Book Of Mormon Authorship Theories

[Calm]

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

Talk to your librarian about the interlibrary loan system. (used to work at a library). If your local library can't get it, check with a university or even a community college.

Edited May 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

i posted on my facebook once that I wanted Brad Wilcox's "the Continous Atonement" for Christmas. A week later Brad Wilcox himself who I never met personally sent me a free copy... Maybe I should do that again with Grant's book...... "Prove me now herewith if I will not send you a book" It was miracle from God, really cool

[Benjamin McGuire]

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.

This isn't a simple topic. One of the problems with issues particularly involving parallels is that we get these simple but usually very flawed arguments. Showing that they are flawed is often complicated and takes much more time than the original suggestion. Let me give three examples.

First, one you mention: Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream. The problem we have with this issue is that the description of the dream is quite late, and the description of the dream is almost certainly influenced by the published text of the Book of Mormon. If we had a good description of the dream coming before the publication of the Book of Mormon, this would become a completely different issue. But we don't. And so when we look at language similarities between the two, there has to be a recognition that borrowing (if it exists) is potentially able to go in both directions. There are two ways that we can proceed. We can either take our preference of these two explanations, or we can try to figure out how to determine which elements were borrowed from which source in which direction. Virtually no one takes this second avenue.

To illustrate this point, here is something I put together 8 or 9 years ago, not long after Grant Palmer published his book. (I had been asked to do some work on this by Davis Bitton at the time). The following is from some notes that I sent Bitton. I have eliminated a lengthy discussion on method which I sent to Bitton - mostly for space reasons - although I should point out that method is very important in arguments like this, and that Palmer offers no explicit discussion of method (of course, you can read some of my discussions on method in my article for the Maxwell Institute dealing with literary allusion in the Book of Mormon, and I have another very long article discussing methods in examining sources that I am currently editing).

__________

On page 48, Palmer compares a BoM text and a New Testament text to the effect, he suggests, that "The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in John 11 arguably serves as a source for Alma 19. Note the common phrases, which I have placed in italics, and the seven common motifs in both stories."

Palmer is taking two texts, and based on a comparison between them involving common themes shared phrases, he claims that one is textually reliant on the other. The parallels he presents are as follows:

Sent unto him [Jesus saith,] This sickness is not unto death, [for] Lazarus sleepeth

[Then] Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again

Jesus said unto her

Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea Lord: I believe

[but] by this time he stinketh

[Jesus spoke a]nd he that was dead came forth

Compared to the following text from Alma:

Sent and desired that he [Ammon] should come

and some say

he stinketh

He is not dead, [Ammon said,] but sleepeth

[and] he shall rise again

Ammon said unto her: Believest thou this? And she said unto him

I believe

[And] he arose

Now from the outset, we have several things to consider. First, the shared phrasing which Palmer has identified in the italics, and then the "seven common motifs" which Palmer identifies in both stories. To start with however, we need to first place the two stories within a rhetorical context. The narratives exist over a larger body of text: Alma 19:2-12 and John 11:3-44. To provide the complete citations would take too much space, but some general observations are required.

In the KJV text, the narrative may be briefly summarized as follows: Lazarus (close friend of Jesus, and brother of Mary and Martha) becomes ill. The illness is serious, so they send for Jesus to ask for his assistance (he after all does heal the sick). Rather than heading out right away, Jesus waits two days before leaving (and when he does announce his intention to go, his apostles try and persuade him to stay - they are worried about another stoning attempt). He responds by telling them that it is necessary that he go, and that Lazarus is asleep and needs to be awoken. They respond by suggesting that if Lazarus is sleeping, then he is well (in other words, a sleeping Lazarus is no need for concern). The text then points out that the disciples misunderstood Jesus who was suggesting in a nice way that Lazarus had died - so he puts it more bluntly and says "Lazarus is dead". So Thomas pipes up (one of my more favorite statements in this Gospel), "Let us go also, that we may die with him." Thomas still sees the trip as ending in stoning. So Jesus and the apostles journey to Bethany, and by the time they arrive, Lazarus had been in his tomb for four days. Jesus is then taken to the tomb where he first prays, and then commands Lazarus to forth. And Lazarus comes out, still bound in his burial shroud. And repeated several times through this narrative is the notion that Jesus allows Lazarus to die so that the power of God might be seen in his being raised from the dead - something which is also identified as distinct from the resurrection. The purpose of the story is two-fold. It is a miracle story showing the power of God through Jesus, and it serves to presage the resurrection of Jesus himself.

