Book Of Mormon Authorship Theories

[DBMormon]

Book of Mormon Authorship Theories

Having again listened recently to Elder Holland's talk Safety for the Soul and pondering his thoughts on the various authorship theories.

I am hopeful we can have a discussion on the two main ones. I base this on the two following theories that seem to generate the most appeal

A.) Joseph really did see Christ, then Moroni, then received ancient writing written on Metal Plates

B.) Grant Palmer's theory of Joseph borrowing from things from around him Masonry, family relationships, Dad's dreams and using the View of the Hebrews book as the place where he got the basic plotlines from.

Question groups to Answer ( I want to avoid the typical rhetoric found on these issues, so avoid reposting verbage from critic sites as well as FAIR and others. I want a layman's account of what you see and how it works into your understanding)

1.)Only to be answered by those who have read View of the Hebrews – Is there enough similarity in this work and the Book of Mormon to raise eyebrows? Not that there is an absolute connection that proves one way or the other but enough to say it is very plausible. I just printed out the first 20 pages of it tonight (181 pages) and as I read it I look forward to what thoughts I will have as I read. What caught your eye as you read it? What did you see as evidence of a connection and what did you see as major problems with that connection? Has anything changed since B.H. Roberts shared that there were eyebrow raising similarities he himself saw, that have made his finding more valid or less valid? What are the biggest weaknesses of this theory as well?

2.)For critics of the Divine Authorship theory how does one explain Oliver

Cowdery's direct interaction in the translation, testimony of having seen angelic visitors (John, Peter, Kitland Temple) on multiple occasions and having clung to his testimony regardless of having been humilated and offended by being excommunicated even when he thought he was right in pointing out Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger?

3.)How does one who is a critic explain the following

- Alma 36 chiasmus – coincidence/dumb luck? Joseph did it intentionally? It seems to long to be unintended, and too profound to be an afterthought. If one says dumb luck, can one point out a chiasm in literature as long or longer as Alma 36 that appears by coincidence?

- BOM names that can be found nowhere else in Joseph's time and yet seem to have a direct link to the hebre language... how did that connection come to pass?

4.) How does a faithful member work within the similarities between what appears to critics to be instances of background and plots and sermons that come from 19th century?

5.) If another theory for the Book Of Mormon has been ignored here that you see credibility for please share what it is and what strengths it has over the others? ex: spaulding, epilepsy, autobiographical memory, ect...

Edited May 6, 2012 by reelmormon

[cinepro]

Book of Mormon Authorship Theories

5.) If another theory for the Book Of Mormon has been ignored here that you see credibility for please share what it is and what strengths it has over the others? ex: spaulding, epilepsy, autobiographical memory, ect...

I think a strong theory for the authorship of the Book of Mormon is the "we don't know exactly where it came from" theory.

It's the same theory I have for the writings of Patience Worth. I can't explain where they came from, so I just say "I don't know." I don't feel a compulsion to side with the believers or doubters.

[Buzzard]

I have read parts-not the whole-of "View of the Hebrews". I think VOTH to the BOM is like the Masonic ritual is to the Endowment. A casual perusal finds some surface parallels, but a careful examination shows the two have very little to do with each other.

I have heard every alternative idea about BOM authorship out there. If you take each individual point of debate, you can dissect it and come up with a plausible reasoning that goes against a pro-LDS interpretation, as well as a plausible one that is pro-LDS. Witness the fun had here a week or two back with Pahoran as a Semetic name. But after a while, it becomes hard to think that each and every point of debate falls to the side of that argues against a divine origin for the BOM. For critics to be correct, none of the book can come from God. So when taken as a whole, I have come to the studied conclusion (of course, YMMV for critics) that the simplest and most probable-to my mind, the only possible-origin of the Book of Mormon is that it was written by Joseph Smith as he translated it from an ancient record. FWIW, I don't buy the whole face in a hat theory, either. Given the speed that he dictated the book with, he had to have learned to read Reformed Egyptian. My guess is that when he came to a proper name or other unique word, he needed a more direct form of revelation. Did he use a hat to receive it? I dunno, mebbe. I don't really worry about that. I'm just glad we have it as the penultimate testimony of his prophetic calling and the restoration of the fullness of the gospel.

