A Compelling Internal Evidence Of The Book Of Mormon

[DonBradley]

No! I don't attribute the Book of Mormon to "fiendish" sources. I don't believe in fiends, and even if I thought there were such creatures, I find the Book of Mormon far too positive and edifying to be from such a source.

I don't remember where I first picked up the term "fiendishly complex," but I use it to refer to sets of data that are so complex they keep the would-be interpreter going and going, never certain how many threads there are, much less how to tie them all up. As I see the Book of Mormon, it is filled with allusions--external (many of them to biblical narratives and texts) and internal (it builds on its own prior narratives and texts). I think it is a masterpiece that has yet to be well explained.

This book has had immense power in the lives of its first readers and those of millions who have followed. To describe it the clumsy excresence of Joseph Smith's intrapsychic conflicts does nothing to account for this power. If the Book of Mormon is merely a free association, a novel, or a simplistic fable, then its success is one of the great flukes of human history. Such readings are most unsatisfactory. Any theory that is hoped to account for the book's origin must also at least begin to account for the book's power--and this can only be achieved by engaging, rather than denying, its remarkable complexity.

Don

[charity]

I don't see the relevance of the Prophet not being able to write sentences. Can you explain?

Jersey Girl

Jersey girl, I may have a slightly different persepctive on this than many. I worked for several years as an editor at campus publications at BYU. We published all the Devotionals, Forums, and Workshops and Seminars at BYU. We transcribed the recorded presentations, edited them, and printed them for purchase. By "edited" I don't mean we did any factual changes. Only grammar.

I edited talks by some of the most learned people around, in the Church and out. And you would be surprised at how people speak. We "edit" in our minds as we listen. We don't realize how when people are talking off the top of their heads, by this I mean not reading their remarks off a prepared manuscript, just how ungrammatical even the most errudite are. There are incomplete sentences all over the place. The fact is that the Book of Mormon, even the 1829 edition, is not written as though someone were dictating without a prepared manscript. There sentences were complete sentences.

And Joseph supposedly could not compose a complete sentence in a grammatically pleasing form.

[William Schryver]

No! I don't attribute the Book of Mormon to "fiendish" sources. I don't believe in fiends, and even if I thought there were such creatures, I find the Book of Mormon far too positive and edifying to be from such a source.

I don't remember where I first picked up the term "fiendishly complex," but I use it to refer to sets of data that are so complex they keep the would-be interpreter going and going, never certain how many threads there are, much less how to tie them all up. As I see the Book of Mormon, it is filled with allusions--external (many of them to biblical narratives and texts) and internal (it builds on its own prior narratives and texts). I think it is a masterpiece that has yet to be well explained.

This book has had immense power in the lives of its first readers and those of millions who have followed. To describe it the clumsy excresence of Joseph Smith's intrapsychic conflicts does nothing to account for this power. If the Book of Mormon is merely a free association, a novel, or a simplistic fable, then its success is one of the great flukes of human history. Such readings are most unsatisfactory. Any theory that is hoped to account for the book's origin must also at least begin to account for the book's power--and this can only be achieved by engaging, rather than denying, its remarkable complexity.

Don

I didn't really think you were trying to imply that "the devil did it." I just happened to notice that you like that particular phrase. It is somewhat unique to you in terms of this message board.

I take it (from your elaboration above vis-a-vis "intrapsychic conflicts") that you tend to disagree with much of Vogel's attempt to explain the origin of the Book of Mormon.

[DonBradley]

I didn't really think you were trying to imply that "the devil did it." I just happened to notice that you like that particular phrase. It is somewhat unique to you in terms of this message board.

Just part of my idiolect, I guess.

I take it (from your elaboration above vis-a-vis "intrapsychic conflicts") that you tend to disagree with much of Vogel's attempt to explain the origin of the Book of Mormon.

I disagree with Dan, with William Morain, with Bob Anderson, the Spalding theorists...and probably everybody else.

I find a tremendous amount to applaud in Dan's recent biography of Joseph Smith. He digs out more information than anyone else ever has on Joseph Smith's early years. He views Joseph Smith's treasure digging in the light of present-day research on practitioners of dowsing and similar operations. He sets the Book of Mormon dictation in broader context. He shows how Book of Mormon teachings related to contemporaneous theological debates. And he really takes seriously the biographers job of accounting for a life--of giving us the person, rather than a mere chronicle of the incidents in his or her life.

