Joseph Smith As Author

[altersteve]

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.

I never said the Book of Mormon itself is inconsistent with who Joseph Smith was, I said the idea that he would create it himself is inconsistent with who he was. Big difference.

[Nevo]

I never said the Book of Mormon itself is inconsistent with who Joseph Smith was, I said the idea that he would create it himself is inconsistent with who he was. Big difference.

I'm not sure that I understand the distinction you're trying to make. In any case, you wrote: "If teenage Joseph Smith had decided to write a book, it would not and could not have been anything like the Book of Mormon." I am suggesting that if Joseph Smith had decided to write a book, it might well look like the Book of Mormon.

[altersteve]

I'm not sure that I understand the distinction you're trying to make. In any case, you wrote: "If teenage Joseph Smith had decided to write a book, it would not and could not have been anything like the Book of Mormon." I am suggesting that if Joseph Smith had decided to write a book, it might well look like the Book of Mormon.

If Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, then he's a liar and one of the biggest frauds in history. That's what's inconsistent with who he was most of all. He not only could not have created the Book of Mormon, but he also would not have done so, because that's not the type of person he was. His character, his background, his personality, the skills and education he lacked -- none of it fits with the type of a person who would be the mastermind behind something like the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon discusses topics that do not reflect Joseph's interests, nor does it describe ancient history, culture, language, and religion in the way that he would have understood those subjects.

That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

Edited December 7, 2011 by altersteve

[volgadon]

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.

This wouldn't have been obvious in that age.

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.

I find that hard to swallow. Where is the evidence that Joseph had interest in military campaigns? Joseph was born during the Napoleonic Wars, which ended when he was ten. His younger brother, born in 1816, was named Don Carlos, which shows that his family was aware of those events, and in some measure identified with them. During his childhood there was a war fought on American soil, and members of his family fought in the American War of Independence, the seminal event in the history of his nation. An important element of national pride and identity was military might and show. In later life Joseph was the head of the Nauvoo Legion, participating in drills and parades. Two of the most valued books in the world around him were the Bible and the histories of Josephus, heavily focusing on war.

I am no proponent of naturalistic origins, but you would have to work harder to show that Joseph had no interest in military campaigns.

[volgadon]

If Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, then he's a liar and one of the biggest frauds in history. That's what's inconsistent with who he was most of all. He not only could not have created the Book of Mormon, but he also would not have done so, because that's not the type of person he was. His character, his background, his personality, the skills and education he lacked -- none of it fits with the type of a person who would be the mastermind behind something like the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon discusses topics that do not reflect Joseph's interests, nor does it describe ancient history, culture, language, and religion in the way that he would have understood those subjects.

That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

There are other suggestions, such as auto-writing, which don't require Joseph to be a liar and a fraud.

Edited December 7, 2011 by volgadon

[altersteve]

This wouldn't have been obvious in that age.

Never said otherwise.

I find that hard to swallow. Where is the evidence that Joseph had interest in military campaigns? Joseph was born during the Napoleonic Wars, which ended when he was ten. His younger brother, born in 1816, was named Don Carlos, which shows that his family was aware of those events, and in some measure identified with them. During his childhood there was a war fought on American soil, and members of his family fought in the American War of Independence, the seminal event in the history of his nation. An important element of national pride and identity was military might and show. In later life Joseph was the head of the Nauvoo Legion, participating in drills and parades. Two of the most valued books in the world around him were the Bible and the histories of Josephus, heavily focusing on war.

I am no proponent of naturalistic origins, but you would have to work harder to show that Joseph had no interest in military campaigns.

A writer myself, I agree with Orson Scott Card on this topic. Joseph had a great respect for America, so yes, he may have been able to identify with those who had fought in war, and he may have been the leader of the Nauvoo Legion, but that doesn't mean he was interested in military campaigns. He didn't spend time plotting them, talking about them, or writing about them. Mormon, on the other hand, did have an interest in military matters, and it's evident in what he wrote.

There are other suggestions, such as auto-writing, which don't require Joseph to be a liar and a fraud.

I don't believe in auto-writing.