[Kevin Christensen]

I've read the Roberts Study and View of the Hebrews, plus several articles by George D. Smith and others hyping the similarities, as well as Palmer's astonishingly shallow and slanted use. One of my pet peeves in this connection is how critics like Smith and Palmer congratulate themselves for having the courage to openly face troubling issues while consistently ignoring the single most important and conspicuously relevant study on the topic, John Welch's 1985 Paper, "Answering B. H. Roberts Questions and an Unparallel." The BYU publication of View of the Hebrews is also important, as is the RBBM review.

Welch's The Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon also has some impressive responses to charges brought up in the Roberts study.

I often refer to the Roberts Study as hole one scholar wide and now 99 years deep. Comparison with Welch, in particular, shows how the narrow Roberts perspective was.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 7, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[kolipoki09]

Book of Mormon Authorship Theories

There are - in my opinion - two important apologetic publications worth consulting on this issue, both of which are available in their entirety online, pro bono.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=110

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41

Vogel and Metcalfe's American Apocrypha (as per George D. Smith's essay) understandably offers a competing interpretation, however.

[why me]

Book of Mormon Authorship Theories

Having again listened recently to Elder Holland's talk Safety for the Soul and pondering his thoughts on the various authorship theories.

I am hopeful we can have a discussion on the two main ones. I base this on the two following theories that seem to generate the most appeal

I don't think that Joseph was the type to do much research nor was he a studious person at the time of the book of mormon writing and publication. Also, if he depended on family stories, both his mother and father would have recognized it not to mention his brothers and sisters. And if they did, then they were in on a fraud.

Also, I don't remember any stories leaving mormonism at that time over their reading View of the Hebrews. Some members left because they could not believe that Joseph was a prophet based on his behavior: too jovial, too angry, etc. But View of the Hebrews made little impact. i also think that Joseph mentioned the book at times. Members certainly knew of the book.

Also, with the other issues you have mentioned. People were not stupid back then.

[Vance]

The most logical theory of all is,

1) Mormons are WRONG!!!

2) Therefore the BoM is FALSE!!, regardless of where it came from.

/s

[ERayR]

I think a strong theory for the authorship of the Book of Mormon is the "we don't know exactly where it came from" theory.

It's the same theory I have for the writings of Patience Worth. I can't explain where they came from, so I just say "I don't know." I don't feel a compulsion to side with the believers or doubters.

I am rather partial to the fact that the Book of Mormon is exactly what is claimed. It came from metal plates, through Joseph Smith Jr., by the gift and power of God.

[DBMormon]

The most logical theory of all is,

1) Mormons are WRONG!!!

2) Therefore the BoM is FALSE!!, regardless of where it came from.

It is not that simple. The book of mormon is complicated. I always get a kick out of those who say it is a very simple book that is obviously the work and mind of Jospeh. If he is the author, it would seem to me one of the greatest most prolific, intricate frauds every purported to have been done on mankind.

All the witnesses whose stories while critically examined seem to have weight to them. To many people like myself who have had serious profound spiritual experiences that keep me looking for answers to the things I can't figure out. 20' something year old yokel from the backwoods with a poor education and whose life was lived amidst constant persucution and threats on his friends and family. I just don't see a simple way of explaining it either way. Are there what seems like holes or contradictions in parts of the story... sure. Are there issues in history of the church... sure

Yet we you look at the sum of it's parts you are really begging if your explanation is... simple fraud. It is not. It is either the work of God or one of the most intricate, scheming, planned out, complicated, intelligent fraud in all of history. So your simple answer doesn't explain anything other then you seem not to have a profecient grasp on the questions posed.

[Buzzard]

Reel-

I think/hope that Vance was being sarcastic. If you approach the BOM with the attitude that Joseph was a fraud, then OF COURSE the book has to be a fabrication. To approach it with an open mind is a dangerous thing.

[cinepro]

I am rather partial to the fact that the Book of Mormon is exactly what is claimed. It came from metal plates, through Joseph Smith Jr., by the gift and power of God.

Loose or tight translation?

[T-Shirt]

Loose or tight translation?

Why does it have to be either one?

[cinepro]

Why does it have to be either one?

Exactly. It's great to pretend that the theory based on "the gift and power of God" actually means something, but it ultimately has no explanatory or predictive power. It can't even help us with a simple question like whether or not the translation was loose or tight. It's essentially malleable to allow us to bend and stretch it wherever needed to maintain belief.

