Evidence That Bom Was Written By Js Or Some Other 19Th C Per

[Rob Bowman]

Buzzard,

You wrote:

"Why God, armed with such foreknowledge, would not have warned Joseph of what would happen if Martin was allowed to take the pages home is just one of a thicket of questions that are troubling at this point.) That back-up account (1 Nephi through Omni) is noticeably skimpy on narrative, chronological data, personal names, etc., in comparison to the rest of the Book of Mormon, being filled largely with visions, prophecies, and extremely lengthy excerpts from Isaiah (again, largely matching the KJV word for word in most places). The sketchiness of the narrative in these books is most plausibly explained as a device to avoid inadvertently contradicting the narrative of the lost 116 pages."

You may be unaware of the fact that JS prayed twice for permission to give Harris the manuscript, and twice was told no. On the third attempt, he was told "Have it your way". You don't believe that the good Lord allows all of us, even those with prophetic callings to learn hard lessons by experience?

I am very much aware of that part of the account. It doesn't help. According to the account in History of the Church (1:21), the third time Joseph inquired of the Lord "permission was granted him to have the writings on certain conditions," namely, that Martin would show the pages to only the five family members specified. There is no indication in the account that Joseph had sinned in inquiring a third time. Again, God could have simply warned Joseph of what would happen. Or after Joseph learned the hard lesson, God could have told Joseph where to find the pages, or God could have inspired Joseph to produce the same text all over again exactly as it had read originally. Instead we get this really implausible and awfully convenient story about a partially parallel account on the plates that just happens to be different enough to eliminate any worries about discrepancies with the lost pages.

In Joseph Smith's preface to the first edition of the Book of Mormon, he says concerning the lost "Book of Lehi" manuscript: "...which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again." How can this be, when Joseph was supposedly gifted by God as a prophet, seer, etc., and had regular conversations with Moroni and the Lord?

None of this would have happened, had Joseph not been so secretive about the gold plates in the first place. Lucy Harris asked to see them and was refused. Why? Why were people not allowed to see the plates except on a couple of rare occasions under closely controlled circumstances? Why were they covered when sitting on a table during the translation work? These are legitimate questions. They are not questions born of any lack of faith in God. Everything about Joseph's handling of the plates and manuscript pages reeks of manipulation, misdirection, and an utter lack of transparency.

You wrote:

And the first several chapters of 1 Nephi can hardly be described as "skimpy" on narrative, given that modern day researchers have traced the probable route of Lehi's flight from Jerusalem from said narrative.

Please look at the big picture. 1 Nephi through Omni have 65 chapters. Of these, only about half a dozen chapters in 1 Nephi and a couple of chapters in the rest of those books have any significant narrative. The rest, as I said, consists of visions, prophecies, and lengthy excerpts from Isaiah. Contrast the sparseness of narrative in those books, covering almost 500 years, with the heavy narrative contents of the rest of the Book of Mormon, especially Mosiah through Helaman, which give practically a year-by-year countdown to the birth of Christ. Yes, I am familiar with the argument that the little bit of narrative there is in 1 Nephi includes travel information that matches the geography of Arabia in ways supposedly beyond Joseph Smith's natural knowledge. That's an interesting argument, but it doesn't negate the point I made.

You wrote:

While you say you do not come at the subject with a prejudice against miracles, etc..., you do come with one overriding prejudice: The Book of Mormon could not possibly be what it claims to be, so let's go looking for evidence to back up that assumption. I admit my bias is to the opposite. But it is not fair to present yourself as the soul of objectivity in this matter.

I am not the issue here. Please do not try to make me the issue. How I personally feel about the Book of Mormon, about myself or my arguments, etc., is irrelevant. The arguments themselves are what matter in this context. Again, I was asked for evidence supporting my view of the Book of Mormon. What do you expect me to do?