What I don't think he does is account persuasively for the narrative of the Book of Mormon, or for the power it had and has in people's lives. Dan frequently points out apparent blunders in the book--where it appears simplistic, unrealistic, and contrary to present-day biblical, historical, and scientific scholarship. But there is no corresponding emphasis on what the book does right--on how it proves so persuasive and spiritually powerful. If the book is a series of errors, why does it "work" so well?? Rather than accounting for the book's power, I think Dan's description of it leaves one all the more mystified on how the book shaped the lives of its original witnesses and has made additional witnesses of millions of subsequent readers.

It has been noted that the Book of Mormon impacts relatively few (given the total population), but that those it does impact are shaped by it quite forcefully. This cries out for explanation, and must be factored in to any credible account of the book's own message and origin. But the psychological theories offered by Vogel, Anderson, and Morain do vanishingly little to answer the cry.

Don

[DonBradley]

As an addendum to the above, I should state that I agree with Dan Vogel that the Book of Mormon has a number of flaws as a literary work, an interpreter of biblical texts, and, particularly, as a credible account of ancient American events. These flaws are often relevant in assessing whether it is an ancient work, but once the conclusion that it is not an ancient work is reached, they become much less relevant--they do little to account for its specific mode of composition in a 19th-century context, and even less to account for its narrative power and ability to transform the identity of many of its readers.

I don't discount the contributions of those who've attempted to explain the Book of Mormon, least of all those of Dan Vogel, which I think will still be recognized a century from now. However, I think these interpreters have left a great deal--including what is perhaps most important about the text--yet unexplained. I'm quite unsatisfied with any explanation of the Book of Mormon that fails to account for its ability to transform personal identity and provide the foundation of a thriving community.

Don

[Dan Vogel]

Great observation, consiglieri.

Those who have posted negative responses to your analysis apparently don't understand the meaning of "internal evidence." Of course, your observation doesn't "prove" the Book of Mormon, but it does demonstrate another element of its internal consistency -- something that an author who is "making it up as he goes" would have great difficulty in maintaining.

I think there is too much "internal consistency" between the Jaredite and Nephite stories, as well as within the book of Ether itself. Both groups degenerate, are plagued by secret combinations, and are destroyed in a mass war that ends on the very same hill with only one survivor left to record the story on gold plates. The repetition of a phrase hardly seems noteworthy in light of the repetition of the entire story.

Within the book of Ether, the story of a father being forcibly removed from the throne by a son, who is then overthrown by a younger brother is too repetitive for comfort. This is mentioned in my biography:

At age thirty-two, Kibâ??s son Corihor rebels against him, founds a rival city in the land of Nehor, and draws â??away many people after himâ? (7:4). For this, Smith relies on two names previously used for evil characters in his account of Nephite history: Korihor, the anti-Christ, and Nehor, founder of the Universalist sect. After gathering an army, Corihor invades the land of Moron (a variant of Moroni), taking his father captive (v. 5).

In his old age and still in captivity, Kib fathers as son named Shule (7:7-10), who grows up with an understandable grudge against his older brother. Shule makes steel swords with ore he extracts from the hill Ephraim and then gathers an army (v. 9). He invades Nehor, captures Corihor, and reestablishes his father as ruler of the kingdom. For this valiant deed, Kib bestows the kingdom upon Shule (v. 10). An unexpected twist occurs when Corihor repents and is given an office in the restored government (v. 13).

The overthrow of the father by a son and the fatherâ??s subsequent restoration by a younger son, who is rewarded with the throne while his father is still alive, is a reoccurring theme in the book of Ether. It virtually repeats in the story of Omer (8:1- and appears, although in a disguised form, in several additional stories (7:11-27; 8:9-15; 13:22-24). ...

Other parallels between Ether and Mosiah can be made. The stories of Nephite king Noah (Mosiah 11-12, 19) and Jaredite king Riplakish (Ether 10) are very similar.

The problem isn't that JS knew the contents of Ether beforehand, but rather it's that he remembered Nephite history too well while dictating Ether.

[Dan Vogel]

Just part of my idiolect, I guess.