[altersteve]

I'm repeating myself a lot in this thread. I was hoping for a good discussion, but I see that hasn't happened yet. Maybe I'll just ask a moderator to lock it.

[volgadon]

Never said otherwise.

You'll understand why this was easy to misconstrue. "It's a translation of an ancient language, so that much should be obvious."

A writer myself, I agree with Orson Scott Card on this topic. Joseph had a great respect for America, so yes, he may have been able to identify with those who had fought in war, and he may have been the leader of the Nauvoo Legion, but that doesn't mean he was interested in military campaigns. He didn't spend time plotting them, talking about them, or writing about them.

Despite having planned and led one? Was Zion's Camp chopped liver?

Joseph spent time excersizing, drilling, parading, reviewing and organising the Legion. There was also a sham battle. If none of this is considered interest in military affairs, then I don't know what is.

I don't believe in auto-writing.

Yet the pehnomenon exists.

[volgadon]

I'm repeating myself a lot in this thread. I was hoping for a good discussion, but I see that hasn't happened yet. Maybe I'll just ask a moderator to lock it.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. As I see it, I'm an amateur writer and historian. I believe that the BoM was divinely revealed. I don't find the arguments proposed by you or Card to be particularly convincing, and have challenged them.

[Nevo]

I honestly don't know what to make of the Book of Mormon. On the one hand, I am not persuaded by Jeremy's view that the modern elements in the book are wholly superficial—I don't think all the anachronisms can be dismissed as mere "translation artifacts". On the other hand, I acknowledge that other elements in the book do appear to be genuinely ancient.

There are other considerations that militate against a nineteenth-century origin as well. Hugh Nibley noted the limited vocabulary of the book and the lack of flowery language characteristic of nineteenth-century writing. Despite its enormous ambition, breadth, complexity, and literary sophistication, the Book of Mormon never attempts to impress. It never tries to be clever. The language is plain and direct.

I am also impressed by the caliber of people that the book attracted historically and continues to attract today. Even the hardened apostate, William McLellin, could write in his old age: "When a man goes at the Book of M. he touches the apple of my eye. He fights against truth—against purity—against light—against the purist, or one of the truest, purist books on earth." Clearly, the book has transcended its time and place of origin. It is now read and revered all over the world, across continents and cultures. Few religious books have achieved that distinction.

And so, to borrow a phrase from Richard Mouw, "I live with the mystery."

Edited December 7, 2011 by Nevo

[Cobalt-70]

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 discusses doctrinal issues to which Joseph Smith would have been extremely interested during his youth. The book covers nearly all the main items of Protestant debate circulating during that time. More often than not, Smith resolved the issues in favor of the Methodist view. Sometimes, however, he made significant departures, to adopt Presbyterian and Restorationist views such as those held by Disciples of Christ, and Puritanism. He also added elements of antimasonry, which was the hot-button local topic in 1829 Western New York. And elements of magic (Interpreters, Liahona, "slippery" treasures in the earth, etc.), to which Smith was deeply interested, are also present in the book. Plus, people in that era had the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 on their minds, and were curious about where the Indians came from. It's not surprising that these issues made it into the Book of Mormon.

Plus, it's not true that Smith never read books. He was said to be an avid and voracious Bible reader.

[why me]

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.

Maybe not. Joseph before the book of mormon was a moneydigging poor farmhand on his father's farm. That is who he was. At least that is what the critics claim. And so, where is Joseph in that picture when it comes to the book of mormon?

[why me]

The Book of Mormon discusses doctrinal issues to which Joseph Smith would have been extremely interested during his youth. The book covers nearly all the main items of Protestant debate circulating during that time. More often than not, Smith resolved the issues in favor of the Methodist view. Sometimes, however, he made significant departures, to adopt Presbyterian and Restorationist views such as those held by Disciples of Christ, and Puritanism. He also added elements of antimasonry, which was the hot-button local topic in 1829 Western New York. And elements of magic (Interpreters, Liahona, "slippery" treasures in the earth, etc.), to which Smith was deeply interested, are also present in the book. Plus, people in that era had the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 on their minds, and were curious about where the Indians came from. It's not surprising that these issues made it into the Book of Mormon.

