Joseph Smith As Author

[why me]

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.

I would go by the letters that they were sharing with one another. And in those letters, there was much love and understanding and common concerns. especially for the children. It seems that Joseph was a family man and emma responded with concern for his plight. When I read his letters to his wife, which often invokes god in the letters, I see a man that seems concerned and commited to his wife and family and I see a woman who has genuine love for her husband. I see no friction between them.

Now of course, the critics seem to overlook the letters that they shared and yet, it is within the letters and in the exchange that one can gage the marriage. The critics would love to have bitter and envious letters between them but....fortunately they do not exist.

[why me]

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 that you are wrong on this one. Who would gain from this venture? And who did? No one. Lets think about poor david. How did he gain from this? Throughout his life, he had to answer mundance questions about the process and about the plates. Not easy. And Oliver did not fair well either. Human nature would dictate that when he had a falling out with Joseph, he would have come clean and spilled the beans. And emma? There would be nothing worse than a woman's scorn. Most ladies would spill the beans in a moment of anger. Why continue to suffer as she did for a fraud? And what did she gain? Human nature would also dictate that when she had a falling out with Young, she would given him the royal flag and spilled the beans as he was preparing to go westward with the saints that opted to leave with him.

When we consider the amount of suffering of the early saints and the amount of people who would have been involved in this fraud, the fraudsters, including emma, would be classified as pychos for not having any empathy of the victims for the suffering they experienced. Being involved in the early mormon experience brought a lifetime of pain or trouble or to say the least, annoyance.

Edited December 9, 2011 by why me

[why me]

There are too many other things that follow from this that either paint the picture of him as prophet, or as profiteer.

Well, I don't know about profiteer. What did anyone actually gain as a profit. Emma and Joseph were moving around without a home for quite some time. Imagine yourself in this position. Would you last if you were the fraudster? Could you see a profit at the end of this tunnel? And what did emma gain except pain for loss of property and children. If I were a fraudster, I would see god's curse all over this. And Joseph? He got thrown in prison a couple of times, faced the death penalty and was murdered. Would you want the life Joseph had? Does his life sound tempting if he were a fraudster? Would you change your life for his? I don't think so because if he were a fraudster he gained nothing but sorrow which is also reflected in his letters.

Now if he had his experiences with angels and with the book of mormon, I can see him soldiering on until the end. Likewise for the 11 witnesses---who soldiered on with their testimoneis regardless of their feelings about JS.

Edited December 9, 2011 by why me

[LeSellers]

" 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.

Then you'd be able to give us a list of more than a "[f]ew religious books [that] have achieved that distinction".

I can start the list for you:

The Bible

The Koran

Das Kapital

The Kama Sutra

...

I'm waiting, as others must be, too.

Lehi

Edited December 9, 2011 by LeSellers

[cinepro]

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.

Interesting post, Honorentheos, and I think this point is too easy to overlook.

It just makes sense to us that "1830" would be pivot point for the Book of Mormon, since that's when it came forth (just as it seems natural that if I go to Amazon and order a book on modern history it will end sometime on or before 2011). But there is no reason for the "vision" of the book to be fuzzier after 1830 than it is for those things that happen before; to someone writing in 600 BC, why would 1492 be any clearer than 2012?

If someone knocked on my door and claimed that he had a book revealed to him from the future, written in 2250, telling the history of the planet, I would be very skeptical if it were incredibly detailed up to 2011 and then suddenly got very...metaphorical and ambiguous. The point above seems to be the same, but harder to see because the claim of seeing the future was made so far in the past.

[thesometimesaint]

rcrocket:

I was being facetious, sorry if that didn't come across.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Cowdery certainly influenced the process. But lest we forget, Smith already had the basic plot of the book--at least the first part--worked out before Cowdery arrived, when he created the Book of Lehi. So, even though it seems likely that Cowdery had read his family's former pastor Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, Smith already had his own similar view of the Hebrews. The Book of Lehi was rather substantial, containing 116 manuscript pages. The first 116 manuscript pages of the 1828 printer's manuscript takes us to Words of Mormon, and we know from the existing book itself that these 116 pages had more plot and less doctrine than the current book. These 116 pages were produced with Martin Harris in a matter of about two months, from April to June 1828. So I have no doubt that Smith could have produced something that looks roughly like the current Book of Mormon without Cowdery.

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.

I agree on all these points.

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.