[Nevo]

It is entirely insufficient to point to anachronistic words or phrasing as a test for historicity in support of his theory. Instead, the underlining concepts and structure of the phrasing must be demonstrated as anachronistic.

I suppose it is possible that pre-Columbian peoples debated the proper mode of baptism and the doctrine of universal salvation and successfully anticipated the penal substitution theory of atonement, but it seems unlikely.

[why me]

I think these are valid points. How could Joseph Smith possibly have dictated such a long, complex, and yet internally consistent, narrative. It does give one pause. The Book of Mormon isn't great literature, in my view, but it is enormously ambitious in scope. Spanning centuries, continents, and genres, it presents itself as nothing less than a new scripture, akin to the Bible. It's hard to imagine anyone conceiving, much less executing, such an audacious project. But as subsequent events showed, Joseph Smith was no ordinary 23-year-old farm hand. The big question, of course, is whether God's hand was in any of this or not. (I think it was.)

I think he and/or his scribes probably worked directly from a KJV Bible for those chapters. However, I am convinced that the hundreds (thousands?) of shorter KJV quotations and allusions interspersed throughout the Book of Mormon did come from Joseph Smith's memory.

I think that a bigger problem would have been if there were not bible verses in the book. The question would then be why doesnt the book of mormon have similiar instructions in it that are found in the bible.

[robuchan]

The biggest hole in Rob's theory, aside from using secular means to assess the spiritual, is that with the Book of Mormon we are talking about a 19th English translation. Since it is entirely appropriate and even expected that Joseph Smith, by means of revelation, would translate the religious concepts in the Book of Mormon using common English phrasing for that day, particularly phrasing from the English translation of the most revered religious text of the day (the Bible). As such, it is entirely insufficient to point to anachronistic words or phrasing as a test for historicity in support of his theory. Instead, the underlining concepts and structure of the phrasing must be demonstrated as anachronistic. Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A few anachronistic concepts:

--anti-Catholicism

--revival meeting

--arguments for Democratic government

--Old Testament era Christianity

--explanation for origin of Native Americans

--advanced civilization in Ancient America with literacy, steelmaking, Old World animals and crops, Hebrew culture

[Kevin Christensen]

A few anachronistic concepts:

--anti-Catholicism

--revival meeting

--arguments for Democratic government

--Old Testament era Christianity

--explanation for origin of Native Americans

--advanced civilization in Ancient America with literacy, steelmaking, Old World animals and crops, Hebrew culture

Apparently not a reader of Stephen Robinson, High Nibley on "Old World Ritual in the New World, John Welch on Ancient Israelite Festivals in the Book of Mormon and others in the huge volume on King Benjamin's discourse, Richard Bushman ("The Book of Mormon and the American Revolution"), Margaret Barker's The Older Testament on the First Temple roots of Christianity, Matt Roper and Brant Gardner on Nephi's Neighbors and the Social History of the Early Nephites, or John Sorenson, FAIR and FARMS and others on such worn chestnuts.

Something about horses, water, and refusal to drink.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Buzzard]

"I am not the issue here. Please do not try to make me the issue. How I personally feel about the Book of Mormon, about myself or my arguments, etc., is irrelevant. The arguments themselves are what matter in this context. Again, I was asked for evidence supporting my view of the Book of Mormon. What do you expect me to do?"

Pretty much what you did. What would you have me do? Don't say "listen to my excellent logic and change your mind" unless you would be willing to do the same.

Hey you are right! I do get an edit button. That's even better than a gold star, though not as good as a nice piece of cake.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Buzzard

[Bill Hamblin]

None of this would have happened, had Joseph not been so secretive about the gold plates in the first place. Lucy Harris asked to see them and was refused. Why? Why were people not allowed to see the plates except on a couple of rare occasions under closely controlled circumstances? Why were they covered when sitting on a table during the translation work? These are legitimate questions. They are not questions born of any lack of faith in God. Everything about Joseph's handling of the plates and manuscript pages reeks of manipulation, misdirection, and an utter lack of transparency.

