Joseph Dictated The Book Of Mormon On The Fly?

[John Larsen]

Yes, after how many years of schooling and education?

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

[Scottie]

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.

I agree. What I find equally amusing is when many members of this board have said time and time again that there is NOTHING that will EVER convince them that JS wasn't a prophet and that the BoM is not true.....yet still claim to be objective.

How is it even possible to be objective if the end result must be that Mormonism remain true?

Edited to add: There are exMo's who have said the same thing...didn't mean to pick on the LDS here.

[cdowis]

BS. Joseph's family said that he was an exceptionally good storyteller.

OK, so you are saying that Mark Twain could duplicate what JS did. Let's check out his writings and compare them with the BOM.

The BOM is not just "stories" == it was clearly not written to entertain, but as a religious text with instructive stories. How many have criticized the BOM for its boredom (the book of Ether comment by Twain).

[ttribe]

I agree. What I find equally amusing is when many members of this board have said time and time again that there is NOTHING that will EVER convince them that JS wasn't a prophet and that the BoM is not true.....yet still claim to be objective.

How is it even possible to be objective if the end result must be that Mormonism remain true?

Well, of course, the flip side to that is - there are many critics who say that there is no way they can be convinced that the BoM or Mormonism IS true; are they more objective simply by virture of their status as "critics"?

[Scottie]

Well, of course, the flip side to that is - there are many critics who say that there is no way they can be convinced that the BoM or Mormonism IS true; are they more objective simply by virture of their status as "critics"?

...you missed my edit. 100% agree.

[John Larsen]

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.

Personally, I don't doubt the existence of these patterns in the Book of Mormon, I just think they are everywhere. They have been documented in the D&C and no one is arguing for ancient origins of that book. May I suggest reading also: Hebraicisms, Chiasmus and Other Internal Evidence for Ancient Authorship in Green Eggs and Ham by Robert Patterson--the single best response to apologetic argument for ancient origin by the presence of Chiasmus like structures.

[Rommelator]

The compliment was intended.

Well, I am sure that Prof. Smith would appreciate the compliment.

As to the age when Joseph started, I think you are only confirming my point. We don't know when Joseph started working on the framework for the BOM. It very well might have been when he was a child as you suggestion. The point is there is no reason to assume it happened in only a few days.

So, instead of going off of the words of credible witnesses and others involved in the production of the Book of Mormon, we are to bank on the speculation that maybe Prof. Joseph Smith started producing the Book of Mormon at an early age, keeping all of this hidden from his family and neighbors until just the right time, using whatever method he used (which the critics still can't agree upon) to trick the witnesses, reading old and clandestine books and articles on biblical Hebrew, Egyptian, ancient history and law, ancient Arabian geography, etc. and presto! like that he unveils a volumes tome in 1830, complete with ancient convergences and, oh, did I mention chiasmus?

Hmm.... something about that doesn't seem right to me. Maybe it is the full scale rewriting of history and dismissal of the witnesses to the Restoration or maybe it is the unjustifiable speculation and straw grasping.

Well, if anything, I am glad to see that Richard Bushman was right when he noted that it is the critics and not the Mormons who tend to suppress or dismiss the historical documentation.

[cdowis]

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.

Tell us about dictating their books while their face was in a hat. Assuming that JS had 50 years to write the BOM, tell us how this manuscript was dictated from a hat.

In the examples you gave, the writing of these books were straight forward, using normal means of transcribing a book. Not only the dictation method, but he had witnesses to the plates themselves, but miraculous vision (three witnesses) and the ordinary (hefting the plates).

Where are the real-live witnesses to the Lord of the Rings? The witnesses to a divine vision? The BOM goes beyond the book itself, to a miraculous production missing in the examples you gave.

Also missing is the wide range of topics -- ranging from wars to sermons. The fifth chapter of Jacob alone is a masterpiece of complexity with a simple message. Lord of the Rings had one basic storyline, start to finish. We find the book of Ether thrown in for good measure, a completely different society and "story".

Sorry, but these books are not in the same class as the BOM.

[ttribe]

...you missed my edit. 100% agree.

Yep, I was too fast for you!

