Joseph Dictated The Book Of Mormon On The Fly?

[Rommelator]

I have always been puzzled lf the BoM was truly by divine inspiration why so many changes (why change one word from God?)

You know what, that is a very good question. I too have wondered this. Of course, since the Book of Mormon never claims infallibility, I have been even more curious as to how the Bible can supposedly be the "inerrant, complete, perfect word of God" with its hundreds of thousands of changes and entire sections and books later deleted or lost. After all "why change one word from God" right?

[Rommelator]

Is the Book of Mormon more like a letter, or a story? Looks pretty storyish, and pretty unletterish to me.

And your point is?

So, let me get this straight. Joseph Smith can barely dictate a coherent letter (according to his wife Emma) and yet he passes off the Book of Mormon (a 500+ paged book), complete with chiasmus and dozens of other ancient hebraic literary and poetic devices no problem since, after all, it "looks pretty storyish, and pretty unletterish"?

Really... and a monkey is my uncle.

[Rommelator]

Again, refer to the stoners unlocking the secrets of the universe in Stairway to Heaven...

I am a bit confused. How are the chiasmus of Alma 32 or the If/And Conditional clauses of Helaman like Stairway to Heaven? Symbolism aside, the fact that these hebraisms exist proves that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon was familiar with ancient Hebrew (not to mention Egyptian, since, as Brian Stubbs pointed out, there are Egyptian literary devices employed in the Book of Mormon as well) and biblical poetry.

[John Larsen]

... over the course of almost 20 years. Really, the Qur'an is more like the D&C than the Book of Mormon, in that sections of it were given to Muhammad at different times and under different circumstances. But not so with the Book of Mormon. With this remarkable book, we have Joseph Smith dictate almost 12 pages a day (IIRC) nonstop with no corrections, editing, going back or rewrites.

Of course, Joseph just also happens to get exceedingly complex chiasmus and other ancient hebraisms in his text as he is dictating, but I am sure that his extensive study of biblical Hebrew gave him that.

If Joseph's First Vision occurred when he was 14, that would give him at the minimum 11 years to produce the book. Einstein published the Annus Mirabilis papers when he was only 26. 25 years of age gives the creative author enough time to produce works of extraordinary complexity. It should also be noted that the number of characters and storylines in the BOM is not particularly outstanding. Many books are able to weave a tighter narrative with as many characters. Count the characters and storylines in Lord of the Rings for example.

[Rommelator]

Einstein published the Annus Mirabilis papers when he was only 26.

Yes, after how many years of schooling and education?

Lets see: Hm.... Catholic Elementary School, the Luitpold Gymnasium and the Eidgen

[Rommelator]

If Joseph's First Vision occurred when he was 14,

Why start at 14? If he is the super genius that you and Scottie compare him to be (heck, you even put him on the standard of Einstein and Tolkien) then why not have him start crafting his tale at, oh... lets say... 12 or, heck, lets even go earlier.... 8! Yes, that gives him all the time he needs, right?

Or, I have a better idea. Hows about we give the Book of Mormon the benefit of the doubt and say that it came from an ancient culture and was written by ancient Semites from the Ancient Near East with training in Hebrew and Egyptian?

[ttribe]

If Joseph's First Vision occurred when he was 14, that would give him at the minimum 11 years to produce the book. Einstein published the Annus Mirabilis papers when he was only 26. 25 years of age gives the creative author enough time to produce works of extraordinary complexity. It should also be noted that the number of characters and storylines in the BOM is not particularly outstanding. Many books are able to weave a tighter narrative with as many characters. Count the characters and storylines in Lord of the Rings for example.

Never mind the various witnesses who saw his dictation of the translation, the witnesses who saw (and held) the plates, and the fact that not once did a family member of JS corroborate your speculation (despite all of the hardships that Joseph's "tales" put them through). Sure, that almost makes sense.

[Rommelator]

Never mind the various witnesses who saw his dictation of the translation, the witnesses who saw (and held) the plates, and the fact that not once did a family member of JS corroborate your speculation (despite all of the hardships that Joseph's "tales" put them through). Sure, that almost sense.

Silly ttribe. We already know that God doesn't exist, so now it just comes down to explaining how Prof. Joseph Smith (on par with Einstein and Tolkien) duped the witnesses into this scheme.

I think that we should heed the immortal words of Fawn Brodie and go with Prof. Joseph Smith hypnotizing the witnesses.