Why didn't Christ appear to the High Priest in the temple after his resurrection? Or to the emperor at Rome? Indeed, why doesn't he appear to everybody now and solve all the religious disputes.

Do I detect a double standard? Naw, not from Rob!

[Buzzard]

Should have put Rob's statement in quote there. Don't see an edit button, so...oops.

On a side note, this is my 25th post. I'll have to think of something profound to talk about. Should I expect a cake in the mail, or at least a congratulatory email for having survived initiation?

[LeSellers]

Should have put Rob's statement in quote there. Don't see an edit button, so...oops.

On a side note, this is my 25th post.

Congratulations!

It's not necessarily a side note.

Now that you have 25 posts, you can edit your own work. I'd try to go back and fix anything you believe to be in error or that would make our reading easier.

Lehi

[wenglund]

I suppose it is possible that pre-Columbian peoples debated the proper mode of baptism and the doctrine of universal salvation and successfully anticipated the penal substitution theory of atonement, but it seems unlikely.

Absent extant manuscripts of the pre-Columbian peoples in question, then from a secular perspective, one can only speculate wildly about the likelyhood of the precepts you mentioned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 22, 2012 by wenglund

[seeker56]

imo, the biggest roadblocks to belief in JS claims regarding the plates are from the D&C itself. Section 17 includes:

Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a ^aview of the ^bplates,

and: And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them

and: And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith.

If the plates were really real, why would it take the "power of god" and "faith" to see them?

[Nevo]

Absent extant manuscripts of the pre-Columbian peoples in question, then from a secular perspective, one can only speculate wildly about the likelyhood of the precepts you mentioned.

Absent any primary sources, it would be sheer speculation to suppose pre-Columbian peoples did not debate or otherwise discuss Keynesian economics, the general theory of relativity, the Equal Rights Amendment, post-structuralism, etc. I see.

[Bill Hamblin]

There are a number of fundamental flaws with the ways Anti-Mormons approach this question.

1- We need to understand that believers agree that the BOM is an early nineteenth century book. It is a nineteenth century translation. One would, naturally enough, expect to find nineteenth century language in it. To argue, as many Anti-Mormons do, that 19th century language, ideas, etc. make the BOM a nineteenth century creation rather than translation, misunderstands the translation process. For example, the KJV quotes extensively (80+%) from the Tyndale Bible. That does not prove there is no earlier original behind the Tyndale Bible. It proves that the KJV was translated after the Tyndale Bible. Likewise, the fact that the KJV uses 16th century language such as "penny" to translate denarius, and "candle" to translate lamp does not prove the Bible dates from the 16th century. It proves the translation was undertaken in the 16th century.

2- Comparisons must always be tripartate. X is similar to Y more than X is similar to Z. Thus the proper way to evaluate the BOM is: the BOM is more similar to the nineteenth century than it is to the ancient world, or visa versa. The date of the BOM can be analyzed only when the relative explanatory power of nineteenth and ancient models are compared.

3- The ancient model can accommodate the 19th century cultural context of the BOM, since we agree that the book was translated in the early 19th century; the 19th century model, however, cannot coherently accommodate ancient cultural information.

[Bob Crockett]

Again, God could have simply warned Joseph of what would happen. Or after Joseph learned the hard lesson, God could have told Joseph where to find the pages, or God could have inspired Joseph to produce the same text all over again exactly as it had read originally. Instead we get this really implausible and awfully convenient story about a partially parallel account on the plates that just happens to be different enough to eliminate any worries about discrepancies with the lost pages.

In Joseph Smith's preface to the first edition of the Book of Mormon, he says concerning the lost "Book of Lehi" manuscript: "...which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again." How can this be, when Joseph was supposedly gifted by God as a prophet, seer, etc., and had regular conversations with Moroni and the Lord?