[John Larsen]

Well, I am sure that Prof. Smith would appreciate the compliment.So, instead of going off of the words of credible witnesses and others involved in the production of the Book of Mormon, we are to bank on the speculation that maybe Prof. Joseph Smith started producing the Book of Mormon at an early age, keeping all of this hidden from his family and neighbors until just the right time, using whatever method he used (which the critics still can't agree upon) to trick the witnesses, reading old and clandestine books and articles on biblical Hebrew, Egyptian, ancient history and law, ancient Arabian geography, etc. and presto! like that he unveils a volumes tome in 1830, complete with ancient convergences and, oh, did I mention chiasmus?Hmm.... something about that doesn't seem right to me. Maybe it is the full scale rewriting of history and dismissal of the witnesses to the Restoration or maybe it is the unjustifiable speculation and straw grasping.Well, if anything, I am glad to see that Richard Bushman was right when he noted that it is the critics and not the Mormons who tend to suppress or dismiss the historical documentation.

What credible witness talk about when Joseph started working on the book? CFR.

Tell us about dictating their books while their face was in a hat. Assuming that JS had 50 years to write the BOM, tell us how this manuscript was dictated from a hat.In the examples you gave, the writing of these books were straight forward, using normal means of transcribing a book. But the process of dictating such a book from a hat does not fit your examples.

It is clear that Joseph received some revelations with his face in a hat. However, there is no evidence the entire Book of Mormon was written that way. CFR.

[Scottie]

What credible witnesses are there at all???

[Rommelator]

Personally, I don't doubt the existence of these patterns in the Book of Mormon, I just think they are everywhere. They have been documented in the D&C and no one is arguing for ancient origins of that book. May I suggest reading also: Hebraicisms, Chiasmus and Other Internal Evidence for Ancient Authorship in Green Eggs and Ham by Robert Patterson--the single best response to apologetic argument for ancient origin by the presence of Chiasmus like structures.

Yup. Those chiasmus are just everywhere. Anybody could write something like this, I am sure.

a My son, give ear to my words (1)

b Keep the commandments and ye shall prosper in the land (1)

c Do as I have done (2)

d Remember the captivity of our fathers (2)

e They were in bondage (2)

f He surely did deliver them (2)

g Trust in God (3)

h Supported in trials, troubles, and afflictions (3)

i Lifted up at the last day (3)

j I know this not of myself but of God (4)

k Born of God (5)

l I sought to destroy the church (6)

m My limbs were paralyzed (7â??11)

n Fear of being in the presence of God (14â??15)

o Pains of a damned soul (16)

p Harrowed up by the memory of sins (17)

q I remembered Jesus Christ, a Son of God (17)

q' I cried, Jesus, Son of God (18)

p' Harrowed up by the memory of sins no more (19)

o' Joy as exceeding as was the pain (20)

n' Long to be in the presence of God (22)

m' My limbs received strength again (23)

l' I labored to bring souls to repentance (24)

k' Born of God (26)

j' Therefore my knowledge is of God (26)

h' Supported under trials, troubles, and afflictions (27)

g' Trust in him (27)

f' He will deliver me (27)

i' and raise me up at the last day (28)

e' As God brought our fathers out of bondage and captivity (28â??29)

d' Retain in remembrance their captivity (28â??29)

c' Know as I do know (30)

b' Keep the commandments and ye shall prosper in the land (30)

a' This according to his word (30)

Or this:

a "And behold, there was peace in all the land" (7).

b [Freedom of travel and trade in both lands is discussed (7â??]

c "And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites;

d and they did have an exceeding plenty of . . . precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north" (9).

e 1 "Now the land south

2 was called Lehi, and

3 the land north

4 was called Mulek,

5 which was after the son of Zedekiah;

5 for the Lord19

4 did bring Mulek

3 into the land north,

2 and Lehi

1 into the land south" (10).

d' "And behold, there was all manner of gold in both these lands, and of silver, and of precious ore of every kind;

c' and there were also curious workmen, who did work all kinds of ore and did refine it; and thus they did become rich" (11).

b' [Economic prosperity in both lands is discussed (12â??13)]

a' "And thus the sixty and fourth year did pass away in peace" (13).

"the single best response to apologetic argument for ancient origin by the presence of Chiasmus like structures"? Give me a break.

Thus we see the desperate attempts by the critics of the Book of Mormon to rationalize away the evidence for the Book of Mormon. But it is understandable, because, God knows, we can NEVER let Joseph Smith get anything right. Because as soon as we do, we allow the possibility that he is a Prophet and we all know that we can't allow that.