I disagree with Dan, with William Morain, with Bob Anderson, the Spalding theorists...and probably everybody else.

I find a tremendous amount to applaud in Dan's recent biography of Joseph Smith. He digs out more information than anyone else ever has on Joseph Smith's early years. He views Joseph Smith's treasure digging in the light of present-day research on practitioners of dowsing and similar operations. He sets the Book of Mormon dictation in broader context. He shows how Book of Mormon teachings related to contemporaneous theological debates. And he really takes seriously the biographers job of accounting for a life--of giving us the person, rather than a mere chronicle of the incidents in his or her life.

What I don't think he does is account persuasively for the narrative of the Book of Mormon, or for the power it had and has in people's lives. Dan frequently points out apparent blunders in the book--where it appears simplistic, unrealistic, and contrary to present-day biblical, historical, and scientific scholarship. But there is no corresponding emphasis on what the book does right--on how it proves so persuasive and spiritually powerful. If the book is a series of errors, why does it "work" so well?? Rather than accounting for the book's power, I think Dan's description of it leaves one all the more mystified on how the book shaped the lives of its original witnesses and has made additional witnesses of millions of subsequent readers.

It has been noted that the Book of Mormon impacts relatively few (given the total population), but that those it does impact are shaped by it quite forcefully. This cries out for explanation, and must be factored in to any credible account of the book's own message and origin. But the psychological theories offered by Vogel, Anderson, and Morain do vanishingly little to answer the cry.

Don

Sounds like a job for you. It will be a difficult one given that so little was said by JS and founding Mormons about the BOM. I was happy to mine it for possible insights into JS's thinking and emotions. Much more work remains to be done. More of what Mark Thomas was trying to do from a literary perspective. We have barely started that work. Getting the right people interested is the hard part.

[grego]

I find this a compelling internal textual evidence of the Book of Mormon.

Any thoughts?

I see you haven't been to read my articles yet...

Having the records of the fathers (Brass Plates), he would be familiar with judges, kings, and Saul. And yes, having translated the Jaredite records, he would be familiar with the warning of the Brother of Jared about kings, and the fulfilling of it in the entire record.

Of course, central to all this is that his sons didn't want to be king. He needed a new way, and fast.

Whether that's good evidence, I don't know; but it's in a perfect spot.

[consiglieri]

If one has to assume ancient origins in order to see the higher level of complexity that is then used as evidence for ancient origins, the argument is circular.

I believe the Book of Mormon to be almost fiendishly complex.

Don

Dear Don,

Nice to hear from you on this humble thread.

I want to make clear that I am not necessarily arguing that this interesting connection within the text of the Book of Mormon assumes "ancient origins."

What I am suggesting is that this correlation indicates that the person who wrote/translated the Book of Mormon knew the end from the beginning.

In other words, it appears that whoever wrote Mosiah 29 already knew what was in Ether.

I find the placement interesting for reasons I have already set forth above, but also because the theory that the translation of the Book of Mormon began with Mosiah and continued to the end, and then from 1 Nephi up to the beginning of Mosiah, does not really help explain this peculiarity.

So I think that this piece of evidence for internal textual consistency indicates that the entire Book of Mormon (or at least this particular theme of the Book of Ether) was already in place when Mosiah 29 was translated.

I think that this should be taken into account when postulating theories as to the manner of production of the Book of Mormon.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[urroner]

All this, and humble, too.

One can not be humble unless one is also great, else nobody would notice ones true humility though ones greatness.

[emeliza]

If a person had control over the production of a body of work, in this case the Book of Mormon, I don't see where they'd have any difficulty at all in maintaining a story line. For what reason do you see it as presenting great difficulty to an author? Internal evidence, Will, does not prove the authenticity/veracity of a collection of literature. If one wanted to prove that a collection of literature were historical fact, they'd have to look outside of that collection for corraborating evidences.

Jersey Girl

Have you ever tried it? Especially when only dictating, not writing it yourself. You can't go back and look over what you just wrote. Try doing it, it is much harder than you would think. Ask your husband if you can dictate a 40 page story to him and then afterwords read it back and see if the whole thing makes sense and doesn't get lost. During no time are you allowed to read back over it or have your husband read it to you and each day you are only allowed to dictate a maximum of 10 pages. Your husband also can't comment back to you during the dictation, but must just keep writing.