It's like a creationist theory about the origin of the planet. It might be based on faith and scripture, but it's not a very helpful theory in the grand scheme of things.

[T-Shirt]

Exactly. It's great to pretend that the theory based on "the gift and power of God" actually means something, but it ultimately has no explanatory or predictive power. It can't even help us with a simple question like whether or not the translation was loose or tight. It's essentially malleable to allow us to bend and stretch it wherever needed to maintain belief.

Actually, you have it exactly backwards. It is black and white thinking critics, such as yourself, who have created a problem, where none exists, which allows them the ability to bend and stretch, where needed, to encourage disbelief.

[Vance]

Why does it have to be either one?

Why can't it be both?

[T-Shirt]

Why can't it be both?

Indeed.

[Verum]

Book of Mormon Authorship Theories

3.)How does one who is a critic explain the following

- Alma 36 chiasmus – coincidence/dumb luck? Joseph did it intentionally? It seems to long to be unintended, and too profound to be an afterthought. If one says dumb luck, can one point out a chiasm in literature as long or longer as Alma 36 that appears by coincidence?

What about chiasmus in Doctrine and Covenants? Since Doctrine and Covenants is also full of chiasmus, one can no longer use appearances of this style of writing as evidence for ancient origins. You may be able to say that perhaps this is the way the Lord talks, but not as evidence of ancient origins since D&C was not ancient text.

- BOM names that can be found nowhere else in Joseph's time and yet seem to have a direct link to the hebre language... how did that connection come to pass?

Connections are exaggerated in my opinion and are few compared to the larger amount of anachronistic texts that are in conflict.

I think the "we don't actually know" theory is a good one.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Verum

[David T]

Exactly. It's great to pretend that the theory based on "the gift and power of God" actually means something, but it ultimately has no explanatory or predictive power. It can't even help us with a simple question like whether or not the translation was loose or tight. It's essentially malleable to allow us to bend and stretch it wherever needed to maintain belief.

It's like a creationist theory about the origin of the planet. It might be based on faith and scripture, but it's not a very helpful theory in the grand scheme of things.

I think our fellow MD&D member Brant Gardner's book The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon is the best, most thoughtful attempt to broach this subject, taking into account all the good research by faithful and critic alike. It is not nearly as simple as an "He saw Jesus and Moroni OR He Wrote It Based On His Experience" dichotomy. Very very strongly recommend this book by Gardner.

[DBMormon]

I wanted to read Brant Gardner's book but not in our library system in ohio. I sell flooring for a living... not exactly buckets of $$$ rolling around. I really enjoyed his interview on Mormonstories

[ERayR]

Loose or tight translation?

What difference does it make? It is the word of God by the gift and power of God. Your trivialities make no difference in that.

[ERayR]

Exactly. It's great to pretend that the theory based on "the gift and power of God" actually means something, but it ultimately has no explanatory or predictive power. It can't even help us with a simple question like whether or not the translation was loose or tight. It's essentially malleable to allow us to bend and stretch it wherever needed to maintain belief.

It's like a creationist theory about the origin of the planet. It might be based on faith and scripture, but it's not a very helpful theory in the grand scheme of things.

And you continue to worry about the trivialities and ignore the message. As my grandmother would say "walking over dollars looking for pennies".

[ERayR]

Connections are exaggerated in my opinion and are few compared to the larger amount of anachronistic texts that are in conflict.

I think the "we don't actually know" theory is a good one.

Opinions are like ... you have yours, I have mine and the world keeps turning.

Edited May 7, 2012 by ERayR

[David T]

I wanted to read Brant Gardner's book but not in our library system in ohio. I sell flooring for a living... not exactly buckets of $$$ rolling around. I really enjoyed his interview on Mormonstories

Does you library system participate in inter-library loan? Most do. That's how I got a bunch of cool obscure stuff through my library.

[DBMormon]

Does you library system participate in inter-library loan? Most do. That's how I got a bunch of cool obscure stuff through my library.

Yes, clevenet system, 100's of Libraries... but ohio is not generally a mormon atmosphere so no Brant Gardner book

[Log]

You can also wait until the Mormon Studies Review does its bit on it.