[ttribe]

What credible witness talk about when Joseph started working on the book? CFR.It is clear that Joseph received some revelations with his face in a hat. However, there is no evidence the entire Book of Mormon was written that way. CFR.

Like you needed to issue a CFR for that. Give it rest. I'll repeat what I said before in response to your speculation that JS may have started on his "project" at a young age -

"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]

What credible witness talk about when Joseph started working on the book? CFR.

What credible witnesses are there at all???

For an overview of these and more, consult John W. Welch in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestation, 1820-1844. Also worth pursuing is Richard L. Anderson in Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.

Or, the following from our very own Daniel C. Peterson:

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/revi...um=2&id=582

[Ambrose]

Thus we see the desperate attempts by the critics of the Book of Mormon to rationalize away the evidence for the Book of Mormon. But it is understandable, because, God knows, we can NEVER let Joseph Smith get anything right. Because as soon as we do, we allow the possibility that he is a Prophet and we all know that we can't allow that.

He was a Prophet? Oh! Thank God. All this time I've been trying to explain a mutated hyper-genius time-traveller.

[selek]

He was a Prophet? Oh! Thank God. All this time I've been trying to explain a mutated hyper-genius time-traveller.

Keep your hands where we can see them and step away from the Tardis, Ambrose.

[Mudcat]

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.

You make a valid point T.

But since I am playing the DA, I would submit that given the numerous distinctions between the majority of non-LDS Christians vs. the CoJCoLDS..... and hopefully you would be willing to concede that there are several differences.

Many non-LDS Christian critics would claim that these differences are enough to distort God to the point that he is not truly discernible.

And also in light of the statements of past LDS leadership who have made statements to the effect that if the BoM was not true... that it would be a misleading document (paraphrase).

Would you be willing to agree that if such was the case and if the BoM was produced with the assistance of the adversary, that the BoM would be instrumental in leading people from Christ, instead of to him?

[consiglieri]

The exchanges seem to be getting a little warm.

I had hoped that this thread would lean more toward complexities in the structure of the Book of Mormon rather than links to antiquity.

It seems that, as long as we are talking about the Book of Mormon as an artifact, we are better able to discuss the form and structure of the BOM when we can tacitly agree that it doesn't necessarily make it "true" or "not true," which too often end up being "fighting words."

While limiting the focus to the textual structure of the Book of Mormon, we have seen a number of those who do not believe in its divinity nevertheless be quite complimentary of it as a text, including Scottie, Cinepro and John Larsen. (I want to thank you all again for your gracious comments.)

As we have been discussing this back and forth, it has begun to creep into my cranium that the ministry of Jesus described in the Book of Mormon is itself somewhat structured. Now, it appears that this particular structure could be called "chiastic," and I hope to delve into this on a separate thread, but without trying to force the issue of antiquity.

Anyway, consider this my small ecuminical effort for the day.

Oh, yeah! I just remembered something funny that happened last week in sacrament meeting. A group of youth were called on out of the blue to report on some youth activity they had attended. One little tow-headed boy got up (about ten, I think), and ended his brief sermon by saying, "I know that this church is true, and so are all the other churches . . ."

(You could hear the collective intake of air in the chapel)

". . . that are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," he ended, to smiles all around.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mighty Curelom]

This may or may not have anything to do with consig's point--I'm responding more to the topic headline because I'm short on time. But I just want to point out to those who bring up the writing process of draft-revision-repeat: that's a modern invention. The Bible wasn't written in rough draft form, revised, each word agonized over and polished to perfection. It was dictated to a scribe, right off the top of the "author's" head. That's how the ancients wrote. They didn't bother writing an entire book, only to throw it away after making a few revisions. Writing was a one shot deal--even more so if you're inscribing your story on gold plates.

Whether you believe the story came from Joseph's imagination or from the experiences of ancient people, the process itself would have been identical. In either case, it would have been "on the fly" dictation to a scribe, with no revisions, outlines, or rough drafts.

[John Larsen]

Thus we see the desperate attempts by the critics of the Book of Mormon to rationalize away the evidence for the Book of Mormon. But it is understandable, because, God knows, we can NEVER let Joseph Smith get anything right. Because as soon as we do, we allow the possibility that he is a Prophet and we all know that we can't allow that.

