Joseph Smith As Author

[altersteve]

This thread is meant to discuss the idea that Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Mormon, and why he would ever want to write such a book in the first place. I argue that Joseph writing the Book of Mormon is inconsistent with his background and with what an author of fiction (even an amateur one like myself and like Joseph Smith) would do when writing a novel.

We all know that in his early life, Joseph Smith was no bookworm. There is no evidence that he enjoyed reading books for pleasure. In fact, such an idea is contrary to what his mother said about him, how he was the least likely out of all her children to read books, and how he was instead "far more given to meditation and deep study." This is also inconsistent with the idea that he would write any kind of fictional novel at all, since you need to be a reader in order to be a good writer of fiction (as a fiction writer myself, I can attest to this fact). In his article "The Book of Mormon - Artifact or Artifice?" (an excellent read), science fiction author Orson Scott Card further writes about this, and explains how the interests of the author are reflected in his or her writing. He shows that the Book of Mormon (a book that deals extensively with strong thematic material involving war, political corruption, etc.) does not reflect Joseph Smith's interests at the time whatsoever, nor are the cultures it describes in any way similar to the time and culture that Joseph would be familiar with:

The Book of Mormon never explain a lot of things that we wish it would. No one ever tells us, for instance, what the people eat and drink. We are told that the rich have fine clothing, but no one describes what they actually wear. While the people seem to work collectively, we are never told exactly what their daily work is. Why? None of that is relevant to the historian, or his purpose. The Book of Mormon never loses track of the rhetorical purpose of the author -- but also changes the rhetorical purpose with each author. Nephi and Jacob are not writing for the same reason as Mormon and Moroni, and therefore they include different kinds of information. Nephi glides over battles without detail; Mormon gives us detailed campaigns, but only when telling the story of a heroic captain who is a spiritual as well as a military example. And it's worth noting that the only captain whose battle strategies are given in detail is the very one that Mormon named his son after. It is arguable that Gidgiddoni's military achievements are at least equal to Moroni's -- but we get no details of his campaigns.

Thus the Book of Mormon not only reflects the rhetorical purposes of the writers, but also reflects their personal interests and concerns. They should be and are different from each other. Nobody else is as interested in military matters as Mormon, and nobody else writes about them. And, in fact, it is worth pointing out that nowhere else in all of Joseph Smith's writings do we get the slightest hint of his having an interest in military strategies or achievements. Whoever wrote the Book of Alma cared a great deal about military matters -- but nothing in the rest of Joseph Smith's writings gives us any sense that he cared much about this at all. Even when he founded the Nauvoo Legion and dressed up in uniform, there is no evidence of his plotting military campaigns -- yet if he were the author of those accounts of Moroni's and Helaman's campaigns, it is unthinkable that he would not have talked and thought about military matters, especially during those times in early Church history when such conversation and thought would have been appropriate. There were others in the Church who reveled in military matters -- Samson Avard, for instance. But Joseph Smith was not one of them. To me, that says that he could not have been the author of the Book of Alma. I have read too much not to know that writers repeatedly return to whatever fascinates them. Just as Mormon brings up military matters again and again, though never with the same detail he brings to the campaigns of Moroni, we also find that Nephi and Moroni never bring up military matters with any detail at all. They are not interested and Joseph Smith was not interested, but Mormon was interested and his writings reflect that.

Some, of course, claim that Joseph Smith had other materials with him when writing the Book of Mormon, but this is equally ridiculous in my opinion. The most obvious source he would have would be the King James Bible, since the Book of Mormon qutoes extensively from it, especially from Isaiah. We can't reasonably expect Joseph (or anyone else) to memorize all those portions from the Bible, can we? But we can't reasonably expect him to have a Bible (or anything else) with him when translating the Book of Mormon either, in my opinion, since such an idea is inconsistent with four things:

1. Joseph Smith was not interested in literature (which, again, is also completely contradictory to the entire critical argument that he would even want to write something like the Book of Mormon for any reason).
   
2. He might not have even owned a Bible during the time.
   
3. He was very poorly educated.
   
4. Eyewitnesses observing the translation process had unanimously reported that he had nothing with him.
   

Regarding this last point, Honorentheos wrote in another thread:

First, while a tangent I think the evidence against JS having additional material is weak. My personal opinion is that both Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were privy to the fraud we call the BoM and that there is no reason to accept either's testimony at face value. I also believe that Emma Smith's last testimony is not trustworthy as it was published post-mortem by her son. I've made the case before that her testimony includes strong denial of Joseph's involvement in polygamy which we know is either a lie on her part, or her statement was modified by the leadership of the RLDS church prior to publication. I don't think it's a big mystery how JS could quote long passages from the bible.