Yes, that makes sense.

[ttribe]

Silly ttribe. We already know that God doesn't exist, so now it just comes down to explaining how Prof. Joseph Smith (on par with Einstein and Tolkien) duped the witnesses into this scheme.

I think that we should heed the immortal words of Fawn Brodie and go with Prof. Joseph Smith hypnotizing the witnesses.

Yes, that makes sense.

Yeah...that was some pretty effective hypnotizing...lasted for YEARS, even after most of them became otherwise disaffected from JS.

[Scottie]

I am a bit confused. How are the chiasmus of Alma 32 or the If/And Conditional clauses of Helaman like Stairway to Heaven? Symbolism aside, the fact that these hebraisms exist proves that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon was familiar with ancient Hebrew (not to mention Egyptian, since, as Brian Stubbs pointed out, there are Egyptian literary devices employed in the Book of Mormon as well) and biblical poetry.

If they exist....IF being the key word. There exists quite a bit of doubt.

Personally, I see a lot of straining to see something that isn't there. Chiasms can be found all over the place if you look hard enough for them.

[Ambrose]

. . . "scholarly and objective" . . .

What be these here words? They look like Communism to me.

But in all honesty, rarely does scholasticism ever reach a truly objective point. How can it with such subjective people? The most objective stance we tend to take is a pure skepticism.

Not that I'm supporting the mind-boggingly intricate webs that most skeptics have to use in order to discredit the BoM, but I am supporting the spirit of those who with a purely practical eye, try to examine the shortcomings and homeruns of these writings.

[ttribe]

I am a bit confused. How are the chiasmus of Alma 32 or the If/And Conditional clauses of Helaman like Stairway to Heaven? Symbolism aside, the fact that these hebraisms exist proves that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon was familiar with ancient Hebrew (not to mention Egyptian, since, as Brian Stubbs pointed out, there are Egyptian literary devices employed in the Book of Mormon as well) and biblical poetry.

Because in Scottie's comparison, one must be under the influence of recreational pharmaceuticals in order to both: 1) read deep meaning into Stairway to Heaven; and 2) "see" the chiasmus and hebraisms in the BofM.

[cinepro]

But what other explanation is there when we consider the "hat method" of translation. Did he read from a manuscript in the hat? Did the hat have a window or candle so he could read the manuscript.

Those who try to address the hat translation method end up using "he did it off the top of his head".

Cinepro, let's compare any part of the "Sorry Tale" with Jacob chapter 5, the book of Mosiah for a start.

This is a good example of the absurdity to which some people are willing to stretch arguments for the Book of Mormon.

If you re-read my post, you'll see that in no way was I equating "The Sorry Tale" with "The Book of Mormon". I didn't say that Pearl Curran could have dictated the Book of Mormon, or that there are structures in "The Sorry Tale" that equal or surpass those in "The Book of Mormon".

I freely admit "The Book of Mormon" is unique in many interesting ways. But the issue at hand is whether or not it could have been created by Joseph Smith alone, or whether or not we are required to believe that such a book could only be created by divine dictation.

In order to consider that question, we must make certain assumptions about what is or isn't possible for the human mind to accomplish on its own. Defenders of the Theory of Divine Origin invoke many claims about what should or shouldn't be expected for Joseph Smith (degree of education, ability to tell a story etc.), with the implication that if someone can be convinced that Joseph just couldn't have somehow dictated the book on his own, then we must logically accept the Church's version of the story.

I was merely offering the story of Pearl Curran to help people better understand what the human mind can be capable of. Pearl Curran didn't exactly replicate the feats of Joseph Smith, or recreate "The Book of Mormon". She wasn't even trying to, and no one has claimed that she has.

The important thing about Pearl Curran is that she helps us understand what kinds of things people can do without God's help in dictating long, complicated books. In many ways, "The Book of Mormon" is superior to her produced works, but in many ways, she surpassed Joseph's output over a lifetime.

To put it another way, believers in Pearl Curran would probably be extremely disappointed with Joseph Smith, and "The Book of Mormon" would fail "The Sorry Tale Challenge" in many different areas.

[Mudcat]

I suppose I would be playing Devil's Advocate, if I were to posit that it could have been possible to translate or create the text on the fly, with the aid of supernatural non-divine support from the adversary just as easily as it could have been a divine production.

