How did Alma quote Lehi's words . . .

[Jason]

Yes I understand the argument. I just think you should have used an actual example, rather than a theoretical one that didn't actually occur.

[mnn727]

Alma lives and writes after Lehi.

Alma has the plates.

Alma says he is quoting Lehi.

What am I missing here? Why is this even a question?

[consiglieri]

What am I missing here? Why is this even a question?

I think it is funnier watching you flail about than answer your question.

Perhaps a review of the OP would help.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mnn727]

I read the opening post twice thinking I must have missed something --So its a non-issue then.

<<Thread done>>

[lostindc]

I read the opening post twice thinking I must have missed something --So its a non-issue then.

<<Thread done>>

I call last post in thread

[consiglieri]

I read the opening post twice thinking I must have missed something --So its a non-issue then.

<<Thread done>>

I believe that right is reserved per board rules to the thread's originator.

Ahem.

[Alma Bound]

Perhaps Joseph interpreted his own experience through a biblical lens, and used the Book of Mormon as an opportunity to codify that experience in rapturous, pseudo-scriptural language. Just he took his father's dreams to some extent as precedents for his own experience, so he also gave himself ancient precedents in Alma (corresponding to himself) and Lehi (corresponding to his father).

Interesting points, Chris. And an interesting thread, consig.

It is perhaps notable that Alma (or, to be more precise, those who are with Alma) tells the story of the angels appearing to him to his father:

Mosiah 27:20 And they rehearsed unto his father all that had happened unto them; and his father rejoiced, for he knew that it was the power of God.

Looking at it from the point of view of Mosiah being written first, it would be at this point where Joseph first learned learned or believed the stories of his father's visions, and incorporated them into the story - chronologically, the first reference to his father's vision would have within Alma 36, with the details later penned into the rewrite of the 116 pages.

Fitting this into the abrupt entry of Alma's desire to become an angel himself within chapter 29 might make for an interesting study.

[LDSMusic483]

I think it is funnier watching you flail about than answer your question.

Perhaps a review of the OP would help.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It took me until just now to understand who you were addressing here Consig. I think you could have put your #3 in a little more emphasis so that people would understand it wasn't some sort of reverse bullseye, but directed towards those who don't think the book is inspired. Understanding what I do now, I completely agree with the argument. As a believing member, obviously I don't face this conundrum.

[wenglund]

But you understand the example, right?

1. A creative author goes in chronological order and has person A make a statement, and much later has person B quote person A. In this case the author has to remember what person A said, or more likely the author looks back at what person A said. Nobody thinks this is a very unlikely proposition.

2. A creative author goes out of chronological order and has person B quote person A, then much later he does the "prequel" and has person A make the statement. In this case the author has to remember what person B said, or more likely the author looks back at what person B said. How is this any more unlikely that the first proposition?

Novelists do this all the time. However, they are able to maintain this level of consistency by creating multiple drafts and having editors combing through the drafts looking for such things.

Try doing this without any drafts, but dictating an entire novel, sequentially or out of sequence, from memory while at times looking into a hat, and suddenly your explanation doesn't sound so plausible, does it?, but may require a great amount of faith to believe it. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Dude]

I think the KJV quotations in the BoM are a puzzle for which I do not have a solution, and by itself constitutes in my mind the single most damning piece of evidence against the Book of Mormon.

This comment of yours has spun-off two other threads. From reading the responses it seems that a lot of people don't understand what the big deal is. Would you mind explaining a little more about how this could be damning evidence against the Book of Mormon, or how it affects our understanding of how the Book of Mormon came to be?

[consiglieri]

No problemo, Duderino

I will just pick one of the two threads at random and post there.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Pahoran]

What are the odds that he planned to have Lehi say those words as soon as he wrote Alma quoting Lehi?

Close to certainty, I think.

Oh, yes. It's close to a certainty that when he "wrote" Alma 36 he immediately planned to have Lehi saying those words. That's why he "wrote" Alma as referring to something familiar. And then, several months and several hundred pages later, when he finally got around to recording Lehi's experience, he "remembered" to "write" it exactly the way he "wrote" it for Alma.

And interestingly, for a dictated-without-notes manuscript, he managed to "work it in" without it sticking out as contextually jarring. In either place.

I think this rather desperate stretch for an explanation qualifies as another of The Dude's duds.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Dude]

And Pahoran swoops in for the kill, thinking authorship is up for grabs when actually it was assumed in the OP, and the whole point of the thread is missed on him. Another doh! moment from the washed-up champ. He probably doesn't even realize.

