Joseph Smith As Author

[volgadon]

This is another case of Joseph Smith's timing to the split second, because the work wasn't published until 1833.

The Sun King's timing was better.

[volgadon]

And more recently, we've had John Sorenson write about the Seasonality of the Book of Mormon

In Joseph's day, indeed, in any agrarian society, warfare was seasonal, and highly dependant upon agcricultural produce. Any contrary assumption would have been extremely odd, to say the least.

In our day we are used to different rhythms of life.

I believe in the historicity of the BoM, I accept Sorenson's analaysis for how the text should be read in this case, but I can't accept it when used as evidence for why Joseph couldn't have written the BoM.

[volgadon]

I never said he didn't know anything about war. I said I don't see anything that suggests he knew much about military campaigns, and how they are planned and executed, at the time that the Book of Mormon was being translated.

You are creating an artificial separation here.

[Bernard Gui]

Who says he didn't? Some of his terminology is nearly identical to that of James Adair. But other than the King James version of the Bible, it is not likely that Smith actually had many, or any, books at his disposal for precise reference at Harmony and Fayette while translating. The influences from years past went into his mind, and then came out later as his own inspired words of scripture while he was looking at a stone in a hat.

The book says he didn't. One does not find words commonly used to describe Native Americans in the Book of Mormon. [edit]. They are found in Adair's book, Spalding, and Ethan Smith.

Bernard

Edited December 17, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[altersteve]

Who says he didn't? Some of his terminology is nearly identical to that of James Adair. But other than the King James version of the Bible, it is not likely that Smith actually had many, or any, books at his disposal for precise reference at Harmony and Fayette while translating. The influences from years past went into his mind, and then came out later as his own inspired words of scripture while he was looking at a stone in a hat.

I find it funny how you think you know exactly how he translated the Book of Mormon, and how you state your opinion like it's fact.

[cdowis]

In Joseph's day, indeed, in any agrarian society, warfare was seasonal, and highly dependant upon agcricultural produce. Any contrary assumption would have been extremely odd, to say the least.

In our day we are used to different rhythms of life.

I believe in the historicity of the BoM, I accept Sorenson's analaysis for how the text should be read in this case, but I can't accept it when used as evidence for why Joseph couldn't have written the BoM.

You oversimplify his analysis. While JS was very aware of the effects of harvests and weather on warfare in general, the BOM does not make simplistic statements such as "We stopped fighting and went home to tend our farms", harvest season is not explicitly mentioned. It was only by digging into subtle details of the narrative that Sorenson came to this conclusion.

JS was aware but the BOM narrative is extremely subtle. No one, including the farmers in the time of JS did not mention the connection. It took extensive analysis to discover the seasonality of those wars. Sorenson is apparently the first to find it.

I agree that the seasonality of the warfare itself is not convincing, but how it is interwoven into the narrative that makes it convincing that this is a factual narrative rather than written from the imagination of a farmboy.

[Cobalt-70]

I find it funny how you think you know exactly how he translated the Book of Mormon, and how you state your opinion like it's fact.

There is no historical doubt that Smith translated using a stone in a hat. The Mormon apologetic community is pretty much all resigned to that fact by now. In a way, it works partially in favor of the apologetic perspective, because although the translation process was the same magical method he used to find hidden treasure, at least it's certain that Joseph Smith was the source, and not someone else such as Cowdery or Rigdon.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[cdowis]

There is no historical doubt that Smith translated using a stone in a hat. The Mormon apologetic community is pretty much all resigned to that fact by now. In a way, it works partially in favor of the apologetic perspective, because although the translation process was the same magical method he used to find hidden treasure, at least it's certain that Joseph Smith was the source, and not someone else such as Cowdery or Rigdon.

Yeah, if a critic cites the use of the hat... hahaha.. they then have to answer the question what was in that hat. "Did that hat have a candle and table so that he could read from a manuscript? Was there a window in that hat? How did he turn the pages."

That hat is strong evidence for the gift of translation -- I'm not "resigned", I'm delighted! I think every copy of the BOM should have a picture of JS peering into his hat.

Edited December 18, 2011 by cdowis