How did the Book of Mormon Come About?

[Palerider]

I don't get it.

Any particular aspect?

[LDS Guy 1986]

Evidence is not found it is more likely discovered, generally when you were not looking for it, at least specifically.

This is not only completely wrong, but is completely illogical as well. How do you find evidence for something if you are not looking for it?

I agree that once in a blue moon you will have a eureka moment while doing something completely different,I think of Issac Newton sitting under that apple tree the day that infamous apple sent him on the path to discovering the Laws of Motion as fitting into this perfectly, but the majority of scientific discovery is done in search for specific answers. I agree that when one twists data to fit the question this is unethical and unscholarly but to imply that the only legitimate evidence is evidence discovered by accident is absurd.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I don't get it.

Don't worry your not alone, this makes absolutely no sense to me either. I have several questions for Palerider about this wild theory:

1) How did Rigdon write the Book of Mormon after it was published? (Rigdon converted after reading the BoM in the fall of 1830, Rigdon never saw or heard of the Book of Mormon till after is was published)

2) How was Rigdon or Jospeh or Cowdery or Emma or any other person able to reference actual places in the middle east, that were along the route Lehi took to the Sea and fit in with the BoM story, when these places were unknown but to very few if any people at that time?

3) How did do you explain the visions and other miracles associates with the witnesses of the BoM, if this is all an elaborate forgery?

4) If this was a fraud how come not one of the twelve witnesses to the authenticity of the Plates and the Book of Mormon ever recant there witness even though several later left the Church and became staunch critics of Joseph Smith?

[Rivers]

Any particular aspect?

Where exactly are these peices of paper being concealed?

[LDS Guy 1986]

Where exactly are these peices of paper being concealed?

Maybe there was a small peep hole in the table and another one in the floor and rigdon was hiding under the house holding the small pieces of paper! Even though Rigdon lived in Ohio at the time and had never heard of Joseph Smith, the plates, or the Book of Mormon at the time!

Like all crackpot conspiracy theories, this one relies on so much speculation that if you really believe it could be true, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you at a sweet price!

[Ceeboo]

My question for nonbelievers is this: How was the Book of Mormon written? I am familiar with some of the popular theories in the past such a the Sydney Rigdon hypothesis. Is there any one popular theory today? Did Joseph Smith really dictate all of it? Did somebody else write it? Is it possible that Joseph read from a previously written manuscript? I am curious, because I never really hear critics discuss these questions much. Is there any one popular explanation for the book's origin these days?

Hi Rivers,

As a never-Mo who simply finds Mormonism and the history of Mormonism to be utterly fascinating on many levels, I would suggest that "one popular explanation" does not exist concerning the origin of the BoM. A highly debated topic, to be sure.

Although there are thousands (perhaps millions) of people, many who have earned their title of scholar, that clearly posses a ton more knowledge/wisdom about this topic then little old Ceeboo, I tend to lean heavily toward a strong link between the minister Ethan Smith (Author of "View of the Hebrews" in 1823) and the BoM.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[inquiringmind]

Hi Rivers,

I do not accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture.,,What is your theory for the Koran?,,,I don't have to believe that Joseph Smith, Muhammed, or Baha'ullah were deliberate frauds in order to dismiss their messages.

With that said, I would lean towards believing that the mechanics of the writing of the Book of Mormon took place in whatever way it was explained by Joseph Smith.

I don't know too much about Bahai, but I believe the Koran denies the incarnation of Christ.

If it was actually revealed to Muhammed by some supernatural being, a Christian would naturally assume that spirit was not of God,.

But the BOM doesn't deny the incarnation, so how do you explain 1 John 4:2?

"Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God."

I mean if you "lean towards believing that the mechanics of the writing of the Book of Mormon took place in whatever way it was explained by Joseph Smith," doesn't that create a problem for you?

[inquiringmind]

The fact that the first three of these have most likely been located vindicates the account of Lehi's trek in Arabia.

Has the River Laman been discovered?

[Glenn101]

Has the River Laman been discovered?