As to the process whereby the Book of Mormon was produced, I think there is indeed common ground. Witnesses on all sides--whether for or against Smith--gave the same description of Smith's translation method: a process of reading reflections from a stone in a hat, with no consultation of the plates themselves. Emma's description of this process is very credible, in part because it agrees with the description by her father who thought Smith was a fraud and was resentful that Smith had eloped with his daughter.

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.

I think it is quite possible for a man to lie to his wife about liaisons with other women, and yet to be honest in other matters. It happens all the time.

I also think it is quite possible that Smith could have been mistaken--not deceptive--about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It is hard for 21st century minds to grasp the nature of the magical worldview. People very honestly believed that they saw, or sensed, mystical treasures in the earth. They very honestly believed that they could read signs from magical stones or divining rods. They created writings that they honestly believed came to them from the world of ghosts. And as time progressed, their memories of mystical and religious experiences only grew stronger, more elaborate, and more filled with meaning. That Smith used his magical gifts to earn money, and that money-making was Smith's initial impulse when he sensed the presence of a magical treasure buried in hill Cumorah, does not make him dishonest. It could easily just mean that he sincerely believed that he had a gift, and being an red-blooded American, his natural impulse was to use that gift to make money.

[Mortal Man]

My personal view is the text is sufficient to discredit the idea of Joseph as the primary author.

My personal view is that the text is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph is the sole author.

Please explain how anyone besides Joseph could have written 2 Nephi 27:6-24.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mortal Man]

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.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Mortal Man

[altersteve]

Never mind.

Edited December 10, 2011 by altersteve

[Honorentheos]

Then you'd be able to give us a list of more than a "[f]ew religious books [that] have achieved that distinction".

I can start the list for you:

The Bible

The Koran

Das Kapital

The Kama Sutra

...

I'm waiting, as others must be, too.

Lehi

I'm flattered that anyone would wait on me to say anything. Thank you, you're very kind!

I'm surprised at your list, to be honest. Of those you chose, the first two are monotheistic, Judism-derived texts, then a Marxist one, and then, well, the Kama Sutra. You'll forgive if I see in this list a portrait of you as a person more than an overview of the sacred texts that have transcended their time and place of writing?

As to the list, I think it's improper to begin any without first separating out the Hebrew Bible from the New Testament. They are, rightfully, two separate things. To these we could add the corpus of works that support them and are read today well after their own writing and outside of the setting in which they were composed.

On my own shelves are copies of the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching (I own three different translations), the Qu'ran, the Dhammapada, the Book of Change, and the Upanishads. I have various popular collections of Buddhist writings such as Zen Flesh Zen Bones which is widely read beyond the setting in which the stories were orignially composed, as well as various collections of sutras. I'd suggest that the collection of Greek and Roman myths are not outside of the bounds of your list, so let's add them in as texts of some religious significance that have transcended their original writing. There are the four books and five classics of Chinese Confusionism of which the previously mentioned Book of Changes is one. While I haven't read it, a copy of Dianetics in German was given to me as a missionary by a jehovahs witness who did not want to be outdone when we offered him a free Book of Mormon. That's a beginning. I've seen copies of those Hari Krishna books that look like they were illustrated by a person very interested in Dungeons and Dragons in other countries and languages. Once you allow for Das Kapital on your list, which I would not have done, the possible candidates multiply beyond one's ability to do this justice without even further offense to some book or group of books left unintentionally out.

[Honorentheos]

Interesting post, Honorentheos, and I think this point is too easy to overlook.

It just makes sense to us that "1830" would be pivot point for the Book of Mormon, since that's when it came forth (just as it seems natural that if I go to Amazon and order a book on modern history it will end sometime on or before 2011). But there is no reason for the "vision" of the book to be fuzzier after 1830 than it is for those things that happen before; to someone writing in 600 BC, why would 1492 be any clearer than 2012?

If someone knocked on my door and claimed that he had a book revealed to him from the future, written in 2250, telling the history of the planet, I would be very skeptical if it were incredibly detailed up to 2011 and then suddenly got very...metaphorical and ambiguous. The point above seems to be the same, but harder to see because the claim of seeing the future was made so far in the past.

Well put, Cinepro.

I think that the pivotal year 1830 is also important when it comes to LDS theology. It's hard to look at the Book of Mormon and see it as holding anything more developed than the most distantly related seeds of today's Mormonism. Much like the various texts listed in the post above, I think part of the ability of the book to transcend it's original setting comes from it's ability to absorb modern, changing views.

[Honorentheos]

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

Mortal Man, in context this may be the funniest post I've seen in a long time. Clever!