I don't think he's understanding the issue here, though. First, Honorentheos, you'll have to explain how you think Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were in on the fraud and how you think history supports this idea, then you'll have to tell us how you think the evidence against Joseph having additional material with him is "weak." It's not the fact that there's evidence against Joseph Smith having other materials with him, it's that there is no evidence for it. You made the claim that he had materials with him, so the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this.

The fact is, though, that Joseph Smith would not have written the Book of Mormon. He was not a reader or a writer, and he was not interested in many of the topics the book deals with in any way. Go ahead and stick your face in a hat, and dictate a novel that is as complex and consistent as the Book of Mormon and that accurately deals with rather intense topics that have nothing to do with your personal interests whatsoever, to a scribe in the same way Joseph Smith did with the Book of Mormon (and not to mention in the amazingly short amount of time that it took him to do it). It's just not possible in any reasonable sense, especially for an uneducated farmboy living on the American frontier in the early 19th century.

Edited December 6, 2011 by altersteve

[Calm]

FWIW, I recall seeing Richard Burton (I think it was him) on a talk show being able to recite any biblical verse requested. Memorizing long sections of text was not that unusual in days past. I do not believe there is any evidence that Joseph was into this kind of stuff in his early years, I believe he demonstrated possessing a great memory later in his life...possibly explained by the influence of the Spirit for the purpose of his work.

It is likely that someone will bring up the reports of his mother describing how Joseph would entertain them with extensive descriptions of the past inhabitants, but if one couples this with Moroni's teaching visits it is easily explained not by a gift for storytelling but recitation of what he had learned from Moroni (though there may be other evidence of storytelling ability, I am not remembering any.)

Edited December 6, 2011 by calmoriah

[altersteve]

FWIW, I recall seeing Richard Burton (I think it was him) on a talk show being able to recite any biblical verse requested. Memorizing long sections of text was not that unusual in days past. I do not believe there is any evidence that Joseph was into this kind of stuff in his early years, I believe he demonstrated possessing a great memory later in his life...possibly explained by the influence of the Spirit for the purpose of his work.

I agree. Since he never read the Bible all the way through before the Book of Mormon's publication, I can't really believe that he would sit down to memorize half of the entire Book of Isaiah. That's ridiculous to me.

It is likely that someone will bring up the reports of his mother describing how Joseph would entertain them with extensive descriptions of the past inhabitants, but if one couples this with Moroni's teaching visits it is easily explained not by a gift for storytelling but recitation of what he had learned from Moroni (though there may be other evidence of storytelling ability, I am not remembering any.)

I was expecting someone to mention Joseph's stories of ancient America as well, but it doesn't make sense that he would just tell them stories like that, since I see no evidence that he was interested in that subject. And he simply wasn't a storyteller; that wasn't his thing. The explanation that he was reciting what Moroni had told him is the best explanation for it.

Edited December 6, 2011 by altersteve

[thesometimesaint]

One of the first things about novels is that over time they are always shown to be less and less accurate. Such is not the case with the BoM. Unless we're talking about the vast Palmyra Reading Lending Library of the 1820's

[Calm]

The fact is, though, that Joseph Smith would not have written the Book of Mormon. He was not a reader or a writer, and he was not interested in the subject matter of the book in any way......It's just not possible in any reasonable sense, especially for an uneducated farmboy living on the American frontier in the early 19th century.

I am not sure the statement he was not interested in the subject matter is accurate. For example, I believe he was described as quite excited by a text by Catherwood? IIRC.

I would also like to know why you have concluded he was not into storytelling at all.

I also think assuming that good writing skills are required to be a good storyteller translating today's standards to less literate societies and I believe that Joseph's immediate environment was enough of a mix that making that assumption for his time period is problematic without further evidence. Later in his life he became known as a great speaker even though he was never considered a good writer, I believe.

Edited December 6, 2011 by calmoriah

[why me]

If we consider his head in a hat infront of witnesses, we can say that it was quite an achievement if he wrote the book of mormon. Then, we have the supernatural props to consider to convince the 11 witnesses that the experience was from god. Now if we just have Joseph who brings forth a book and claims that it was from god, we can entertain that he wrote it himself. But when we consider all others who were involved and how they kept to their story on their deathbeds, well, it becomes more complicated to claim that he wrote the book without a manuscript. Or from memory. Many of the people involved wanted more than his word. They needed evidence that he wasn't a fraudster and evidence was given.