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the God of the Bible is not a vending machine; insert a prayer, get a revelation. Your view of what a prophet does is vaguely familiar to the determinism of Protestant Evangelicals. God knows all so therefore nothing we do will merit anything for God's grace.

A close study of the God of the Bible reveals that men are often left to flail for themselves and the prophets don't seem all that concerned about that. Nor is apparent that God constantly guides the prophets. We read how Nathan told David -- "go ahead, build that house for the ark" -- only to find out that he was mistaken and God wanted somebody else to build it. The Deuteronomists obviously want to paint the prophets in the best possible light but their sins and omissions still come out.

None of this would have happened, had Joseph not been so secretive about the gold plates in the first place. Lucy Harris asked to see them and was refused. Why? Why were people not allowed to see the plates except on a couple of rare occasions under closely controlled circumstances?

Of course, the patristric writers note that the most common criticism against Christians is that the story of the resurrection was just an invented story, and that the "disciples stole the body." One might similarly ask why Jesus just didn't appear to Pilate and Herod and everybody else when He was resurrected.

[altersteve]

imo, the biggest roadblocks to belief in JS claims regarding the plates are from the D&C itself. Section 17 includes:

Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a ^aview of the ^bplates,

and: And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them

and: And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith.

If the plates were really real, why would it take the "power of god" and "faith" to see them?

God is real, yet wouldn't it take "the power of God" and "faith" to see Him?

[rameumptom]

Given that the Bible and Book of Mormon show cycles of human history, rather than linear time, why should we be surprised to find some 19th century concepts reflected in the Book of Mormon? After all, we can find 16th century elements reflected in the Bible for the same reason.

The issue for me is not whether there are some verses that seem to have a 19th century connection, but how much of the Book of Mormon has a 19th century connection, or if any of it has a distinct connection to earlier time periods and places?

How does one who insists it is a 19th century piece of fiction explain all of the evidences? It would be one thing if Joseph Smith got one or two ancient names right, but dozens? Or that Joseph Smith would have had to know things that were unknown in his day regarding Egyptian and Hebrew practices, etc? Or that Nephi's Psalm parallels a psalm in the Community Rule scroll? Or that Lamoni's servants gathering the arms of those slain by Ammon as proof of the event is a standard ancient Egyptian exercise, as found in the Megiddo Papyrus?

I can go on and on regarding such evidences. I would like to meet up with a statistician someday who could statistically determine the chances of a few anachronistic phrases slipping in because Joseph Smith was doing the writing, versus the ancient concepts found within the BoM that Joseph could not have known about in his day!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

imo, the biggest roadblocks to belief in JS claims regarding the plates are from the D&C itself. Section 17 includes:

Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a ^aview of the ^bplates,

and: And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them

and: And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith.

If the plates were really real, why would it take the "power of god" and "faith" to see them?

If that is the biggest road block, then we are in really really really good company. I don't see how any of this is a road block.

You see this a slam dunk. I see this as how God operates. That is by faith shall all things be accomplished.

[Nevo]

The issue for me is not whether there are some verses that seem to have a 19th century connection, but how much of the Book of Mormon has a 19th century connection, or if any of it has a distinct connection to earlier time periods and places?

If it was just a matter of the odd anachronistic phrase here and there, that could be safely ascribed to the "translation layer." But the anachronisms also extend to doctrines, political philosophies, ecclesiastical structures, and more.

[Buzzard]

Don't know why this parallel occured to me, but there was a movie years ago about Ted Bundy (of all people), where his defense was that the killer of a young woman could have been anyone with brown hair and a yellow VW bug. So the prosecutor gets up and draws a line on a chalkboard, says these are all the men in Salt Lake City. Erases part of the line, says what's left are those with brown hair. These are those who own yellow VW's. Erases. These are those who happened to posess handcuffs. Erases. And so on, until there is only a tiny speck of chalk left. Submits to the jury that the only person in the Salt Lake Valley who met all those criteria was Mr. Bundy. And got his conviction.