Just as the resurrection story in John 11 is not entirely unique, the narrative in Alma 19 is not unique either. It one of several similar conversion experiences recorded in the BoM. The first is an experience of Alma as recorded in Mosiah 27, the second is this narrative in Alma 19, and a third is a second narrative in Alma 19. It is a record of a conversion experience in which the receiver becomes incapacitated. Lamoni lies comatose for 2 days before Ammon is sent for (there is a disconnect within the text because the text does not indicate any time gap between Ammon teaching the king, and the king's catatonic condition.) When Ammon arrives, the Queen explains the problem. The king hasn't moved in two days, and some (I read contenders for the throne here) are ready to bury him - they claim that he stinks (has begun decomposing) but he doesn't stink to me (says the queen). Ammon, recognizing what is happening says that he is not dead, but is asleep and will awake in the morning. So the queen sits watch all night and in the morning the king awakes and relates his conversion. Now, the king relates his experience, the spirit overpowers everyone present (with one exception) and they all fall to the earth "as though they were dead."

So, having established a framework for comparison, we start examining the parallels. Palmer highlights his argument as follows:

The phrase "he stinketh" appears once in the Bible and once in the Book of Mormon. The words "he stinketh" and "sleepeth" are found together only in these two chapters. The seven-word phrase "believest thou this? She saith unto him" appears only in John and Alma.

Palmer is arguing for a position of uniqueness (although he doesn't make this claim explicit) - and using that uniqueness as establishing a point of connection between the texts. However, Verbal parallels (apart from quotation) are the weakest of all of the various types of intertextual evidence. Thematic parallels (which Palmer argues for when he speaks of common "motifs" are only valid and distinguishable from the weaker verbal contact by noting that they are intended to evoke a specific response in the reader.

So, in our examination, we need to determine first, whether or not any of the three specific phrases which Palmer offers are candidates for quotation, and we need to examine the motifs to determine whether or not they meet a basis for common themes, or if instead they represent stock language and exist only as basic verbal connections.

he stinketh

There are several reasons to reject this as a quotation. First, the length is not sufficient to argue uniqueness. Second, the notion of the dead stinking occurs in the Old Testament - particularly in Isaiah 34:2 and 50:3. The later is of greater consequence because it is quoted with context in both the BoM and the D&C. Second, the same verse in the BoM repeats the concept a second time:

"(v 5) and some say that he is not dead, but others say that he is dead and that he stinketh, and that he ought to be placed in the sepulchre; but as for myself, to me he doth not stink."

Finally, the phrase does not function with the same effect. In the NT narrative, when Jesus asks that the tomb be opened, they suggest that there is no point - he has been dead so long that the corpse must already stink. In the BoM, there is a question as to whether or not the king stinks - the smell then is an indicator of whether or not the king is dead - not something that is the unpleasant side effect of death.

sleepeth

It seems absurd to consider a single word as a quotation - and since it is used in a variety of ways within both texts, there is nothing unique enough about the context to suggest that it is a quotation. It is considered significant because of it s proximity to the other terms. Yet, only once (and it is not in this passage, but in Mormon 9) in the BoM is sleep used as a euphamism for death. When the Gospel of John uses the term it is a reference to death. So, we have in John this exchange: "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth ... Lazarus is dead". In the Book of Mormon there is no pretense, no figurative language. Ammon states: "He is not dead, but he sleepeth in God." The use of this term is significantly different between the two texts.

believest thou this? She saith unto him

The first thing I note is that Palmer has overstated a bit the evidence in the BoM. While the phrase "She saith unto him" occurs in Alma 19, the text that is part of this phrase reads "believest thou this? She said unto him". Palmer properly quotes it in the montage of phrases, but not here. Both halves occur elsewhere in both the BoM and the KJV. I do not believe that it warrants a claim of uniqueness.

Other issues

Now, we examine a few additional issues - Lazarus died and was raised. Lamoni did not die, but literally was asleep. Jesus invoked the power of God to bring Lazarus back from the dead. Ammon did nothing but recognize what was happening. The list of differences between the two narratives far outweighs the similarities - particularly in the details of the narrative and the functions which these narratives play.

Earlier, I proposed that this text was one of a series of related texts. It may help to present similarities between these within the BoM to establish a case against textual reliance with the Gospel of John.