Edited December 10, 2011 by Honorentheos

[volgadon]

five classics of Chinese Confusionism

[volgadon]

Doesn't count if he wasn't planning a campaign.

[Nevo]

Allow me to clarify my earlier statement that "few religious books have achieved [the] distinction" of transcending their time and place of origin as the Book of Mormon has. Perhaps that wasn't worded as carefully as it could have been.

What I was thinking of when I wrote that was the following statement from Grant Hardy: "A new addition to the library of world scripture is a relatively rare phenomenon. In every age there are individuals who claim revelations, some of which get committed to writing and eventually published, but very few of these texts come to be regarded by millions of believers as sacred and authoritative and then, through translations, gain readers and adherents beyond their culture of origin. Over the past thousand years, this has happened perhaps only a dozen times, with the Adi Granth of the Sikhs (17th century) as the preeminent example."

Hardy goes on to write:

The Book of Mormon is probably the most successful new scripture of the past few centuries, and while it can profitably be compared with other similar texts, there are at least two ways in which it is unusual. First, most recent holy books consist of doctrinal expositions, ritual instructions, moral codes, scriptural commentary, or devotional poetry. The Book of Mormon, by contrast, is narrative—a much rarer genre of religious writing. Rumi's Masnavi (about 1270) is organized around a series of fables, and the Mayan Popol Vuh (about 1550) offers mythological tales, but for examples of canonized sacred history one would have to look to previous millennia and writings like the Christian gospels, the historical portions of the Hebrew Bible, Buddhist Jataka stories, or Hindu Puranas and epics such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Yet the Book of Mormon consists of an extended, integrated, history-like narrative, which makes it quite distinctive.

The second atypical feature of the Book of Mormon is the relative precision with which we know the details of its production. Most world scriptures were created over decades, if not centuries, often under rather obscure circumstances, and they achieved their current form only after lengthy processes of editing and canonization. Nearly all of the Book of Mormon, as we have it, was revealed to the twenty-three-year-old Joseph Smith from April through June 1829. Several persons were eyewitnesses to the method by which Smith dictated over six hundred manuscript pages to his scribes. And in less than a year after the completion of the translation, the work was published and accepted by believers as authoritative scripture.

— Grant Hardy, "Introduction," The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, ed. Royal Skousen (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), vii-viii.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Nevo

[cdowis]

In every age there are individuals who claim revelations, some of which get committed to writing and eventually published, but very few of these texts come to be regarded by millions of believers as sacred and authoritative and then, through translations, gain readers and adherents beyond their culture of origin. Over the past thousand years, this has happened perhaps only a dozen times, with the Adi Granth of the Sikhs (17th century) as the preeminent example."

OK, but there is a tiny flaw in this analysis. Let me be specific:

Of those "dozen times", how many of those who claim to be a spokesman of God, a prophet, have multiple witnesses of specific divine, supernatural events?

In the case of Joseph Smith, we have witnesses to the physical plates, to the visitation of an angel and the voice of God, a shared vision of Cnrist, at least two instances of angelic visitations where they bestowed divine power by the laying on of hands. We are speaking of at least twelve witnesses to these events.

Those witnesses continued their testimony even after being disassociated with JS, and after his death.

Now, give us those "dozen" who not only have followers, but eyewitnesses to specific divine, supernatural events surrounding their calling as a prophet.

I think, outside those prophets in the scriptures, you will find that JS stands alone. He was not merely an author of a book.

Edited December 10, 2011 by cdowis

[why me]

OK, but there is a tiny flaw in this analysis. Let me be specific:

Of those "dozen times", how many of those who claim to be a spokesman of God, a prophet, have multiple witnesses of specific divine, supernatural events?

In the case of Joseph Smith, we have witnesses to the physical plates, to the visitation of an angel and the voice of God, a shared vision of Cnrist, at least two instances of angelic visitations where they bestowed divine power by the laying on of hands. We are speaking of at least twelve witnesses to these events.

Those witnesses continued their testimony even after being disassociated with JS, and after his death.

Now, give us those "dozen" who not only have followers, but eyewitnesses to specific divine, supernatural events surrounding their calling as a prophet.

I think, outside those prophets in the scriptures, you will find that JS stands alone. He was not merely an author of a book.

My thoughts exactly which I shared a lot fof times on this thread. But critics fail to realize the uniqueness of early mormonism and the coming forth of the book of mormon. If the critics are correct about it being all a fraud, we are then dealing with at least 12 pychopaths or sociopaths, plus joseph smith. It seems impossible.