I think the same parallel can be drawn with BOM evidences. Lehi's journey. Hebrew literary styles. Lines from the Pentauch. Egyptian names. And on, and on, and on. Each of these can be held up in isolation and explained away. But if you keep erasing the chalk line of probability, in the end, the only reasonable answer is that the BOM is of ancient Semetic origin. Exactly what Joseph purported it to be. About the only line of attack the anti's have never trotted out is the presence of a middle eastern scholar on the american frontier. Who had contact with JS. Who wanted to see a religion started, but not take the credit. See how that chalk line keeps getting erased?

[why me]

If it was just a matter of the odd anachronistic phrase here and there, that could be safely ascribed to the "translation layer." But the anachronisms also extend to doctrines, political philosophies, ecclesiastical structures, and more.

What is strange is that it didnt seem to phase anyone at that time. I would think that many people would see it in the book and the book would flop and be seen as a fraud. And the people who wrote it would think that it would flop because of presentism.

[wenglund]

Absent any primary sources, it would be sheer speculation to suppose pre-Columbian peoples did not debate or otherwise discuss Keynesian economics, the general theory of relativity, the Equal Rights Amendment, post-structuralism, etc. I see.

Exactly--or at least their presumed cultural equivalencies. In terms of secular approachs, one lacks sufficient evidence to determine, beyond speculation, whether such a people actually existed, let alone if they tossed around ideas that today may be consider ancient or modern.

However, for those of us who believe in revelation, and who accept the Book of Mormon to be what it claims to be and what it has been authoritatively revealed to be, may have a little more evidence to work with in speculating about such things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nevo]

What is strange is that it didnt seem to phase anyone at that time. I would think that many people would see it in the book and the book would flop and be seen as a fraud. And the people who wrote it would think that it would flop because of presentism.

Many people did notice the anachronisms and concluded that the book was a fraud—Alexander Campbell being a well-known example. Believers noticed many of the same things (Nehor was quickly recognized as a Universalist preacher, for example) but they weren't put off, presumably because they'd had a spiritual witness that the book was true and because they believed that ancient prophets truly had seen their day.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Nevo

[seeker56]

If that is the biggest road block, then we are in really really really good company. I don't see how any of this is a road block.

You see this a slam dunk. I see this as how God operates. That is by faith shall all things be accomplished.

I just don't see why it takes faith to look at something that is claimed to be a recored literally written on metal plates. Mankind has been diggin' up old records of stuff for a long time and we can look at it without faith. maybe the claims these written records might have about deity would be a matter of faith to accept, but actually looking at the record itself? People were able to look at the BoA papyrus without any big faith constucts. whether they believe the theology is a matter of faith, but it seeems like anybody could look at it. why were the golden plates so different?

[wenglund]

Many people did notice the anachronisms and concluded that the book was a fraud—Alexander Campbell being a well-known example. Believers noticed many of the same things (Nehor was quickly recognized as a Universalist preacher, for example) but they weren't put off, presumably because they'd had a spiritual witness that the book was true and because they believed that ancient prophets truly had seen their day.

For that matter, I see a lot of Korihors in my own day.

I think the broad range of characters and events in the Book of Mormon lends itself to points of commonality within most any age.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[altersteve]

I just don't see why it takes faith to look at something that is claimed to be a recored literally written on metal plates. Mankind has been diggin' up old records of stuff for a long time and we can look at it without faith. maybe the claims these written records might have about deity would be a matter of faith to accept, but actually looking at the record itself? People were able to look at the BoA papyrus without any big faith constucts. whether they believe the theology is a matter of faith, but it seeems like anybody could look at it. why were the golden plates so different?

It's not like the plates were "invisible" to people who didn't have faith. It was simply that the Lord didn't allow Joseph to show the plates to those who were unfaithful. It's the same thing as God not showing Himself to those without faith.