Plus, it's not true that Smith never read books. He was said to be an avid and voracious Bible reader.

Joseph was a teenager. He was a money digger and a farm hand. I can't say that he had much time to contemplate the universe. Nor did he have much time to read his world. When the book was published very few people thought that joseph wrote it. Thus, some eyes went to sidney rigdon because he seemed like the most learned mormon and a possible author for the book. You have joseph a harvard scholar busy reading books and researching his world.

[Cobalt-70]

Joseph was a teenager. He was a money digger and a farm hand. I can't say that he had much time to contemplate the universe. Nor did he have much time to read his world. When the book was published very few people thought that joseph wrote it. Thus, some eyes went to sidney rigdon because he seemed like the most learned mormon and a possible author for the book. You have joseph a harvard scholar busy reading books and researching his world.

Smith was not a teenager when he dictated the Book of Mormon. He was 23. By then, he had about a year and a half, after moving from Palmyra to Harmony, to reflect on the book's narrative, before the real work of translation began. During that year and a half, he made a rough draft of part of the book in the form of the lost Book of Lehi. But we know from his mother that Smith had been working out the details of the book since age 17-18, and he would spend hours telling tales to his family of what the Nephites were like even before he got the plates. Many Mormons like to portray Smith as a stupid farmhand, but he was very intelligent and aware of what was happening in the world around him, as evidenced by his brilliant sermons, intelligent writings on numerous topics including politics, and his astute leadership. As a teen, he was part of a Methodist debate club. His family subscribed to the local newspaper, and Joseph was the one that went to the store to buy it. Smith was much smarter than most Mormons, ironically, give him credit for.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[why me]

Smith was not a teenager when he dictated the Book of Mormon. He was 23. By then, he had about a year and a half, after moving from Palmyra to Harmony, to reflect on the book's narrative, before the real work of translation began. During that year and a half, he made a rough draft of part of the book in the form of the lost Book of Lehi. But we know from his mother that Smith had been working out the details of the book since age 17-18, and he would spend hours telling tales to his family of what the Nephites were like even before he got the plates. Many Mormons like to portray Smith as a stupid farmhand, but he was very intelligent and aware of what was happening in the world around him, as evidenced by his brilliant sermons, intelligent writings on numerous topics including politics, and his astute leadership. As a teen, he was part of a Methodist debate club. His family subscribed to the local newspaper, and Joseph was the one that went to the store to buy it. Smith was much smarter than most Mormons, ironically, give him credit for.

I don't get this impression from reading bushman. I get a totally different picture of joseph. I see him as someone working on the farm, doing some treasure seeking. But I don't see him working on a manuscript or telling his family Nephite tales before even getting the plates. I also see him involved with the angel mororni. But I don't see the young joseph as you see him. Nor did many of the residents of Palmyra. Also, the Smith family had some financial difficulties which also involved Joseph and the loss of the farm.

And so with all this he was buying paper and working on a manuscript that no one knew about.

Edited December 7, 2011 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

why me:

He hid the papers in his hat, along with that glowing stone to provide light.

[LeSellers]

Joseph had a great respect for America, so yes, he may have been able to identify with those who had fought in war, and he may have been the leader of the Nauvoo Legion, but that doesn't mean he was interested in military campaigns. He didn't spend time plotting them, talking about them, or writing about them. Mormon, on the other hand, did have an interest in military matters, and it's evident in what he wrote.

The only war Joseph knew in his lifetime was the "War of 1812", which, the final result notwithstanding, USmerica lost. Aside from the Battle of New Orleans, there was not a single significant engagement that USmerican troops won (and New Orleans was fought after the war, per se, was over). For all intents and purposes, the French won the War of 1812, and USmerican came along for the ride.

The reason I mention this is that there was nothing in his lifetime that wold lead anyone to arrive at the conclusion that USmerica was anything special under the order of heaven, whatever the Great Seal says. USmerican military prowess died with George Washington, and would not rise again for a decade and a half with Robert E. Lee.