Here are the first two narratives of that series - Mosiah 27 (M) and Alma 18-19 (A):

(M) he became dumb, that he could not open his mouth; yea, and he became weak, even that he could not move his hands; therefore he was taken by those that were with him, and carried helpless, even until he was laid before his father.

(A) he fell unto the earth, as if he were dead. And it came to pass that his servants took him and carried him in unto his wife, and laid him upon a bed

(M) And they rehearsed unto his father all that had happened unto them; and his father rejoiced, for he knew that it was the power of God.

(A) And she said unto him: <narrative here describing events again> Now, ... Ammon ... knew that king Lamoni was under the power of God

(M) And it came to pass after they had fasted and prayed for the space of two days and two nights, the limbs of Alma received their strength,

(A) and he lay as if he were dead for the space of two days and two nights

(A) AND it came to pass that after two days and two nights

(A) for he has been laid upon his bed for the space of two days and two nights

(M) and he stood up and began to speak unto them, bidding them to be of good comfort:

(A) And it came to pass that he arose, ... and as he arose, he stretched forth his hand unto the woman, and said:

(M) I ... have been redeemed of the Lord; ... all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must ... [be] redeemed of God

(A) behold, I have seen my Redeemer; ... and he shall redeem all mankind who believe on his name.

(M) I was in the darkest abyss; but now I behold the marvelous light of God

(A) he knew that the dark veil of unbelief was being cast away from his mind, and the light which did light up his mind, which was the light of the glory of God

The similarities are striking. Some of these carry on to the third instance in Alma 19:14-36. But, the evidence is interesting. Unlike Palmer's example, here, the phrasing is clearly related, and rhetorically, both narratives serve a similar purpose. While obviously not eliminating the possibility of the Alma passage being derived from the Gospel of John, it does make it much less likely. The reason for this? The Mosiah text which shows clear connections to the Alma text shows no resemblance to the passage from John - and some of the elements in the Alma text which are taken from Mosiah are the same elements that Palmer argues were taken from the New Testament.

Palmer summarizes his claim by suggesting:

"Within the story of Lazarus we can see potential evidence of a thorough knowledge of the Bible. The identifying and unique phrases of the Lazarus story appear with slight modifications in Alma."

Of course, my take is that if this represents the borrowing which Palmer suggests, it does not represent any sort of thorough knowledge but rather a superficial grasp at best on some of the basic premises and phrases of the story. We need to ask why it would borrow phrases without using the content - or rather use the phrases in a way which is ultimately foreign to the other narrative. It seems more plausible to simply consider that the one or two significant phrases were built from stock vocabulary - and certainly they are not as unique as Palmer suggests.

Method is critical. It explains not only how the evidence is seen, but how it is evaluated. What criteria are chosen. Palmer's appraoch is inconsistent. He offers no explicit formal method - perhaps because none exist. Without method, we canno evaluate whether or not his argument is even valid.

__________

These are some old notes, and my own method is much more clearly defined and spelled out (and it isn't simple). I used this because it is probably more accessible (like you asked for). However, it illustrates my point that you take some parallels that are superficial, easy to describe. And you present them. But, the parallels are, when investigated in some detail not convincing at all, and almost certainly wrong. But the investigation takes time, and takes some awareness of the texts and how to look at them.

Now to a third example of this same kind of thing. This one comes from my forthcoming article, and deals with a proposal made by Rick Grunder.

_____________

I engage a set of four similar rules:

1. Differences are as important as similarities.

2. Parallels need to be examined in progressively expanding contexts.

3. Parallels should be discussed in a detailed and specific fashion.

4. Rhetorical values, the intentions of an author, and the purposes of a text should all to be taken into consideration.

To illustrate these 4 principles, I will apply them towards the parallel Grunder titles: “REST NEEDED FROM MENTAL EXERCISE; the Mind like a Tightly-Strung Bow” (2008, p. 69). The parallel, as Grunder presents it, is as follows. The first source is taken from William Alcott’s The Young Man’s Guide, originally published in 1833. The second, as Grunder provides us is taken from a personal recollection published in the Juvenile Instructor on August 1, 1892. Both are reproduced here from Grunder’s text.

Source 1:

Some of our students in commons and elsewhere, suppose themselves highly meritorious because they have adopted the plan of appointing one of their number to read to the company, while the rest are eating. But they are sadly mistaken. Nothing is gained by the practice. On the contrary, much is lost by it. The bow cannot always remain bent, without injury. Neither can the mind always be kept ‘toned’ to a high pitch. Mind and body must and will have their relaxations [p. 68].