Possibly

Glenn

[inquiringmind]

Possibly

Glenn

A river in Arabia?

Please give me some of the details.

[jadams_4242]

Critics of the Book of Mormon spend a lot of time showing how the Book of Mormon could not be a historical record by pointing to lack of archeological evidence, anachronisms, etc. My question for nonbelievers is this: How was the Book of Mormon written? I am familiar with some of the popular theories in the past such a the Sydney Rigdon hypothesis. Is there any one popular theory today? Did Joseph Smith really dictate all of it? Did somebody else write it? Is it possible that Joseph read from a previously written manuscript? I am curious, because I never really hear critics discuss these questions much. Is there any one popular explanation for the book's origin these days?

well i,m with elder holland on this one.. when we take into account the entire message of the b.o.m.. we come to understand completely that no evil man could have written it, and no good man would have unless he was commanded of God...

[Cold Steel]

I do not accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture. But I am unfamiliar with lack of archeological evidence, anachronisms, etc. ... I find it interesting that both Mormons and Muslims are convinced of the divine origins of their respective religions based on the proposed impossibility that neither Joseph Smith nor Muhammad were capable of writing the literature in question.

If you're unaware of the evidences for the book, it's certainly not difficult to dismiss it. Consequently, the more one reads about the evidence, the more difficult it is to dismiss. Where the Book of Mormon is different is that a strong case can be made for what Hugh Nibley said: essentially that the smartest person in the world in 1830 would have been incapable of writing it. The Book of Mormon also had witnesses -- good and honorable men who stayed true to their testimonies to their dying day. I like to ask people: do you know three people who would lie for you for the rest of their lives, even if they could become rich by coming clean at a later date? Do you know even ONE person? My own mother wouldn't lie for me...and speaking of that, Joseph Smith's mother was incredibly virtuous and honest, and she went to her grave convinced that Joseph and Hyrum and her own husband were prophets and visionaries. And there were many other witnesses. Muhammad didn't have any witnesses, nor did the Bah

[Palerider]

Don't worry your not alone, this makes absolutely no sense to me either. I have several questions for Palerider about this wild theory:

1) How did Rigdon write the Book of Mormon after it was published? (Rigdon converted after reading the BoM in the fall of 1830, Rigdon never saw or heard of the Book of Mormon till after is was published)

2) How was Rigdon or Jospeh or Cowdery or Emma or any other person able to reference actual places in the middle east, that were along the route Lehi took to the Sea and fit in with the BoM story, when these places were unknown but to very few if any people at that time?

3) How did do you explain the visions and other miracles associates with the witnesses of the BoM, if this is all an elaborate forgery?

4) If this was a fraud how come not one of the twelve witnesses to the authenticity of the Plates and the Book of Mormon ever recant there witness even though several later left the Church and became staunch critics of Joseph Smith?

I'm sure some will look askance at these possibilities but in my estimation they make more common sense than the "rock in the hat" thing:

See here:

http://sidneyrigdon..../rigdon1.htm#14

Since it was known and announced four years prior to the "plates" being actually obtained, there was ample time for the manuscript to be written and supplied to Joseph for "translating". Looking through the hat would have given him the appearance of doing something "metaphysical" when in reality the pinhole would have made it quite simple to see the concealed pages. It is also noted that quite often there was a sheet or drapery between Joseph and scribe so concealing reference sheets wouldn't have been that difficult.

[TAO]

A river in Arabia?

Please give me some of the details.

It's possibly this one:

In this valley

Although there are other theories as well.

[TAO]

Since it was known and announced four years prior to the "plates" being actually obtained, there was ample time for the manuscript to be written and supplied to Joseph for "translating". Looking through the hat would have given him the appearance of doing something "metaphysical" when in reality the pinhole would have made it quite simple to see the concealed pages. It is also noted that quite often there was a sheet or drapery between Joseph and scribe.

Four years isn't long enough to write a book of that quality Palerider... especially back then. Would take closer to 10 years probably... and with editing, even more, would be my guess.