Lehi

[why me]

why me:

He hid the papers in his hat, along with that glowing stone to provide light.

It is amazing just how many twists and turns the critics need to make. Here is what is known: the people around JS were not that trustful of him. They needed proof that he wasn't pulling a fast one. The proof that was given through the translation process and through the visitation where the plates were shown to 3 people and seen and handled by 8 others. All had such an experience was by the power of god and regardless of their feelings toward JS, they never denied their testimony and many confirmed it on their deathbeds.

How to get one's head around that?

Edited December 7, 2011 by why me

[Cobalt-70]

I don't get this impression from reading bushman. I get a totally different picture of joseph. I see him as someone working on the farm, doing some treasure seeking. But I don't see him working on a manuscript or telling his family Nephite tales before even getting the plates. I also see him involved with the angel mororni. But I don't see the young joseph as you see him. Nor did many of the residents of Palmyra. Also, the Smith family had some financial difficulties which also involved Joseph and the loss of the farm.

And so with all this he was buying paper and working on a manuscript that no one knew about.

He wasn't working on a manuscript, but he was (according to his mother), telling stories to the family about the Nephites as early as age 17-18. There is no reason that Lucy Mack would lie about that. By the time he started translating the existing Book of Mormon 5-6 years later, he would have been quite familiar with the Nephites.

[why me]

He wasn't working on a manuscript, but he was (according to his mother), telling stories to the family about the Nephites as early as age 17-18. There is no reason that Lucy Mack would lie about that. By the time he started translating the existing Book of Mormon 5-6 years later, he would have been quite familiar with the Nephites.

What about the argument put forward by some critics that when Joseph Smith was young he was a 'teller-of-tall-tales'� The argument is made that since Joseph had such an active imagination he could have easily made up the content of the Book of Mormon plus all of the Doctrine and Covenants revelations that he produced. The primary piece of evidence used in support of this contention is a quote from Lucy Mack Smith which is found in her dictated history and can also be seen on the right-hand portion of this slide.¹³

Two pieces of crucial evidence are typically ignored when this particular argument is advocated. Number 1: In the paragraphs that directly precede this quotation Mother Smith clearly provides its proper context�she indicates that Joseph's stories are connected with the angel and the plates of the Book of Mormon. Number 2: About seven years before the Prophet's mother dictated this particular statement for her history she told the same basic information to Wandle Mace. But on this occasion she specified that Joseph's stories were about the "Nephites" and she also pointed out that Joseph had learned this information through the aid of visions.¹⁴ This detail about being shown Book of Mormon events in vision is confirmed in the Prophet's own published history.<a href="http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Anti-Mormons_and_Documentary_Sources.html#en15">'>http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Anti-Mormons_and_Documentary_Sources.html#en15">¹⁵ Therefore, the idea that Joseph Smith was simply making these stories up out of his own active imagination is not sustained by the available evidence.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Anti-Mormons_and_Documentary_Sources.html

[Cobalt-70]

The only war Joseph knew in his lifetime was the "War of 1812", which, the final result notwithstanding, USmerica lost. Aside from the Battle of New Orleans, there was not a single significant engagement that USmerican troops won (and New Orleans was fought after the war, per se, was over). For all intents and purposes, the French won the War of 1812, and USmerican came along for the ride.

The reason I mention this is that there was nothing in his lifetime that wold lead anyone to arrive at the conclusion that USmerica was anything special under the order of heaven, whatever the Great Seal says. USmerican military prowess died with George Washington, and would not rise again for a decade and a half with Robert E. Lee.

The idea that the United States is a promised land or new Jerusalem originated with the Puritans. Smith's father and grandfather were members of the Congregationalist faith that descended from American Puritanism, but these ideas were also circulating in other sectors of American society.

[cinepro]

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.

Even as a critic, I have to agree that if your assumptions are correct about what Joseph Smith would and wouldn't do, and could and couldn't do, and why he would or wouldn't do it, then he probably didn't write the Book of Mormon.

[Bob Crockett]

why me:

He hid the papers in his hat, along with that glowing stone to provide light.