Edited December 6, 2011 by why me

[why me]

I am not sure the statement he was not interested in the subject matter is accurate. For example, I believe he was described as quite excited by a text by Catherwood? IIRC.

I would also like to know why you have concluded he was not into storytelling at all.

I also think assuming that good writing skills are required to be a good storyteller translating today's standards to less literate societies and I believe that Joseph's immediate environment was enough of a mix that making that assumption for his time period is problematic without further evidence. Later in his life he became known as a great speaker even though he was never considered a good writer, I believe.

Since people saw the plates, and witnessed the translation process and believed it was from god, it becomes hard to see JS just writing a book from his memory. To read joseph's letters to emma is an exercise in frustration. Poor grammar and poor spelling abound. Oliver would have gone crazy with his syntax, if he wrote the book himself. And it would have been a dead giveaway that he wrote the book himself.

Edited December 6, 2011 by why me

[altersteve]

I am not sure the statement he was not interested in the subject matter is accurate. For example, I believe he was described as quite excited by a text by Catherwood? IIRC.

I would also like to know why you have concluded he was not into storytelling at all.

I also think assuming that good writing skills are required to be a good storyteller translating today's standards to less literate societies and I believe that Joseph's immediate environment was enough of a mix that making that assumption for his time period is problematic without further evidence. Later in his life he became known as a great speaker even though he was never considered a good writer, I believe.

That's not what I meant, sorry about that. I clarified it in the original post. I meant that he wasn't interested in many of the topics dealt with in the book, as Orson Scott Card pointed out. Not that he was uninterested in the actual subject matter. I also wouldn't say good writing skills are required to be a good storyteller. I just don't think Joseph Smith was considered a good writer, as you said, and I don't see anything to believe that he was ever really the type of person to make up stories to entertain or amuse other people. Unless anyone has any examples of him doing so.

Since people saw the plates, and witnessed the translation process and believed it was from god, it becomes hard to see JS just writing a book from his memory. To read joseph's letters to emma is an exercise in frustration. Poor grammar and poor spelling abound. Oliver would have gone crazy with his syntax, if he wrote the book himself. And it would have been a dead giveaway that he wrote the book himself.

Exactly. Furthermore, Joseph's own writing style is nothing like the writing style(s) found in the Book of Mormon, and I'm not talking about the KJV language. I'm talking about the language structure, the way the words and sentences flow into one another. It's nothing like Joseph's writing at all. Take anything he wrote -- journal entries, letters, sermons, or even something more formal like the paper he wrote announcing his presidential candidacy -- and compare the language structure and style of the Book of Mormon. No similarities whatsoever. And since he dictated the book, not even his speaking style is similar to it at all. Total giveaways in my opinion. I'm surprised critics don't see this.

The fact is, if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, then the whole thing is a pretty complicated issue. If he didn't, then it's really quite simple. That says a lot to me.

Edited December 6, 2011 by altersteve

[volgadon]

This is also inconsistent with the idea that he would write any kind of fictional novel at all, since you need to be a reader in order to be a good writer of fiction (as a fiction writer myself, I can attest to this fact).

As an (unpublished) writer myself, I would have to take exception with this statement. A good writer of fiction first and foremost has to be a good storyteller. Being a good reader is secondary.

The premise of this thread strikes me as subjective, so perhaps it'd be a good idea to define terms. What do you consider to be a "good" novel or writer?

[why me]

Exactly. Furthermore, Joseph's own writing style is nothing like the writing style(s) found in the Book of Mormon, and I'm not talking about the KJV language. I'm talking about the language structure, the way the words and sentences flow into one another. It's nothing like Joseph's writing at all. Take anything he wrote -- journal entries, letters, sermons, or even something more formal like the paper he wrote announcing his presidential candidacy -- and compare the language structure and style of the Book of Mormon. No similarities whatsoever. And since he dictated the book, not even his speaking style is similar to it at all. Total giveaways in my opinion. I'm surprised critics don't see this.

The fact is, if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, then the whole thing is a pretty complicated issue. If he didn't, then it's really quite simple. That says a lot to me.

Also, to write a book without rough drafts would be nearly impossible. And when we consider the amount of paper, ink, and feathered pens involved and the time it would take to even compose the book, it seems quite impossible for JS to write it in secret. The whole process is a complicated issue when we take all factors into consideration regardless if he did or didn't write the book.