[Ambrose]

Chiasms can be found all over the place if you look hard enough for them.

No, chiasms tend to be rare literary devices; you are probably thinking of "antimetabole".

[ttribe]

I suppose I would be playing Devil's Advocate, if I were to posit that it could have been possible to translate or create the text on the fly, with the aid of supernatural non-divine support.

You certainly would.

And interestingly enough, I can't imagine a circumstance under which the Devil himself would seek to create a book that venerates Jesus the Christ beyond any other book and created a religion which encourages its membership to follow Christ's example.

[Scottie]

Because in Scottie's comparison, one must be under the influence of recreational pharmaceuticals in order to both: 1) read deep meaning into Stairway to Heaven; and 2) "see" the chiasmus and hebraisms in the BofM.

Pretty much, ya.

[Jason]

Tolkien took more than twelve years to write The Lord of the Rings, and he had worked roughly thirty-five years on the background - the history and languages of the story.

And he was a trained professor of linguistics.

And The Lord of the Rings, much as I love it, is not as internally-consistant as the Book of Mormon.

[ttribe]

Pretty much, ya.

Then it's a shame the Church discourages the use of such pharmaceuticals...maybe we could hold on to a few more of our members that way.

[Scottie]

Then it's a shame the Church discourages the use of such pharmaceuticals...maybe we could hold on to a few more of our members that way.

I'm sure the missionary effort would be WAAAAAY more effective!!

"Lets have an opening prayer and pass the bowl around!!"

[Rommelator]

If they exist....IF being the key word. There exists quite a bit of doubt.

If you doubt the existence of chiasmus and other hebraisms in the Book of Mormon, then might I suggest you plop down 15 bucks and pick up Donald W. Perry's Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon or his earlier work The Book of Mormon Text Reformatted According to Parallelistic Patterns.

Or, since the dollar is exceptionally weak these days, you can read the following online for free:

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...8&chapid=67

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...&chapid=124

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...&chapid=188

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...8&chapid=63

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms...um=2&id=448

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...&chapid=191

[Jason]

In order to consider that question, we must make certain assumptions about what is or isn't possible for the human mind to accomplish on its own. Defenders of the Theory of Divine Origin invoke many claims about what should or shouldn't be expected for Joseph Smith (degree of education, ability to tell a story etc.), with the implication that if someone can be convinced that Joseph just couldn't have somehow dictated the book on his own, then we must logically accept the Church's version of the story.

Of course, that is in no way the tactic used by the missionaries.

Instead of trying to convince someone that Joseph Smith was too dumb to have written it himself they instead focus on having investigators receive confirmation from God as to its ultimate source and truth.

[Scottie]

Of course, that is in no way the tactic used by the missionaries.

Instead of trying to convince someone that Joseph Smith was too dumb to have written it himself they instead focus on having investigators receive confirmation from God as to its ultimate source and truth.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure missionaries quite often bring up the fact that an uneducated farm boy from New York created the BoM.

[Rommelator]

But in all honesty, rarely does scholasticism ever reach a truly objective point. How can it with such subjective people?

That is my whole point, actually. Critics of the Book of Mormon LOVE to play the "I'm objective and scholarly" card when it comes to evaluating the Book of Mormon. For some reason, people seem to be able to escape bias and a priori assumptions when they evaluate Mormonism from a non-Mormon stance. When Mormons do so on the other hand, immediately they are label by some critics as being biased, unscholarly, pseudo-scientific and merely "apologetic" (never mind that the critics themselves are apologists for their critics views).

My whole point is this: critics are just as biased in their approach to the Book of Mormon as Mormons are. Nobody can escape bias and when something like religion and/or spirituality is involved; people are sure to loose all objectivity. FARMS does it, the IRR does it, Dan Peterson does it, Sandra Tanner does it, John Larsen does it and Rommelator does it. We all are imperfect, and thus non of us can play the objective card.

Thus, I find it highly amusing when men like Dale Morgan can claim unbiased feelings towards Mormonism when, on his won admission, he would never accept Joseph Smith's account and would look everywhere else for an explanation other than the Prophet's own testimony.

[gmormon]

Because in Scottie's comparison, one must be under the influence of recreational pharmaceuticals in order to both: 1) read deep meaning into Stairway to Heaven; and 2) "see" the chiasmus and hebraisms in the BofM.

Actually I think you are suppose to play Stairway to Heaven backwards to get the deeper meaning