Source 2:

. . . I have played ball with him [Joseph Smith] many times in Nauvoo. He was preaching once, and he said it tried some of the pious folks to see him play ball with the boys. He then related a story of a certain prophet who was sitting under the shade of a tree amusing himself in some way, when a hunter came along with his bow and arrow, and reproved him. The prophet asked him if he kept his bow strung up all the time. The hunter answered that he did not. The prophet asked why, and he said it would lose its elasticity if he did. The prophet said it was just so with his mind, he did not want it strung up all the time. . . . [Elder William M(oore). Allred, St. Charles, Bear Lake County, Idaho, b. 1819, quoted in “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Juvenile Instructor 27/15 (1 August 1892): 472.]

Sameness and Difference

Comparisons by nature suggest examining two or more things. If we reduce texts to their similarities, the only conclusions we can draw is that they are alike (even if that view is in error). By introducing the differences, we can start to look a little deeper at what makes the comparison interesting. Are the elements that first seemed similar only superficially so? Are they in fact quite closely related? Does the use of a particular phrase in one text provide additional understanding for the use of a similar phrase in another text? In this case, the texts were chosen several reasons. One of them is that there is an obvious similarity. It occurs in the use of the idea of a strung bow as a metaphor applied to the mind. But, with similarities also come differences (if there weren’t any differences we would have identical texts).

First, in the Alcott text, the reference is not just to the mind. Alcott tells us that “Mind and body must and will have their relaxations.” There is no reference to the body in the Allred recollection. The other primary difference between the two is the language. Despite the header that Grunder gives it, only the words ‘bow’ and ‘mind’ occur in both selections, and the word ‘strung’ occurs only in the Allred recollection. The other words—rest, needed, mental, exercise, tightly—none of these words occur in either text. These observations give us something to look more closely at. Does the language used tell us anything about the natures of these two texts within their specific contexts? Does the distinction between Mind and Mind and Body warrant further examination?

Context: An Expanding Circle

The Alcott text occurs in his book The Young Man’s Guide. It is one of a genre of books (which continues, although in very different forms perhaps, to the present time) in which instruction is provided for young people. It is divided into seven chapters, each with several sections. The quote that Grunder provides comes from the seventh section (“On Forming Temperate Habits”) of the first chapter (“On the Formation of Character), which consists of guidelines for eating and drinking. The section in which the quote is taken from deals with issues of eating too quickly (or not quickly enough), and appropriate conversation at the dinner table. The full paragraph in which it occurs (which is helpful for understanding the context) is provided below:

"The idea of preventing conversation about what we eat is also foolish, though Dr. Franklin and many very wise men, may have thought otherwise. Some of our students in commons and elsewhere, suppose themselves highly meritous because they have adopted the plan of appointing one of their number to read to the company while the rest are eating. But they are sadly mistaken. Nothing is gained by the practice. On the contrary, much is lost by it. The bow cannot always remain bent, without injury. Neither can the mind always be kept ‘toned’ to a high pitch. Mind and body must and will have their relaxations, or be revenged on us."

What sort of injury does Alcott suggest will come? He tells us in the preceding paragraph that inappropriate eating produces “stomach or liver complaints, or gout or rheumatism”. And after providing us with the material Grunder quotes, he tells us in no uncertain terms that “But I do say, and with emphasis, that food must be masticated.” This is not so much a text about mental exercise as it is about proper habits while eating.

The Allred recollection on the other hand, is quite short—part of a longer series of recollections by various other individuals, but the Allred comments are distinct both from the rest of the article and from the periodical in which they were published. They are reproduced below in their entirety:

"As I was not quite fifteen years old when I first saw him, I cannot remember many of his sayings at that time; but as he was returning, he preached in the Salt River Branch.

I was with him in the troubles at DeWitt, Adam-ondi-ahman, and in Far West. I have played ball with him many times in Nauvoo. He was preaching once, and he said it tried some of the pious folks to see him play ball with the boys. He then related a story of a certain prophet who was sitting under the shade of a tree amusing himself in some way, when a hunter came along with his bow and arrow, and reproved him. The prophet asked him if he kept his bow strung up all the time. The hunter answered that he did not. The prophet asked why, and he said it would lose its elasticity if he did. The prophet said it was just so with his mind, he did not want it strung up all the time. Another time when I heard him preaching he said if he should tell the people all the Lord had revealed to him, some would seek his life. Even as good a man as old Father C----, here on the stand, he added, (pointing back to him) would seek his life.