You made this comment in response to me, but I consider it unfair. I have given lots of credit to Joseph Smith. For example, I give him credit for writing the BOM, no small feat. Seriously, I think Joseph had exceptional intelligent and an innate gift for understanding religion and American Christianity, in particular.

I just don't find Chiamus credible evidence of ancient origins. I don't really think apologist do either. If I showed you similar evidence in, say, the writings of James Strang, I don't think you would be convinced. This type of tenuous evidence is the type that helps people who already accept the premise but does not convince anyone else.

[Scottie]

Chiasmus in the BoM is certainly evidence and deserves its proper weight. Consig, tag this as one of the things I can't explain away.

[ttribe]

You make a valid point T.

But since I am playing the DA, I would submit that given the numerous distinctions between the majority of non-LDS Christians vs. the CoJCoLDS..... and hopefully you would be willing to concede that there are several differences.

Many non-LDS Christian critics would claim that these differences are enough to distort God to the point that he is not truly discernible.

I'd submit that many (if not all) of the differences to which you refer are not sourced in the text of the BoM, but rather stem from additional revelation given through Prophets and Apostles.

And also in light of the statements of past LDS leadership who have made statements to the effect that if the BoM was not true... that it would be a misleading document (paraphrase).

Actually, I believe it's more along the lines of - if the BoM is not true than it is a spectacular fraud - which is a true statement.

Would you be willing to agree that if such was the case and if the BoM was produced with the assistance of the adversary, that the BoM would be instrumental in leading people from Christ, instead of to him?

I'm still caught on that whole "house divided against itself..." thing. Given every other (easier) tactic which we see the adversary use, and his undeniable hatred for Christ, it is virtually unimaginable that he could come up with a text which so fully venerates and honors the Savior and reveals Lucifer to be nothing more than a petty thief and a liar (although a pretty crafty one). That being said, if you are way (and I mean WAY) out on the fringe of possibility (beyond .001) then I'd have to concede that if Satan were the author that it would be for that purpose. Nevertheless, it seems he shot himself in the foot when he encouraged all the readers of the book to ask the Father, in the name of Christ, whether the book was true. I mean really, is that the adversary's style? I don't think so.

[Mudcat]

Hey TT,

First off, my apologies to Consig. for derailing a thread.

Secondly, the whole "on the fly' thing doesn't sit well with me. I was just posing a critical alternative.

That being said, I suppose you could consider this...target practice.

I'd submit that many (if not all) of the differences to which you refer are not sourced in the text of the BoM, but rather stem from additional revelation given through Prophets and Apostles.

I appreciate the admission to that, in regards to additional revelations.

You'll note, that I said that the BoM could have been an instrument.... certainly I don't mean to imply that it was the whole orchestra.

Rather, a vehicle for the insertion of said 'additional revelation'.

Actually, I believe it's more along the lines of - if the BoM is not true than it is a spectacular fraud - which is a true statement.

Well...I was just trying to be polite, though I think you have the right of it.

I'm still caught on that whole "house divided against itself..." thing. Given every other (easier) tactic which we see the adversary use, and his undeniable hatred for Christ, it is virtually unimaginable that he could come up with a text which so fully venerates and honors the Savior and reveals Lucifer to be nothing more than a petty thief and a liar (although a pretty crafty one).

Just a thought here, mind you....but for one, I think you would greatly underscore a fellow who managed to drag a third of heaven's host down with him.

And two, lets assume for the moment he did have a part to play in all this. If that was the case, would scoring about 20 million or so souls that would have most likely otherwise Christians been a bad thing....for his efforts.

edit add -

However, I would note that if this were the case and I by no means say that this is the case.

I think it would likely be a botched effort on his part.

That being said, if you are way (and I mean WAY) out on the fringe of possibility (beyond .001) then I'd have to concede that if Satan were the author that it would be for that purpose. Nevertheless, it seems he shot himself in the foot when he encouraged all the readers of the book to ask the Father, in the name of Christ, whether the book was true. I mean really, is that the adversary's style? I don't think so.

Well, I do thank you for the .001 fringe possibility.

Respects,

Mudcat

[pcarthew]

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.

Did you come up with this after reading the BOM or is it just a deduction based on most of the prejudiced rubbish written about the prophet. Anyone who is fair minded who reads the BOM at the very minimum would have to acknowledge it isn't the work of an uneducated farm boy.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Then that was quite a head!