[consiglieri]

Have you ever tried it? Especially when only dictating, not writing it yourself. You can't go back and look over what you just wrote. Try doing it, it is much harder than you would think. Ask your husband if you can dictate a 40 page story to him and then afterwords read it back and see if the whole thing makes sense and doesn't get lost. During no time are you allowed to read back over it or have your husband read it to you and each day you are only allowed to dictate a maximum of 10 pages. Your husband also can't comment back to you during the dictation, but must just keep writing.

Dear Emeliza,

Please don't confuse Jersey Girl with the evidence.

It is best to ignore her altogether lest she derail yet another thread with her emoting.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[DonBradley]

Sounds like a job for you. It will be a difficult one given that so little was said by JS and founding Mormons about the BOM. I was happy to mine it for possible insights into JS's thinking and emotions. Much more work remains to be done. More of what Mark Thomas was trying to do from a literary perspective. We have barely started that work. Getting the right people interested is the hard part.

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the encouragement! This is an area I'm researching and in which I hope to make a contribution.

Don

[DonBradley]

What I am suggesting is that this correlation indicates that the person who wrote/translated the Book of Mormon knew the end from the beginning.

In other words, it appears that whoever wrote Mosiah 29 already knew what was in Ether.

I find the placement interesting for reasons I have already set forth above, but also because the theory that the translation of the Book of Mormon began with Mosiah and continued to the end, and then from 1 Nephi up to the beginning of Mosiah, does not really help explain this peculiarity.

So I think that this piece of evidence for internal textual consistency indicates that the entire Book of Mormon (or at least this particular theme of the Book of Ether) was already in place when Mosiah 29 was translated.

I don't think it shows at all that the author of Mosiah already knew what was in the Book of Ether. If the Book of Ether was composed when it was dictated, then it was composed after Mosiah, and therefore could well have been used to amplify and illustrate themes introduced in Mosiah.

I recognize that you're saying the Book of Ether could have prompted Mosiah's observations about kingship. And I agree that there is a connection of the Ether narratives with Mosiah's views on monarchy. I'm merely pointing out that not only could the Book of Ether have prompted Mosiah's observation, but Mosiah's observation could have prompted the theme of monarchical fratricide in the Book of Ether. If Joseph Smith introduced this idea in Mosiah's sermon, where else in the text could he give it a narrative illustration? After the sermon, there are no Nephite kings to illustrate the point; so the Jaredite kings of the Book of Ether provide the first opportunity.

Note also that by the time of Mosiah's sermon, the narrator has already promised to include an abridgment of the Jaredite record. If it was Joseph Smith who made this promise, he almost certainly already in mind themes to address in this promised narrative. If not--if Joseph Smith had no particular purposes in mind for the Jaredite story, why raise the matter in the first place, and why promise to include the story later on?

On dictating Mosiah's sermon abolishing the monarchy, Joseph Smith (as author) would likely have already had themes in mind for the Book of Ether, and may have previewed some of them in the present dictation. Why not?

There is some evidence here of pre-planning, but that evidence is to be found more in the promise of a Jaredite account than in the theme of monarchical fratricide. And pre-planning is itself only evidence of human intelligence, not of antiquity or historical veracity.

Don

[Hammer]

Have you ever tried it? Especially when only dictating, not writing it yourself. You can't go back and look over what you just wrote. Try doing it, it is much harder than you would think. Ask your husband if you can dictate a 40 page story to him and then afterwords read it back and see if the whole thing makes sense and doesn't get lost. During no time are you allowed to read back over it or have your husband read it to you and each day you are only allowed to dictate a maximum of 10 pages. Your husband also can't comment back to you during the dictation, but must just keep writing.

Including day after day. After reading the critiques, I am convinced that Joseph Smith was either a prophet of God or God Himself come down to do an incredible work and wonder-- or would that be better said, a Marvelous Work and A Wonder?

[SolarPowered]

I don't see the relevance of the Prophet not being able to write sentences. Can you explain?

Jersey Girl

The manuscript of the Book of Mormon is the world's longest sentence.

Well, OK, I exaggerate. It's probably something like five to ten sentences.