I was present when he preached the first sermon on baptism for the dead. I remember my father said it was astonishing to him to think he had read the Bible all his life and he had never looked at it in that light before. I was present at the first baptism for the dead."

The contexts seem to be quite different. It is true that there is a similarity there, but, that similarity isn’t nearly as neat and tidy as we look at larger contexts; and at this point, we need to expand our examination beyond the two texts in question.

Frequency in Other Sources

Generally, this issue applies more directly to verbal parallels in which specific language is the proposed parallel. Earlier, I quoted the 5th of Muriel C. St. Byrne’s five golden rules:

"In order to express ourselves as certain of attributions we must prove exhaustively that we cannot parallel words, images, and phrases as a body from other acknowledged plays of the period; in other words, the negative check must always be applied."

The idea behind the negative check is quite simple: if we can find a proposed verbal parallel in multiple sources, then it becomes very unlikely that the parallel in question is one of genetic nature. The same idea applies when we compare a text to a larger body of materials or a tradition—if we can find the same parallels outside of that body of literature or that tradition, then establishing a connection between the text and that tradition or body of material becomes much more difficult. Most digital archives allow for searching by date range. The two primary electronic repositories I will be using are Google Books, and the Making of America Archive hosted by the University of Michigan.

In the case of this specific example from Grunder, we are told that he is specifically looking at the environmental argument:

It may be appropriate here to remind the reader that Mormon parallel works need not be candidates as specific sources necessarily consulted by Joseph Smith. Instead, this Bibliographic Source seeks to offer a broad and realistic social/intellectual context for Joseph’s teachings in a variety of generally significant texts such as the one here at hand . . . (2008, p. 66).

When we begin searching for these parallels, our perception of Grunder’s similarity begins to change dramatically. There are two larger traditions that these two texts variously use, and both find wide circulation at the time of Joseph Smith. The first comes to us through the Odes of Horace (written some time around 23 B.C.E.), the passage in question comes from Book 2, chapter 10, line 19:

Neque semper arcum tendit Apollo. John Devoe Belton explains to us that this phrase means:

"Apollo does not always keep his bow bent. The quotation is ordinarily used in the sense that there are times when we all need relaxation from the point of high tension."

Of course, the original text by Horace doesn’t convey this sentiment, but, we know that it had built this public perception much earlier than the texts we are currently considering, as we see from this commentary originally published in 1712:

"Homer says, that the Arrows of this God brought the Plague into the Grecian Camp; the Reason of which is evident. In like Manner, when Horace says here, that Apollo has not always his Bow bent, he means that Apollo does not always afflict Mankind with the foremention’d Calamities; it is therefore a wrong Application of these Words, which a great many make, when they use them to express that the Mind ought not always to be upon the Stretch, but should now and then be allowed some Relaxation."

The phrase in several forms became something of a euphemism. Alcott himself had already used it in 1839, in another of his books:

"It is impossible for the liver to be thus excited, at times, to increased action, without falling into correspondent inactivity at other times. The bow cannot always remain bent - it must react or rebound. The pendulum, too, which has vibrated too far in one direction, will vibrate too far on the other direction, as the natural and inevitable consequence. So with the action of the liver."

Here, the comparison is made—not between the mind and a bow, but uses the euphemism to refer again to the body, including the connection (only implicitly made here) that like the bow being injured, so to is the body injured. There are numerous allusions to this metaphor in literature, and there is little doubt that this idea would have been at least somewhat familiar to at least some of the early followers of Joseph Smith.

The second tradition is also interesting. In the Allred recollection, Joseph relates a story about a prophet. Much like Horace, the source of that narrative is also quite old, and can be traced back at least to John Cassian (AD 360-435). It seems unlikely (but possible) that Cassian was the author of this account (more likely he in turn adapted an earlier convention). R. Alan Culpepper provides a nice summary of the story:

"John was stroking a partridge when a hunter appeared and expressed surprise that the great apostle was amusing himself in this way. John asked the hunter why he did not keep his bow strung all the time, and the hunter answered that if he did so, it would soon be weakened from the constant strain. John replied that just in the same way, the mind needs to relax from time to time."