[Palerider]

Don't worry your not alone, this makes absolutely no sense to me either. I have several questions for Palerider about this wild theory:

1) How did Rigdon write the Book of Mormon after it was published? (Rigdon converted after reading the BoM in the fall of 1830, Rigdon never saw or heard of the Book of Mormon till after is was published)

2) How was Rigdon or Jospeh or Cowdery or Emma or any other person able to reference actual places in the middle east, that were along the route Lehi took to the Sea and fit in with the BoM story, when these places were unknown but to very few if any people at that time?

3) How did do you explain the visions and other miracles associates with the witnesses of the BoM, if this is all an elaborate forgery?

4) If this was a fraud how come not one of the twelve witnesses to the authenticity of the Plates and the Book of Mormon ever recant there witness even though several later left the Church and became staunch critics of Joseph Smith?

I also think the testimony of the witnesses has always been in question.

See below for starters:

Stephen Burnett, in a letter dated April 15, 1838, to Lyman E. Johnson, one of the first twelve apostles, lamenting over the deplorable conditions in the church, wrote,

[Cold Steel]

Personally I think the BofM was written (mostly by Rigdon) on small pieces of paper that were fairly easy to conceal but then viewed through Joseph's hat which was a crude but very functional type of "pinhole camera" or "camera obscura". The hole in the hat is literally the size of a pin (un-noticeable unless you were looking very closely for it) and yet can afford one a focused view of things that are some distance away.

You know, that's a pretty good theory. There are only a few problems. First, I own a number of hats and I can't seem to put a hole in any of them that allow me to see anything through them. Even punching a noticeable hole in them, I can't see a thing! I certainly can't read anything. I know a small aperture will increase the depth of field, but it also drastically cuts down light. Even when looking into a hat for a long period, my eyes don't adjust to it. Add to that that the writing of that day was very small. If one wrote larger, even to be seen, one would be endlessly shuffling paper. According to transcribers, Joseph didn't ask any part of the manuscript to be read back to him, but read carefully and methodically.

Keep in mind, too, that Martin Harris was constantly harped upon by his wife that Joseph was a fraud who only wanted to take advantage of him and get his money. This led him to seek confirmation by changing Joseph's seer stone for one he found that resembled it and taking a manuscript to Dr. Charles Anthon. I don't know if it's just me, but I think he wouldn't be a primary candidate to be party to a fraud saying he was witness to seeing an angel, hearing the voice of God, seeing the plates, the sword of Laban, the interpreters, etc. I would think, and again this is just me, that had Joseph tried to put him up to this that he would have said, "You know, my wife was right! She said you were a no-good thieving huckster and I didn't listen to her!" All of the witnesses had reputations for honesty and integrity, and Harris gave up all of his wealth and never denied his testimony. I think he could have later made some good money by writing a book entitled, I Was A Book of Mormon Witness! Mr Role In Joe Smith's Gold Bible Fraud. Yet he never complained about expenses in printing after that, nor did he seek further confirmation.

I think as the scribe created the new manuscript, the smaller version was destroyed which accounts for Joseph's extreme distress at having lost the 116 manuscript pages with the Martin Harris fiasco.

Yeah, but if Joseph was telling the truth, see it from his standpoint. The Lord had said NO! twice before (at least) and then said YES. Losing it under those circumstances would undoubtedly also result in extreme stress. If you've seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off, you'll recall how the kids completely totaled the rare 1961 Ferrari 250 GT that was the pride and joy of Cameron's (Alan Ruck's) father. Yes, there would be "extreme distress" in any of these cases.

As for Joseph's family and friends, they were quite clear that the distress suffered by the prophet was real and lasted for an extended period. From then on, they reported, Joseph never questioned the Lord's answers, and I'm convinced that it will continue to be an object lesson where when the Lord says something, do it!

See Illustration for how a pinhole viewer or camera works.

.

