It appears you missed the point of my previous post. Let me attempt to clarify. We have no access to the original NT manuscripts. Textual criticism only attempts to get as close to the original as possible. Therefore your comment that “Smith let STAND significant errors uncovered by textural criticism and more recent ms UNTOUCHED” has no bearing on the point you are trying to make. Joseph Smith was not attempting to correct the NT to make it conform to the earliest possible manuscripts, but to make it conform to the original manuscripts through inspiration from God.
No, I understood your point clearly - smith was acting by shear “power of God” or whatever.
The fact is that as soon as discussion of the Trinity pops up - one of the first areas attacked is the Johanne Coma - a section added by a scribe into 1 John. In smith’s time it was thought to be authentic - yet here we are 150 years later KNOWING it was added.
Here is the point Don - the origional ms did NOT contain this passage - therefore smith failed by allowing it to stay in untouched. Now by leaving it in place - smith prophetically condoned the passage as authentic. That passage as well as others were not excised.