Cassian’s text was quite popular, and was quickly distributed and translated from the Latin into Greek. Later versions often made changes but the story of John and the partridge remained largely the same. Closer to Joseph’s time, this narrative was given a rebirth when it was used by Francis De Sales in his text titled Introduction to the Devout Life, published in French in 1609, and subsequently published in many languages including English. In translation, Sales account reads as follows:

"It is necessary sometimes to relax our minds as well as our bodies by some kind of recreation. St. John the Evangelist, as Cassian relates, was one day found by a huntsman with a partridge on his hand, which he was caressing for his recreation. The huntsman asked how such a man as he could spend his time in so poor and mean an occupation? St. John replied: Why dost thou not carry thy bow always bent? For fear, answered the huntsman, that if it were always bent, it would loose its spring and become useless. Be not surprised, then, replied the apostle, that I should sometimes remit a little of the close application and attention of my spirit and enjoy a little recreation, that I may afterward employ myself more fervently in divine contemplation."

The similarities between the Allred account and the narrative of John and the partridge are quite remarkable. It seems quite likely that when (as Allred recollects) Joseph related the story of “a certain prophet”, that prophet was none other than John the Evangelist. The other elements follow in roughly the same order – a hunter sees the man amusing himself, confronts him, is asked about his bow, answers, and is then told that the mind is like the bow and needs to rest from time to time. This is a far more complex string of similarities, and there can be little doubt that the story that Allred provides relies heavily (either directly or through Joseph Smith) on this tradition about John the Evangelist. There is little doubt that these issues reflect traditions present in Joseph’s environment. But Grunder’s Mormon Parallel doesn’t give us a cultural or intellectual context for Joseph’s teaching.

______________

Now, having given three examples, there is some final point that needs to be made. Joseph Smith and Mormonism in general do not appear ex nihilo. That they use things that they brought with them to Mormonism, or that occur in their cultural environment is not a surprise. In the last example, I find a source for the comments, but it is clear that it is a different source than the one proposed. If our objective is only to find sources, we can obviously do that. Even if we take some more time and do it right. Grant Palmer does it wrong - and much of what he writes is very problematic and inaccurate in my opinion. But that doesn't deal with the underlying and perhaps more imporant issue of how we understand the parallels that we find that may be real parallels (with significance, and where we can, perhaps determine a direction of borrowing). There is little doubt in my mind, for example, that the Allred narrative relies in some way on a very old (and probably apocryphal) story about the apostle John.

The discussion about what it means that Mormonism occured in a real historical enviornment, and that it began by a group of people who did not start their lives self-identifying as Mormons, and what we ought to make of the way that Mormonism reflects its environment - that is the discussion that believers ought to be having.

Ben M.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

From reelmormon:

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

Cinepro writes:

Loose or tight translation?

ERayR writes:

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.

We get a whole slew of different things messed up here in this sequence of comments. I think I tend to agree most with cinepro on this issue. While certainly we can read the text without thinking or caring about a whole host of other issues - which we can do with any book for that matter - thoughtful consideration of these other issues can help us understand the Book of Mormon in ways that we are unlikely to get without going through the effort. There are lots of ways to read the Book of Mormon. We need to avoid thinking that our way is the best way or the only way, or the right way.

Ben M.

[ERayR]

From reelmormon:

Cinepro writes:

ERayR writes:

We get a whole slew of different things messed up here in this sequence of comments. I think I tend to agree most with cinepro on this issue. While certainly we can read the text without thinking or caring about a whole host of other issues - which we can do with any book for that matter - thoughtful consideration of these other issues can help us understand the Book of Mormon in ways that we are unlikely to get without going through the effort. There are lots of ways to read the Book of Mormon. We need to avoid thinking that our way is the best way or the only way, or the right way.

Ben M.

If one is seeking greater understanding that is fine and good. I look at these things to help me see deeper meanings but these questions really have nothing to do with whether the Book of Mormon is true or not. It only has to do with presentation. Knowledge of whether the Book of Mormon is true or not is only possible through Moroni's promise. Moroni 10:3-5.

[phaedrus ut]

I've found the necessity of authorship theories depends a lot on your perception of the BOM. When I was a believer I assumed it to be a near impossible task to explain such a miraculous book written by a uneducated boy in 60 days. It was only after examining the BOM with Historical-critical methods that the origin of the book not only became more obvious but the need for authorship theories became much less important.