[why me]

There is one flaw here. First, since the mormons needed to organize a militia to protect themselves and since they needed a leader, it naturally fell to Joseph. Such was the day and age. Now this doesn't mean that Joseph as a young man looking for treasure had a dream of the military and wearing a uniform. But historical circumstance dictated otherwise. Likewise for his run for the presidency. If the mobs would have let the mormons alone, all would have been quiet without uniforms.

Edited December 10, 2011 by why me

[volgadon]

There is one flaw here. First, since the mormons needed to organize a militia to protect themselves and since they needed a leader, it naturally fell to Joseph. Such was the day and age. Now this doesn't mean that Joseph as a young man looking for treasure had a dream of the military and wearing a uniform. But historical circumstance dictated otherwise. Likewise for his run for the presidency. If the mobs would have let the mormons alone, all would have been quiet without uniforms.

your post assumes that Joseph found leadership in the Legion a burden. What evidence of this do you have? You don't seem to have entertained the possibility that Joseph found leadership in the Legion enjoyable. This would be entirely consistentwith both society at large, which put a premium on honour and show of might, and the way that Nauvoo was depicted in particular.

[volgadon]

Something else worth bearing in mind is that the subject of liberty was inseparable from that of the military. Not unique to America of the 1820s, but it was certainly on the public mind in Joseph's day. There was a question of what kind of army the nation should have in order to preserve its libertiesand prevent tyranny, which goes along with the kind of person to lead it. I'm playing Devil's advocate here, captain Moroni could very well be seen as a description of the ideal type of military leader.

[Nevo]

Something else worth bearing in mind is that the subject of liberty was inseparable from that of the military. Not unique to America of the 1820s, but it was certainly on the public mind in Joseph's day. There was a question of what kind of army the nation should have in order to preserve its libertiesand prevent tyranny, which goes along with the kind of person to lead it. I'm playing Devil's advocate here, captain Moroni could very well be seen as a description of the ideal type of military leader.

Alexander Campbell famously noted that the Book of Mormon contained “every error and almost every truth discussed in N[ew] York for the last ten years.... [smith] decides all the great controversies”—including “republican government.” Richard Bushman has countered that “Nephite culture was never republican insofar as the Book of Mormon describes government.” However, that being said, Captain Moroni clearly does embody the Jacksonian republican ideal. He opposes the "king-men" by rallying the people around a "title of liberty" and declares to Pahoran: “I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country" (Alma 60:36).

Contra altersteve's claim that the cultures described in the Book of Mormon are not "in any way similar to the time and culture that Joseph would be familiar with," Captain Moroni's championing of "liberty" over against "power" echoed rhetoric that was pervasive in Joseph Smith's culture. As Harry L. Watson explains,

"Good republicans feared 'power,' liberty's tyrannical opposite.... The eighteenth-century English radicals John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon had expressed the relationship between liberty and power very eloquently in their well-read pamphlet series Cato's Letters, and Americans continued to heed their warnings in the early nineteenth century. 'Liberty chastises and shortens power,' 'Cato' had warned, 'therefore power would extinguish liberty'.... Continuing to elaborate on the same classic themes, many American spokesmen put the eternal warfare between liberty and power at the center of their national history.... To preserve the precarious balance between liberty and power, republicans laid a heavy emphasis on what they called 'virtue.' A key republican concept, the idea of public virtue meant more than simple honesty; it implied a civic-minded willingness to set aside private interests for the sake of the common good" (Harry L. Watson, Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America [New York: Hill and Wang, 1990], 44–45).

Captain Moroni embodied this republican virtue.

[Honorentheos]

Allow me to clarify my earlier statement that "few religious books have achieved [the] distinction" of transcending their time and place of origin as the Book of Mormon has. Perhaps that wasn't worded as carefully as it could have been.<snip>

Thank you for sharing this, Nevo, and for clarifying the original statement. Very interesting comment.

[Honorentheos]

For those interested in the tangent discussion of the witnesses, I have started a separate thread for David Whitmer. Please consider that a response to the comments in this thread on that particular point.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Honorentheos

[altersteve]

Contra altersteve's claim that the cultures described in the Book of Mormon are not "in any way similar to the time and culture that Joseph would be familiar with," Captain Moroni's championing of "liberty" over against "power" echoed rhetoric that was pervasive in Joseph Smith's culture.

I wasn't talking about political ideals when I said that. I agree with you on this point.