This give me another opportunity to assail the head in the hat story. Joseph Smith never said that he translated it that way. And it seems most improbable, for a scribe to figure out what Joseph Smith might be saying on some difficult and technical religious verbiage while he is speaking into his hat. Exactly what is the source of this theory? David Whitmer is probably the best source -- and his Address is problematic on a number of fronts.

Edited December 8, 2011 by rcrocket

[altersteve]

Smith was not a teenager when he dictated the Book of Mormon. He was 23. By then, he had about a year and a half, after moving from Palmyra to Harmony, to reflect on the book's narrative, before the real work of translation began. During that year and a half, he made a rough draft of part of the book in the form of the lost Book of Lehi. But we know from his mother that Smith had been working out the details of the book since age 17-18, and he would spend hours telling tales to his family of what the Nephites were like even before he got the plates. Many Mormons like to portray Smith as a stupid farmhand, but he was very intelligent and aware of what was happening in the world around him, as evidenced by his brilliant sermons, intelligent writings on numerous topics including politics, and his astute leadership. As a teen, he was part of a Methodist debate club. His family subscribed to the local newspaper, and Joseph was the one that went to the store to buy it. Smith was much smarter than most Mormons, ironically, give him credit for.

No one is claiming that Joseph was "stupid." I fully agree that he was extremely intelligent.

[Honorentheos]

Hello Altersteve,

I just saw your thread today and was slightly surprised to realize I was quoted in the OP. Since you went to the trouble I thought it only polite to reply.

Regardless of one's view of who authored the BoM (JS, another 19th century author, or Mormon abridging ancient plates, etc) there are a few things that I believe get left unjustly out of the discussion.

First, Bushman in A Rough Stone Rolling does a nice job of documenting the translation/writing timeline. What is striking is that until Oliver Cowdery served as Joseph's scribe the process was incredibly slow and we have little material from that time period in the current BoM. Even if there is an actual Nephi, one has to account for the fact - Oliver somehow influenced the process.

Second, and related to the above, any theory of authorship has to consider the actual content of the BoM and not just the literary stylings. While each item that follows is a thread by itself, I think the evidence is strong that the only historically verifiable information in the book are related to reportings of events that had happened by the time of JS (i.e. - the Columbus account, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.) while the theological content of the book holds little resemblance to 21st century Mormonism. In fact it's difficult to see post-Kirkland Mormonism in the BoM at all. While it's been debated extensively on the board in the past, I feel the 1830 BoM is clearly descriptive of a Godhead that is not taught in the church today. Adding the lack of new world evidence and the problems of our missing "Nephite-Shaped Hole" in any reasonable location in the new world, and I would contend that whomever made the case that fiction tends to be disproved over time has summarized this point rather well.

Third, the eye witness accounts to the authorship process generally include challenges of their own and the few people who were present on a day-to-day basis who could confirm how the work was produced also happen to be clearly invested in the success of the venture. I would include in this later catagory the Whitmers, Oliver Cowdery, and Emma Smith. In that other thread, I mentioned that Emma's last testimony has to be viewed suspiciously as we know it is wrong in denying Joseph's polygamy. Either she bore false testimony or the leadership of the RLDS faith that published it posthumously modified it in their favor.

I think it's difficult to find a place of common ground from which to discuss this topic when we also clearly disagree as to Joseph's character. I don't know that I'd call a man honorable who is known to have lied to his wife about the nature of his relationships with other women. Regardless of the assertions that he was commanded of God, I simply can't accept the argument that lying about authoring the BoM was not something he was capable of doing. But is an accurate statement to suggest that he had to be a fraud if the BoM is not authentic, IMO. There are too many other things that follow from this that either paint the picture of him as prophet, or as profiteer.

That said, there was something I saw Nevo say that I found interesting. I'll look for it.

ETA: here it is - " Clearly, the book has transcended its time and place of origin. It is now read and revered all over the world, across continents and cultures. Few religious books have achieved that distinction."

I would agree with this, though perhaps not giving the BoM quite as unique a status as is implied in the last sentance.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Honorentheos