[Palerider]

You know, that's a pretty good theory. There are only a few problems. First, I own a number of hats and I can't seem to put a hole in any of them that allow me to see anything through them. Even punching a noticeable hole in them, I can't see a thing! I certainly can't read anything. I know a small aperture will increase the depth of field, but it also drastically cuts down light. Even when looking into a hat for a long period, my eyes don't adjust to it. Add to that that the writing of that day was very small. If one wrote larger, even to be seen, one would be endlessly shuffling paper. According to transcribers, Joseph didn't ask any part of the manuscript to be read back to him, but read carefully and methodically.

Keep in mind, too, that Martin Harris was constantly harped upon by his wife that Joseph was a fraud who only wanted to take advantage of him and get his money. This led him to seek confirmation by changing Joseph's seer stone for one he found that resembled it and taking a manuscript to Dr. Charles Anthon. I don't know if it's just me, but I think he wouldn't be a primary candidate to be party to a fraud saying he was witness to seeing an angel, hearing the voice of God, seeing the plates, the sword of Laban, the interpreters, etc. I would think, and again this is just me, that had Joseph tried to put him up to this that he would have said, "You know, my wife was right! She said you were a no-good thieving huckster and I didn't listen to her!" All of the witnesses had reputations for honesty and integrity, and Harris gave up all of his wealth and never denied his testimony. I think he could have later made some good money by writing a book entitled, I Was A Book of Mormon Witness! Mr Role In Joe Smith's Gold Bible Fraud. Yet he never complained about expenses in printing after that, nor did he seek further confirmation.

Yeah, but if Joseph was telling the truth, see it from his standpoint. The Lord had said NO! twice before (at least) and then said YES. Losing it under those circumstances would undoubtedly also result in extreme stress. If you've seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off, you'll recall how the kids completely totaled the rare 1961 Ferrari 250 GT that was the pride and joy of Cameron's (Alan Ruck's) father. Yes, there would be "extreme distress" in any of these cases.

As for Joseph's family and friends, they were quite clear that the distress suffered by the prophet was real and lasted for an extended period. From then on, they reported, Joseph never questioned the Lord's answers, and I'm convinced that it will continue to be an object lesson where when the Lord says something, do it!

See Illustration for how a pinhole viewer or camera works.

.

I own a number of hats as well and if you experiment a little it works quite well.

Your quote here speaks volumes to me:

"Joseph didn't ask any part of the manuscript to be read back to him but read carefully and methodically."

Actually he did request the script to be read back to ensure correctness but I think you're refering to the fact that after a break from translating, he didn't have to be reminded where he left off and could immediately start again.

I never doubted Joseph's distress in losing the 116 pages of manuscript. I believe it was real but for reasons different than what were assumed.

When I hear that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony I think that has to be taken with a grain of salt. If you want a real example of "good and devoted men" sticking to their beliefs, take a look at the signers of the Declaration of Independence. That's what I call dedication.

Not one of them ever left the cause or turned coat or traitor even though their lives were at stake. One of them was even hung by the British for treason.

And yet here in the case of "God's work" we have in-fighting and people scrambling in every direction like mice when the lights get turned on in the kitchen.

[Cold Steel]

I own a number of hats as well and if you experiment a little it works quite well.

Well, since we don't know what sort of hat he had, I guess we'll never know. Many hats in that day were made from black wool and had what we now associate with Amish styles. I still maintain that no one could read extended text through a hole in a hat. Since we can't examine your hat, or hats from that era, I think we can rely on common sense to determine whether it was possible and probable. Again, as Hugh Nibley said (and I agree with him wholeheartedly), no one of Joseph Smith's day was capable of writing the Book of Mormon. Not Smith, not Rigdon, not Spalding -- no one. No one of his day knew about the trade routes, or Nahom, or Bountiful. Whoever wrote I Nephi knew the landscape of the ancient world surrounding Jerusalem. One can take the Book of Mormon, a compass and a land rover, like George Potter and other LDS scholars have done, and track Lehi's route with a great deal of precision. They don't run into any dead-end wadis or desert when there should be lush areas. This information was known to no one in the United States in Smith's day. Just a few decades ago, it was unknown to many people living in our day. People had to actually go in and follow the trails to see if Nephi's account was credible, and it was. So seeing through a hole poked into a hat and reading for hours was the easy part. Knowing the landscape was what Smith or Rigdon could not have known. Even if they could have known about such places as Nahom, no one knew it was a burial site until 1994. How did Rigdon, or Spalding, know enough to have Ishmael buried there when there were no maps to show where Nahom was and no one knew it was a burial site?

