Joseph Dictated The Book Of Mormon On The Fly?

[consiglieri]

In rereading 3 Nephi 16, 20-21 for Gospel Doctrine Class prep Sunday morning (okay! It was during the primary presentation in sacrament meeting!), I stumbled upon an exciting connection in the Book of Mormon that had escaped me for 30-years and about as many readings.

3 Nephi 16 ends with Jesus quoting three verses from Isaiah, and 3 Nephi 20:10 picks up exactly where Jesus left off at the end of 3 Nephi 16.

Here is why I find this of interest.

At the end of 3 Nephi 16, Jesus says the following:

3 Nephi 16:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, thus hath the Father commanded meâ??that I should give unto this people this land for their inheritance. 17 And then the words of the prophet Isaiah shall be fulfilled, which say:

18 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing, for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion.

19 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.

20 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God.

At the beginning of chapter 17, Jesus says the people can't understand all his words right now, so he is going to give them the night to think about it, because he has to go to his Father, and then to the ten tribes of Israel.

BUT the people long for him to stay, so chapters 17-18 are filled with the things that Jesus did and taught the Nephites at the end of the first day but after he had originally planned to leave.

Jesus finally leaves at the end of chapter 18. Chapter 19 has the Nephites going out to gather in everybody to the temple so they can be there the next day when Jesus arrives; then the disciples teach the assembled crowd what Jesus taught them the day before; all are baptized; and a great deal of praying ensues, during which Jesus joins them in prayers and offers his own intercessory prayer to the Father.

This continues into the first ten verses of chapter 20, after which the sacrament is again provided and partaken of by the multitude.

But then comes 3 Nephi 20:10, at which point Jesus, without missing a beat, picks up his discourse exactly where he left off at the end of chapter 16, right before he was planning on leaving at the end of the first day.

3 Nephi 20:10 And it came to pass that when they had all given glory unto Jesus, he said unto them: Behold now I finish the commandment which the Father hath commanded me concerning this people, who are a remnant of the house of Israel.

11 Ye remember that I spake unto you, and said that when the words of Isaiah should be fulfilledâ??behold they are written, ye have them before you, therefore search themâ??

12 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that when they shall be fulfilled then is the fulfilling of the covenant which the Father hath made unto his people, O house of Israel.

13 And then shall the remnants, which shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth, be gathered in from the east and from the west, and from the south and from the north; and they shall be brought to the knowledge of the Lord their God, who hath redeemed them.

14 And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance.

It is these types of connections that provide strong evidence of a pre-planned structure of the Book of Mormon text. The more I study the Book of Mormon, the more I see these types of structures, and the less plausible it seems that Joseph Smith would have been able to just dictate it off the top of his head.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scottie]

It remains a mystery to me how the BoM was produced.

One of the strongest evidences to me that point towards it not being produced on the fly is the different measurements of years.

IIRC, the BoM has 3 basepoints they use for measuring years. When Lehi left the old world, the reign of the judges and when Christ came. There are several parts in the BoM where it talks about 2 or all 3 of the measuring systems and they all match. I don't believe this would be possible without some planning.

[sleepyhead]

Hello consig,

I wouldn't think that there would be to many people who hold the view that JS did come up with the book of mormon off the top of his head.

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the post, Scottie.

(And good Monday morning to you!)

I think it is easy for those who have never really looked at the Book of Mormon to maintain that Joseph Smith just dictated it off the top of his head using his fertile frontier imagination.

But when we look more closely, it is clear that the "author" (whoever we might think that "author" to be) engaged in a great deal of planning and structuring in producing the text.

Your example of the three different "time systems" is a good one.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[captain-jack]

Hello consig,

I wouldn't think that there would be to many people who hold the view that JS did come up with the book of mormon off the top of his head.

How about someone with less education that a 10 year old of today being able to plan such a book?

[kawikadave]

It seems like people really have two options for the origin of the book:

- it was created by some very educated people over a fairly long period of time (who decided never to come forward and reveal themselves)

or

- it is of divine origin

I don't see room for a third option. The scripture you pointed out as well as Scottie's time markers are just a few more examples that another option isn't available.

[Scottie]

How about someone with less education that a 10 year old of today being able to plan such a book?

Muhammad had less education than JS and he wrote the Qur'an.

It seems like people really have two options for the origin of the book:

- it was created by some very educated people over a fairly long period of time (who decided never to come forward and reveal themselves)

or

- it is of divine origin

I don't see room for a third option. The scripture you pointed out as well as Scottie's time markers are just a few more examples that another option isn't available.

Or, it was created by some moderately educated people over a short period of time. I don't see why this isn't a viable option??

Edited to add: Personally, I think the lost 116 pages strongly points to a rough draft.