[Zakuska]

But what about the "Faith, Hope and Charity" passage in Moroni 7:45? Its resemblance to 1 Corinthians 13 is undeniable. This particular passage, recently singled out for attack in Christianity Today, is actually one of those things that turn out to be a striking vindication of the Book of Mormon. For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled "the Hymn to Charity," was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record.

Now it so happens that other Book of Mormon writers were also peculiarly fond of quoting from the record. Captain Moroni, for example, reminds his people of an old tradition about the two garments of Joseph, telling them a detailed story which I have found only in [th' Alabi of Persia,] a thousand-year-old commentary on the Old Testament, a work still untranslated and quite unknown to the world of Joseph Smith. So I find it not a refutation but a confirmation of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when Paul and Moroni both quote from a once well-known but now lost Hebrew writing.

I found this bit of information from Nibley quite instresting. What happens when the BOM quotes from sources that where not available to JS?

[consiglieri]

I found this bit of information from Nibley quite instresting. What happens when the BOM quotes from sources that where not available to JS?

Coincidence.

[lostindc]

I found this bit of information from Nibley quite instresting. What happens when the BOM quotes from sources that where not available to JS?

That is just mere coincidence. Any ties to the primitive Church and the LDS Church, or commonalities like the one you listed above is pure coincidence and nothing more, at least that is what you will be told.

[robuchan]

I found this bit of information from Nibley quite instresting. What happens when the BOM quotes from sources that where not available to JS?

On the faith, hope, and charity reference, in a previous thread it was acknowledged that the German research on Paul quoting an older source theorized it was a Hellenist source. So it's still quite a leap to assume Moroni had access to the source material.

[lostindc]

On the faith, hope, and charity reference, in a previous thread it was acknowledged that the German research on Paul quoting an older source theorized it was a Hellenist source. So it's still quite a leap to assume Moroni had access to the source material.

And the Hellenist resource was quoting?????

Its quite a leap to assume that the Hellenist source was not quoting some other source given the history and scope of the situation.

[Nevo]

I found this bit of information from Nibley quite instresting. What happens when the BOM quotes from sources that where not available to JS?

Unfortunately, Nibley appears to have wrong: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/papers/?pap...mp;chapterID=68

[Nevo]

And the Hellenist resource was quoting?????

Its quite a leap to assume that the Hellenist source was not quoting some other source given the history and scope of the situation.

No, not really.

In any case, most scholars agree that 1 Corinthians 13 was written by Paul.

[Ipso Facto]

I think statements from witnesses like Emma are not completely accurate and do not account for 100% of the time Joseph spent working on the Book of Mormon. There was no skeptical witness sitting there monitoring JS. The KJV quotes and the passages you mentioned in the OP suggest that JS sometimes used outside materials.

Or that whoever/whatever was on the other end of the translation device was using outside materials.

[krose]

Someone help me out here.

Do we assume that Joseph did not have access to the manuscript that was written by his scribes? Was he never able to read through it before or after translation sessions, or on days off?

[lostindc]

Someone help me out here.

Do we assume that Joseph did not have access to the manuscript that was written by his scribes? Was he never able to read through it before or after translation sessions, or on days off?

From what I understand, Joseph did not have eyes for part of the translation, thus no editing was allowed, per many good sources including and not limited to James Banta and Ed Decker.

[Pahoran]

And Pahoran swoops in for the kill, thinking authorship is up for grabs when actually it was assumed in the OP, and the whole point of the thread is missed on him. Another doh! moment from the washed-up champ. He probably doesn't even realize.

Uh-huh.

What exactly was "assumed in the OP," and where can we find it? Are you, perhaps, referring to this?

"If Joseph Smith were writing as Alma..."

Does that qualify as authorship being "assumed?"

Come on, Dud. If you're going to crow loudly, you need your triumph to be visible to all.

So where is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Dude]

Uh-huh.

What exactly was "assumed in the OP," and where can we find it? Are you, perhaps, referring to this?

"If Joseph Smith were writing as Alma..."

Does that qualify as authorship being "assumed?"

I believe you are misreading that question, Pahoran. Read the whole thing.

3. If Joseph Smith were writing as Alma, Joseph Smith must have been winnowing back through the manuscript to get the words of Lehi exactly, as it is not likely Joseph Smith got halfway through the Book of Mormon and then quoted this passage with such exactness.

This is the same as saying "If Joseph Smith were writing as Alma, then Joseph Smith must have been winnowing back through the mansucript..."

Thus the OP asks us to assume Joseph Smith was writing as Alma, and then consider what follows from that asusmption.

Come on, Dud. If you're going to crow loudly, you need your triumph to be visible to all.

Catch!