Phaedrus

[DBMormon]

Phaedrus... I'll give you 120 days... let me know when your done. Looking forward to reading it

[Kevin Christensen]

Actually, explaining the Book of Mormon is easy. Watch this: "Joseph did it somehow." Compared to Joseph's own account of angels, visions, plates, witnesses, several different scribes, we can ask which explanation is better?

Kuhn explains that we can evaluate paradigms in terms of their capacity for puzzle definition and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, simplicity and aesthetics, fruitfulness, and future promise.

Weighted in this way, "did it somehow" is satisfyingly simple, but ignores the enormous possibilties for puzzle definition and solution, makes only one untested prediction, explains nothing about the known history or the known text, intentionally avoids any possible encounter with the unexpected that might come to those who test the assumptions that the text might actually describe real persons, places, events, doctrine, and precept, and promises nothing.

Essays that I've read by various skeptical practitioners of historical critical approaches, such as gathered in New Approaches, or American Apocrypha, and elsewhere, I've found interesting and challenging at times. But it's always been quite obvious to me that even the most rigorous skeptics have fallen far short of providing a comprehensive and coherent solution to the problem that the existence of the Book of Mormon presents. Each method is not only a lens, providing a way to focus on particular things, but also a filter, excluding other things from view. Each method offers its own, assumptions, problem field, and standard of solution. As Barbour points out, a whole networks of assumptions is being operated at once.

David Wright, for instance:

David Wright argues that the Melchizedek material in Alma 13 is anachronistically derived from Hebrews:

Scholarship recognizes that Hebrews does not create all of its argument by itself but relies on tradition and perhaps even on some unknown written sources (in addition to the Bible) in some of the places where we have seen the epistle parallel elements in Alma 12—13. But these traditions and sources are in general relatively recent developments for the author of Hebrews, not traditions going back 700 years. Moreover, the traditions and sources found or supposed by scholars for the passages in Hebrews relevant to Alma 12—13 are diverse; . . . They are not likely to be found in one traditional source. (David Wright, "'In Plain Terms that We May Understand': Joseph Smith's Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12—13," in

New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology,

ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 205.)

Six years before, Margaret Barker had already written this:

She also remarks that the Qumran Melchizedek text exemplifies a set of ideas regarding "a heavenly priest figure from the cult of the first temple who would bring salvation and atonement in the last days."

54

Despite his being mentioned only briefly in the Old Testament, Barker explores the figure of Melchizedek:

Melchizedek was central to the old royal cult. We do not know what the name means, but it is quite clear that this priesthood operated within the mythology of the sons of Elyon, and the triumph of the royal son of God in Jerusalem. We should expect later references to Melchizedek to retain some memory of the cult of Elyon. . . . The role of the ancient kings was that of the Melchizedek figure in 11QMelch. This accounts for the Melchizedek material in Hebrews, and the early Church's association of Melchizedek and the Messiah. The arguments of Hebrews presuppose a knowledge of the angel mythology which we no longer have.(Barker, The Older Testament, 257).

From my essay here:

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=2&id=547

I conclude this:

In contrast to Wright's conclusion, Barker's work connects the Melchizedek traditions to the First Temple, which not only moves them back seven hundred years earlier than Hebrews but also argues for the source of unity in those traditions behind Hebrews as being those of the temple.

57

With respect to the Melchizedek passages in the Book of Mormon,

58

we should note that the Alma 13 discussion is crowded with themes that recur in Barker's books as signs of the preexilic tradition—the Father God (Alma 13:9),

59

his Begotten Son as the atoning one (Alma 13:5),

60

the council in heaven at the foundation of the world (Alma 13:3),

61

the Day of Atonement imagery of garments being "washed white through the blood of the Lamb" (Alma 13:11),

62

angels being sent to "all nations" (Alma 13:22),

63

judgment (Alma 13:29—30),

64

hell, and the second death (Alma 13:29—30).

65

This puts the Melchizedek passage in the Book of Mormon in tune with the angel mythology presupposed by Hebrews. None of these themes elicited any notice in Wright's article.

