the plural in 3 Nephi 24:7):
Although it is possible that this passage could have influenced scribe 2 of 𝓟 to substitute the plural later in verse 14, the stronger influence probably came from the fact that speakers of modern English expect the plural ordinances with the verb keep, as elsewhere in the Book of Mormon text (although only once):
Despite this plural usage elsewhere in the text, the original text for 3 Nephi 24:14, it would appear, agrees with the singular reading in Malachi 3:14 (“his ordinance”) and will be restored in the critical text.
Summary: Restore in 3 Nephi 24:14 the singular ordinance, the 1830 reading as well as the King James reading; also maintain the question “what doth it profit”, the invariant Book of Mormon reading.