[Calm]

My personal view is the text is sufficient to discredit the idea of Joseph as the primary author. I don't see it working for a variety of reasons, many listed in this thread though I do disagree with the degree of some of the comments and don't think that some of these reasons alone are enough to disqualify him, but rather combined with others create an argument against JS as author.

That leaves him being the front man for someone else or a group...which for me have an entirely different set of disqualifications (mainly dependent upon how people function in groups).

Edited December 6, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

As an (unpublished) writer myself, I would have to take exception with this statement. A good writer of fiction first and foremost has to be a good storyteller. Being a good reader is secondary.

The premise of this thread strikes me as subjective, so perhaps it'd be a good idea to define terms. What do you consider to be a "good" novel or writer?

Sometimes being a good reader can get in the way as it becomes difficult to not be influenced by others in your writing, affecting creativity.

[why me]

I'm surprised critics don't see this.

They do. But they choose to ignore it since it gives them problems. I have said many times, if JS were a fraudster he was very fortunate to find 11 or so sociopaths to go along with it. I say sociopaths because to allow countless people to suffer for a fraud as the early saints were suffering during the years of persecution, would be criminal. And yet, that is what the 11 witness would be guilty of. And then we have emma who would have known that it was a fraud if it were a fraud. She would also be a sociopath to allow so much suffering for a fraud. So, we have at least 12 sociopaths involved in a fraud if it were a fraud. Quite nearly impossible to find at random. And yet, not one of them seemed to fit the sociopath personality disorder when we consider their lives.

[why me]

Sometimes being a good reader can get in the way as it becomes difficult to not be influenced by others in your writing, affecting creativity.

However, in writing classes they do recommend that the potential writers read from good books to get the flow of the words. This is also true for academic writing.

[altersteve]

As an (unpublished) writer myself, I would have to take exception with this statement. A good writer of fiction first and foremost has to be a good storyteller. Being a good reader is secondary.

I agree, but think of it this way. One learns to speak by listening, which is why deaf people cannot speak very well. Similarly, one learns to write by reading. People who do not read anything are usually not as able to write as well as those who do.

The premise of this thread strikes me as subjective, so perhaps it'd be a good idea to define terms. What do you consider to be a "good" novel or writer?

That's not meant to be the premise of this thread. The premise of the thread is that the evidence is stacked against Joseph Smith being the author of the Book of Mormon for several reasons, in addition to him not being a "good" enough writer. If he wrote it, then the book is fictional, and Joseph Smith being the author of a fictional novel is not consistent with his background, nor is it consistent with the contents of the book he allegedly wrote -- in other words, so many of the Book of Mormon's topics are ones that Joseph simply wouldn't have written about. My argument is that it is rather ridiculous to attribute authorship of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. It's simply not a reasonable conclusion for any serious historian to make.

[volgadon]

However, in writing classes they do recommend that the potential writers read from good books to get the flow of the words. This is also true for academic writing.

Reading good books is important, I wouldn't suggest otherwise, but if you don't tell a compelling story your reading of good books won't save you.

[Nevo]

Why are we even talking about Joseph's writing style when we all know he dictated the Book of Mormon?

Joseph hardly wrote anything. We have only a few journal entries and letters written in his own hand. Most were written by scribes. Much of the Wentworth letter was cribbed from Orson Pratt and his presidential platform was likely ghostwritten by W.W. Phelps. Like several of the protagonists of the Book of Mormon, Joseph was a reluctant, self-conscious writer.

One of the things he did write in his own hand was his 1832 history—a document crammed with biblical allusions. Whether or not Joseph read the Bible assiduously as a youth, he certainly had a good command of it by 1832. In the space of a paragraph, Joseph drew from Isaiah 40:3, Matthew 3:3; Exod. 13:21; Acts 26:13; Ps. 14:1; Isa. 29:13; and Rev. 3:11. His later sermons, delivered extemporaneously without notes, also quoted extensively from the Bible (see, e.g., Richard Galbraith, ed., Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith).

I think there is actually quite a lot of Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon. The autobiographical elements, Methodist-style revival sermons, heresies that closely resemble 19th-century Universalism and deism, the doctrines that seem to owe a debt to St. Paul, Anselm, and Arminius, not to mention the slippery treasures, secret combinations—all of these things suggest that Joseph influenced the text in some way.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Nevo

[altersteve]

Reading good books is important, I wouldn't suggest otherwise, but if you don't tell a compelling story your reading of good books won't save you.