Your quote here speaks volumes to me: "Joseph didn't ask any part of the manuscript to be read back to him but read carefully and methodically."

Of course Joseph read. Although we don't know exactly how the translation process worked, it is, after all, a translation. Whatever "volumes" you think "speaks" to you is, to me, lost. Again, I would love to see someone replicate reading through a hat and two, providing detailed geographic knowledge that no one knew about in his day and location.

I never doubted Joseph's distress in losing the 116 pages of manuscript. I believe it was real but for reasons different than what were assumed.

It was not assumed, but reported. Joseph's family reported his angst and his prayers. In my own opinion, losing those 116 pages should not have created that amount of heartache. I've seen my share of people who have lost entire hard disks of precious data they hadn't backed up, and while they suffered greatly when they couldn't get it back, they didn't suffer like Joseph was reported to have suffered.

When I hear that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony I think that has to be taken with a grain of salt. If you want a real example of "good and devoted men" sticking to their beliefs, take a look at the signers of the Declaration of Independence. That's what I call dedication.

Dedication comes from the heart. In 1833, a mob of nearly five hundred men drove David Whitmer and others to the public square, stripped, tarred, and feathered them, and when they threatened to shoot them if they didn't immediately recant their testimonies of the Book of Mormon and confess it to be a fraud, Whitmer raised his hands and bore witness to them that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God. Instantly a spirit of fear came upon the mob and let them go. Afterwards, an unbelieving doctor told David that his powerful testimony and the subsequent fear that gripped the mob had made him a believer in the Book of Mormon. There are a number of similar cases where church leaders were outnumbered and outgunned, and sudden unexplained spirit of fear and trepidation gripped their enemies.

Not one of them ever left the cause or turned coat or traitor even though their lives were at stake. One of them was even hung by the British for treason. And yet here in the case of "God's work" we have in-fighting and people scrambling in every direction like mice when the lights get turned on in the kitchen.

Well, if you don't think there was "scrambling in every direction" with the creation of our country, you need to do a little more studying. There was oftentimes furious debates and contention amongst the founders of this nation. Yet, as you say, they stood boldly by what they were doing. Similarly, the Adversary was busy, too, knowing that the Restoration of the Gospel was the beginning of the final dispensation and his rule as god of this world. As the Lord poured out rich blessings of the Spirit -- blessings that had not been manifested since the early Christian church -- Satan also was given more power. And as people experienced these rich blessings, there also was a spirit of apostasy as people fell victim to discontent and the constant badgering of mobs and anti-Mormon sentiment. Even so, most stayed loyal to the church and its leaders. And the witnesses of the Book of Mormon stayed true to their testimonies even in the face of death, even as the founding fathers.

.

[Palerider]

well i,m with elder holland on this one.. when we take into account the entire message of the b.o.m.. we come to understand completely that no evil man could have written it, and no good man would have unless he was commanded of God...

Unfortunately Elder Holland oversimplified the reality of the situation.

A question:

"Was (or is) Paul H. Dunn an evil man or a good man? It must be one or the other, right? Nothing in between.

If he is a good man, why would he fabricate and prevaricate regarding his life experiences (war and baseball). No good man would do it.

If he was an evil man, what was he doing as a general authority for the Church. I thought that was part of what revelation was all about. Making sure the bad guys were weeded out before they made their way up the ladder. Was he just doing it for the love of position? No evil man would have promoted the goodness of the church the way that he did.

Hmmmmmm......