[kawikadave]

Or, it was created by some moderately educated people over a short period of time. I don't see why this isn't a viable option??

Hmmm... don't know that I can agree with this.

Do you think a college freshman could write something similar to the Book of Mormon in a short period of time - let's say - 6 months?

I'd say it's highly unlikely.

[Scottie]

Hmmm... don't know that I can agree with this.

Do you think a college freshman could write something similar to the Book of Mormon in a short period of time - let's say - 6 months?

I'd say it's highly unlikely.

Yes, I think it could be done. I know you probably don't take The Book of Zelph seriously, but it was an attempt to show that the BoM could be replicated.

Personally, I don't see the vast complexities in the BoM. I see it as a very simple text, loaded with tons of "and it came to pass"'s and "verily"'s, with a healthy dose of Biblical insertions.

[Jason]

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes the Book of Mormon is a very simple text isn't paying attention to it very well.

[Scottie]

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes the Book of Mormon is a very simple text isn't paying attention to it very well.

And anyone who thinks it isn't is looking for complexities that don't exist.

[Sargon]

And anyone who thinks it isn't [a very simple text] is looking for complexities that don't exist.

Except for the various time measurement systems that you pointed out, right? Except for the one that Consig pointed out, right? Or, were you still planning on telling us why that isn't really complex?

Great find Consiglieri.

[Seethelight]

I have always been puzzled lf the BoM was truly by divine inspiration why so many changes (why change one word from God?), and why were some passages copied verbatim errors and all from the KJV of the Bible. There is more to the BoM production then we have been told.

[Scottie]

Except for the various time measurement systems that you pointed out, right? Except for the one that Consig pointed out, right? Or, were you still planning on telling us why that isn't really complex?

Great find Consiglieri.

You are saying that coming up with 3 different base time measurements and placing overlapping measurement points in a few places in the text qualifies as complex???

While I don't believe you could do that from the top of your head, I don't think it would be all that hard.

[captain-jack]

I have always been puzzled lf the BoM was truly by divine inspiration why so many changes (why change one word from God?), and why were some passages copied verbatim errors and all from the KJV of the Bible. There is more to the BoM production then we have been told.

Please tell me why there were so many changes to the Bible. Why change the word of God right?

[Fly Fisherman]

Personally, I don't see the vast complexities in the BoM.

Here they are, again: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=33162&st=0

[Scottie]

Please tell me why there were so many changes to the Bible. Why change the word of God right?

The Bible has errors because it has been translated and re-translated by humans many times.

The BoM came DIRECTLY from the seer stone, which was divinely generated from God himself.

Here they are, again: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=33162&st=0

Yeah, I've seen the list. I remain unimpressed.

IMO, I think more often than not LDS are looking for complexities that don't exist.

While there are some things that I just can't explain, I just don't see it as a complex text.

[Fly Fisherman]

The Bible has errors because it has been translated and re-translated by humans many times.

The BoM came DIRECTLY from the seer stone, which was divinely generated from God himself.

Yeah, I've seen the list. I remain unimpressed.

IMO, I think more often than not LDS are looking for complexities that don't exist.

Interestingly, the BOM itself admits that there will be errors. Plus, I don't know that the printing process was considered "divine" like the translation process was.

[captain-jack]

The Bible has errors because it has been translated and re-translated by humans many times.

And what corrections have been made to the Book of Mormon that weren't errors of Joseph or a scribe?

The BoM came DIRECTLY from the seer stone, which was divinely generated from God himself.

I know that, but unless you accept that as the truth of where it came from, why hold it to that standard? If one is to try to disprove it, then why not simply point out specifically the flaws and show it as a false book?

[Scottie]

Interestingly, the BOM itself admits that there will be errors. Plus, I don't know that the printing process was considered "divine" like the translation process was.

It does? I always learned it was the most correct book on Earth??

And what corrections have been made to the Book of Mormon that weren't errors of Joseph or a scribe?

Several. Changing "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome" for one. That wasn't a clerical mistake.

I know that, but unless you accept that as the truth of where it came from, why hold it to that standard? If one is to try to disprove it, then why not simply point out specifically the flaws and show it as a false book?

This doesn't make any sense to me. Part of the flaws are that supposedly God revealed the words to JS. If this is the case then shouldn't the book be correct? If not, it invalidates the BoM as a revelation.

[Fly Fisherman]

The Bible has errors because it has been translated and re-translated by humans many times.

The BoM came DIRECTLY from the seer stone, which was divinely generated from God himself.

Yeah, I've seen the list. I remain unimpressed.

IMO, I think more often than not LDS are looking for complexities that don't exist.

While there are some things that I just can't explain, I just don't see it as a complex text.