But we're not talking about storytelling, we're talking about Joseph's technical ability as a writer (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.). In that sense, he wasn't very good. Why? Because when he was younger, he never read very much. You'll notice, though, that later in his life, he began reading more (I'm sure he read lots of letters), and that became evident in his own writing ability.

I guess where I wrote in my first post that "you need to be a reader in order to be a good writer of fiction," I should have instead said that "you need to be a reader in order to be a good writer of anything."

[Calm]

But we're not talking about storytelling, we're talking about Joseph's technical ability as a writer (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.). In that sense, he wasn't very good. Why? Because when he was younger, he never read very much. You'll notice, though, that later in his life, he began reading more (I'm sure he read lots of letters), and that became evident in his own writing;

But as Nevo points out, one needs to remove the aspects of writing that are only relevant in the 'hard copy' aspect of writing. You are actually talking about composing, which may overlap with writing but there are areas that are irrelevant such as spelling. Also not everyone speaks in the same manner which they write, some are much better at speaking even in formatting because they have a broader speaking vocabulary, etc.

The comparison should probably focus mainly on comparing any nonBoM dictation given at the same time as the BoM. I don't know how much we have beyond the revelations which run into the problem of knowing what are JS's contributions and what are the Spirit's. Perhaps Nevo knows?

Edited December 6, 2011 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

But we're not talking about storytelling, we're talking about Joseph's technical ability as a writer (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.). In that sense, he wasn't very good. Why? Because when he was younger, he never read very much. You'll notice, though, that later in his life, he began reading more (I'm sure he read lots of letters), and that became evident in his own writing ability.

If we look at technical aspects, the BoM is clunky for a work written in the English language. Elegance of style is not a strong point of the book. Perhaps not as horrifying as seeing a Sevres vase in the hands of a chimpanzee, but it certainly doesn't do justice to the rich, delicate language that is English. For the record, I don't think that Joseph wrote the BoM, but this doesn't mean that your argument against his authorship holds much water.

Edited December 6, 2011 by volgadon

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't think it's at all obvious (as some have tried to assert) that there is much contemporary political, religious, or autobiographical content in the Book of Mormon. I appreciate Blake Ostler's work very much, but the expansion theory is, in my opinion, not a necessary paradigm. (I agree with Bushman's argument that the underlying forms of government are not, in fact, a response to the political culture of Joseph's day) Part of the problem is that when people assume that Joseph Smith has to be the author, then they search for parallels in 19th century thought, rather than the ancient Nephite context. Brant Gardner has a good take on this: Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon's Book.

What makes this confusing is the linguistic problem: Joseph Smith, as a 19th century man, would be definitionally incapable of transcending his milieu - and if he were, he would not be able to communicate with those who were not able to follow him. Everything in the Book of Mormon is therefore translated using a 19th century idiom, which of course is heavily influenced by the religious concerns of his day, Enlightenment philosophy, his personal level of education, familial concerns, etc.

Yet it's too easy to dismiss the book based on superficial style - we have to look at the underlying deep structure and content of the book and keep in mind that this is an immensely complicated abridgment. It has been quadruple-filtered (at the very least): we have ancient Jaredite records, filtered through a Middle Eastern lineage history, filtered through a Mesoamerican tribal context, filtered through the 19th century idiom. That is a lot of middlemen to murk things up for us.

(As an aside, for what it's worth, I think rumors of Joseph Smith's ignorance have been greatly exaggerated. Language was in a state of flux during his time, so it's not surprising that he misspells words. But he obviously had a talent for language; if, say, the Sermon in the Grove or the King Follett Discourse are anything to judge by, Smith was a remarkable wordsmith. I also find unconvincing Lucy's statement that Joseph had never read the Bible all the way through - I know that my parents weren't always aware of what I was reading as a child. *grin*)

But Joseph's familiarity with the Bible is simply not a nail in any kind of coffin. I think he was a deeply intelligent man, and probably was interested in literature (though he didn't have as much time to devote to it as he would have liked.) He mentions Swedenborg, etc. The thing is, this is simply irrelevant to both apologetic and critical views of the book itself. What matters is the underlying content, not the particular wording used to translate that content into the modern world. Card actually has another great article on this subject that I highly recommend: Joseph Smith: Reader or Translator? (starts a little ways down the page)

Edited December 6, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Grundelwalken]

I have always enjoyed the thought-provoking essay by Card because it speaks to the heart of why Joseph could not have written the book from himself. Though Nevo claims to see Joseph in the Book of Mormon (I suppose if I looked hard enough I might find some of myself there also), there are no parts of his culture or the civilization in which he lived. Card hits many of the often missed areas where Joseph would have used something from his own time to explain events. The only real answer for "where did the Book of Mormon come from " is from exactly where Joseph said it came from. MW

Edited December 6, 2011 by Grundelwalken

[altersteve]

But as Nevo points out, one needs to remove the aspects of writing that are only relevant in the 'hard copy' aspect of writing. You are actually talking about composing, which may overlap with writing but there are areas that are irrelevant such as spelling. Also not everyone speaks in the same manner which they write, some are much better at speaking even in formatting because they have a broader speaking vocabulary, etc.