[Palerider]

Well, since we don't know what sort of hat he had, I guess we'll never know. Many hats in that day were made from black wool and had what we now associate with Amish styles. I still maintain that no one could read extended text through a hole in a hat. Since we can't examine your hat, or hats from that era, I think we can rely on common sense to determine whether it was possible and probable. Again, as Hugh Nibley said (and I agree with him wholeheartedly), no one of Joseph Smith's day was capable of writing the Book of Mormon. Not Smith, not Rigdon, not Spalding -- no one. No one of his day knew about the trade routes, or Nahom, or Bountiful. Whoever wrote I Nephi knew the landscape of the ancient world surrounding Jerusalem. One can take the Book of Mormon, a compass and a land rover, like George Potter and other LDS scholars have done, and track Lehi's route with a great deal of precision. They don't run into any dead-end wadis or desert when there should be lush areas. This information was known to no one in the United States in Smith's day. Just a few decades ago, it was unknown to many people living in our day. People had to actually go in and follow the trails to see if Nephi's account was credible, and it was. So seeing through a hole poked into a hat and reading for hours was the easy part. Knowing the landscape was what Smith or Rigdon could not have known. Even if they could have known about such places as Nahom, no one knew it was a burial site until 1994. How did Rigdon, or Spalding, know enough to have Ishmael buried there when there were no maps to show where Nahom was and no one knew it was a burial site?

Sorry, I would have no trouble reading through any style of hat for an extended period. It's obvious you are speaking from theory and not actual experience with these things.

Regarding the "route" etc. across the desert, give me a four wheeler, a compass and tell me that there is a route somewhere out there from point A to point B and I'll bet I could create or find one. If you happen to find something on it that says in Hebrew "Lehi passed this way" please let me know. The rest is just speculation.

Of course Joseph read. Although we don't know exactly how the translation process worked, it is, after all, a translation. Whatever "volumes" you think "speaks" to you is, to me, lost. Again, I would love to see someone replicate reading through a hat and two, providing detailed geographic knowledge that no one knew about in his day and location.

It was not assumed, but reported. Joseph's family reported his angst and his prayers. In my own opinion, losing those 116 pages should not have created that amount of heartache. I've seen my share of people who have lost entire hard disks of precious data they hadn't backed up, and while they suffered greatly when they couldn't get it back, they didn't suffer like Joseph was reported to have suffered.

Not sure I'm following your logic here....I'm agreeing Joseph did suffer, just not for the reasons some may think.

Dedication comes from the heart. In 1833, a mob of nearly five hundred men drove David Whitmer and others to the public square, stripped, tarred, and feathered them, and when they threatened to shoot them if they didn't immediately recant their testimonies of the Book of Mormon and confess it to be a fraud, Whitmer raised his hands and bore witness to them that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God. Instantly a spirit of fear came upon the mob and let them go. Afterwards, an unbelieving doctor told David that his powerful testimony and the subsequent fear that gripped the mob had made him a believer in the Book of Mormon. There are a number of similar cases where church leaders were outnumbered and outgunned, and sudden unexplained spirit of fear and trepidation gripped their enemies.

I don't doubt that many truly believed in the Book of Mormon. I just think their faith in Joseph and erego the BofM wained as time went on.

Well, if you don't think there was "scrambling in every direction" with the creation of our country, you need to do a little more studying. There was oftentimes furious debates and contention amongst the founders of this nation. Yet, as you say, they stood boldly by what they were doing. Similarly, the Adversary was busy, too, knowing that the Restoration of the Gospel was the beginning of the final dispensation and his rule as god of this world. As the Lord poured out rich blessings of the Spirit -- blessings that had not been manifested since the early Christian church -- Satan also was given more power. And as people experienced these rich blessings, there also was a spirit of apostasy as people fell victim to discontent and the constant badgering of mobs and anti-Mormon sentiment. Even so, most stayed loyal to the church and its leaders. And the witnesses of the Book of Mormon stayed true to their testimonies even in the face of death, even as the founding fathers.

Please.....I'm well aware of the struggles in bringing forth our nation. But the fact remains that none of the signers of the Declaration ever turned against the cause and became traitors as did the early LDS leadership and "witnesses" of the Bof M. The Founding Fathers are my standard of loyalty.

.