Ironically, I too would describe the BOM as being simple. I find it easy to understand, and simple, from a spiritual point of view. However, at the same time, I find it complex when a deeper study of it is done. That is the beauty of it. I think it was Kevin Christensen who gave the perfect description: that the BOM is like a fractal. It takes a deeper examination before the complexities are obvious. If you don't examine it deeper, then you won't see the complexities. If you do examine it deeper, then you see the recursive complexities, so to speak, and you become amazed, almost dumb-founded at its complexities. The absolute beauty of it is, you find the complexities if you believe; you won't see them if you don't believe - which is probably how it was intended.

[hagoth7]

Or, it was created by some moderately educated people over a short period of time. I don't see why this isn't a viable option??

Edited to add: Personally, I think the lost 116 pages strongly points to a rough draft.

By way of comparison:

I wrote a book several years ago. It took about a decade to research, plan, write, and edit.

It ended up being [roughly] 116 pages. And it doesn't compare to the complexity of the Book of Mormon.

A few years later, I wrote a second book. It took about two years, and was slightly longer than the first.

I wrote a few books after that which averaged to about six months each. All relatively short works.

After that, I teamed up with another writer to write a different work. It also ended up being [roughly] 116 pages.

However, instead of the extra manpower translating into a shorter writing cycle, it actually took us longer than if I had written it myself.

Collaborating, weighing different ideas, taking time to agree, etc., translated into a duration of about four times as long as it should have taken.

And that's with only two people. Early on, a third person wanted to be involved in that project, and after talking about it between myself and the other writer, we decided not to bring him on board - not because he wasn't brilliant and wouldn't add to the quality of the project, but because we knew it would mean more discussion, more time to iron out agreements, etc. It probably would have added a year or two to the project. So your idea of a group of educated people teaming up to slam out a complex work of over five hundred pages in a short window of time simply doesn't add up. Unless you're talking about a compendium of different people's independent ideas/chapters, the more people you add to such a complex project the longer it would likely take to coordinate, plan, and write.

[consiglieri]

While there are some things that I just can't explain, I just don't see it as a complex text.

I would like to go on record as saying that you have been magnanimous to allow this much, Scottie.

So often critics feel the need to explain everything away as a product of the 19th century that they pound square pegs into round holes.

(This happens on the other side of the apologetics fence, of course.)

I am interested in what other things about the Book of Mormon you "just can't explain."

I don't know if the OP is one example, or the different dating systems is another. Or if there is anything else in particular you feel inexplicable at present.

I would like to think that you can be honest about such things without other posters using it as an opportunity to flog you.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[poulsenll]

I agree with Scottie.

The Book of Mormon is not complex. It is written in simple straight forward English as understood by the generation living at the time of the translation. It may appear to some as complex because of the many complex ideas that are found in the text but real life is by its nature complex. The relationships between true geography, time and Gospel principles always appear complex when they are not understood. For example, mathematics and biochemistry appear very complex to those who have not studied these subjects. However, mathematics is a pricise, unambiguous language that can be used to describe very complex relationships in science and nature. The complexity of the subjects does not require complexity in the language that describes them. In fact, it requires simplicity in order for the description to be understood. Living organisms are some of the most complex features of the universe but to a Biochemist they can be described, analysed and understood even at the most fundamental depth of complexity. The Book of Mormon is a history of an ancient culture which by its nature is complex and therefore requires study for understanding.

Larry P

[Scottie]

Ironically, I too would describe the BOM as being simple. I find it easy to understand, and simple, from a spiritual point of view. However, at the same time, I find it complex when a deeper study of it is done. That is the beauty of it. I think it was Kevin Christensen who gave the perfect description: that the BOM is like a fractal. It takes a deeper examination before the complexities are obvious. If you don't examine it deeper, then you won't see the complexities. If you do examine it deeper, then you see the recursive complexities, so to speak, and you become amazed, almost dumb-founded at its complexities. The absolute beauty of it is, you find the complexities if you believe; you won't see them if you don't believe - which is probably how it was intended.

I think this is exactly what I'm talking about.

It's almost like stoners who sit around waxing philosophical and thinking that they have unlocked the mysteries of the universe with the lyrics of Dust in the Wind or Stairway to Heaven. The deep symbolic and amazing complexities of those song are just UNREAL!

Now, I don't know about you, but I seem to find those songs rather unimpressive. The stoners, however, would tell me that I have to look beyond the words and take a deeper examination, THEN I could see the genius.

Obviously I'm not saying that you are a stoner nor am I comparing you to one. I just think that when you look hard enough for symbolism and deep meaning, you are going to find it...whether it exists or not.

Show me any religious text where the faithful have not uncovered vast deeper meanings?