I know. But there are critics who believe that Joseph actually wrote the book. I've seen some critics make the claim that Joseph could not have dictated the Book of Mormon in that short amount of time, so he had been at work on it for up to several years prior (thinking of the story and characters, writing the beginning drafts, etc.). This is what is not supported by the text of the Book of Mormon -- it doesn't match his writing style at all.

This is not my main argument, though. See below.

If we look at technical aspects, the BoM is clunky for a work written in the English language. Elegance of style is not a strong point of the book. Perhaps not as horrifying as seeing a Sevres vase in the hands of a chimpanzee, but it certainly doesn't do justice to the rich, delicate language that is good English. For the record, I don't think that Joseph wrote the BoM, but this doesn't mean that your argument against his authorship holds much water.

I agree that the Book of Mormon is not extremely elegantly written. It's a translation of an ancient language, so that much should be obvious. But you and others here are misunderstanding my point. The whole thing about the Joseph's technical writing style and the writing style of the Book of Mormon is not my argument against his authorship. My argument is that the content of the Book of Mormon, everything about it, what it's about, many of its topics, etc., is not Joseph would write about. Like Orson Scott Card pointed out, many parts of the Book of Mormon discuss, for example, military campaigns, and many of them are discussed in great detail. We know Joseph Smith would not have written about military campaigns in any amount of detail, because he had no interest in that. There are other examples as well.

We know that in his early life, Joseph didn't seem to be interested in literature -- reading or writing -- though I agree with what Jeremy wrote a few posts above about how he seemed to be very interested later in his life. But it's at the time the Book of Mormon was being translated, and before that, that I'm focusing on, and during that time, I don't see evidence of Joseph being interested in reading or making up stories, so I can't see why he would have any desire to create the Book of Mormon in the first place. There was no evidence of him being a con artist in his early life, so the idea that he suddenly decided to trick a bunch of people doesn't make any sense. And if he did decide to trick a bunch of people, why? There's simply no evidence that he ever had a desire to set out to create any sort of fictional work for any reason, much less a work claiming to be a translation of a set of records written and abridged by ancient American prophets. It's not only that he didn't have the ability to do so, but also that he didn't seem to have any reason to do so. It wasn't something he would have done.

Basically, the idea that Joseph Smith would create the Book of Mormon is not consistent with who Joseph Smith was, and it's not consistent with the Book of Mormon itself -- not just the way the book came about, but the book's contents. If teenage Joseph Smith had decided to write a book, it would not and could not have been anything like the Book of Mormon. That's my argument, the same argument Orson Scott Card has presented in the essay of his that I linked the first post. People here seem to be glancing over that and just focusing on what I say about the "writing style," but that was never meant to be my point. That was nothing more than a tangent, really.

Edited December 6, 2011 by altersteve

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

No, I totally agree. Sorry if what I wrote seemed to be focusing on the linguistic side of things - I was actually attempting to support this: "The idea that Joseph Smith would create the Book of Mormon is not consistent with who Joseph Smith was, and it's not consistent with the Book of Mormon itself -- not just the way it came about, but the content. Basically, if teenage Joseph Smith had decided to write a book, it would not and could not have been anything like the Book of Mormon."

[Nevo]

But mostly, the idea that Joseph Smith would create the Book of Mormon is not consistent with who Joseph Smith was, and it's not consistent with the Book of Mormon itself -- not just the way it came about, but the content. Basically, if teenage Joseph Smith had decided to write a book, it would not and could not have been anything like the Book of Mormon.

Whoever created the Book of Mormon was deeply devout. The book seems to be an earnest attempt to convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ. It is also deeply concerned with the gathering of Israel and sees Native Americans as playing a crucial role. It decries priestcraft, lawyers, and distinctions based on social class. It yearns for a society where divisions are done away with, where there are no more "-ites". This is very consistent with who Joseph Smith was.