Taken at face value, in light of it's own presuppositions and evidences, Wright's article is well done, and makes sense. But as a paradigm compared to others, I see it as limited, not better, not comprehensive and coherent, not as fruitful, not as promising, as overlooking countless other testable problems that the Book of Mormon presents, neither defining nor testing numerous testable claims. (For example, in Wright's approach, there is no question of the accuracy of the details offered in the Arabian Journey or the New World depiction of the Sidon. Existing puzzles and solutions are ignored in favor of the puzzle and solution defined by his choices of questions and method and standard of solution.) He is generalizing about the whole of the Book of Mormon by means of a severly limited sample and a single method whose assumptions and relevance, relative to the information at hand, he assumes is sufficient.) The key prediction that he fires at defenders of the Book of Mormon, that the traditions do not go back 700 years to a single source, meets in Barker's evidence and sources, at the very least, a viable challenge. I think he's clearly wrong.

In footnote 2 of "In Plain Terms That We May Understand," wherein Wright refers to "some striking coincidences between the Book of Mormon and the ancient world and some notable matters of Book of Mormon style" (Wright, in

New Approaches

, 165). That is all that he allows for the other side of the balance, barely mentioning, and never defining or confronting exactly what is here. And so the explanation is neither comprehensive, nor coherent. It only makes sense of the single slide of a limited issue that he places under a microscope and explains in terms of his own assumptions of what is possible.

I've seen similar kinds of things elsewhere, in Welch's responses to Larsen, in Anderson's and Welch's response to Stendahl. And certainly in Gardner's and Wright's responses to Coe. I find the existence of open problems and questions regarding the Book of Mormon far less problematic than is the general trend I see towards resolution of issues. John Clark's presentation on trends at the Joseph Smith Conference in 2005, as well as Nibley on Howlers in the Book of Mormon, and Roper's Boomerang Hits in the Book of Mormon all impress me the same way.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 8, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[cinepro]

Phaedrus... I'll give you 120 days... let me know when your done. Looking forward to reading it

Why would Phaedrus's ability or inability to write scripture (or pseudo-scripture) have anything to do with the origin of the Book of Mormon?

I can't tell you how Pearl Curran created the writings of Patience Worth, or how Ellen White wrote 40 books and 5,000+ articles under claim of revelation, but my inability to explain it (let alone my inability to replicate them) doesn't in any way encourage me to argue for their authenticity.

[phaedrus ut]

Phaedrus... I'll give you 120 days... let me know when your done. Looking forward to reading it

Your challenge illustrates my points in many ways. The 60 day figure is used as a faith promoting tool to imply the miraculous task of translation. In many ways it's the same thing as jokes about the Palmyra library containing so much ancient information because the BOM is so obviously ancient and accurate.

The truth is the book wasn't translated/written in 60 days. Using Thursday June 25, 1829 as the day translation was completed. From when Joseph first saw the plates it was 5 years 9 months. From when Joseph first physically visited the plates it's 4 years 9 months or when he took possession of the plates it's 1 year 9 months. When he first translated from the plates(HC 1:19) it's 1 year 7 months. When he started translation with Martin Harris it's 1 year 2 months.

However a critic doesn't assume there are actual angels or plates just some method of authorship. If someone starts telling stories about a magic book that they are going to be able to translate it's reasonable that could start working on the BOM sometime before tthe first time he told a story about it. So from a critical standpoint there was at minimum 5 years and 9 months available to create the text.

Phaedrus

Edited May 8, 2012 by phaedrus ut

[altersteve]

Your challenge illustrates my points in many ways. The 60 day figure is used as a faith promoting tool to imply the miraculous task of translation. In many ways it's the same thing as jokes about the Palmyra library containing so much ancient information because the BOM is so obviously ancient and accurate.

The truth is the book wasn't translated/written in 60 days. Using Thursday June 25, 1829 as the day translation was completed. From when Joseph first saw the plates it was 5 years 9 months. From when Joseph first physically visited the plates it's 4 years 9 months or when he took possession of the plates it's 1 year 9 months. When he first translated from the plates(HC 1:19) it's 1 year 7 months. When he started translation with Martin Harris it's 1 year 2 months.

However a critic doesn't assume there are actual angels or plates just some method of authorship. If someone starts telling stories about a magic book that they are going to be able to translate it's reasonable that could start working on the BOM sometime before tthe first time he told a story about it. So from a critical standpoint there was at minimum 5 years and 9 months available to create the text.

Phaedrus

He didn't spend all that time translating. He spent a total time of about 6 months. The fact that they weren't consecutive is even more impressive from a believer's perspective.

[David T]

He didn't spend all that time translating. He spent a total time of about 6 months. The fact that they weren't consecutive is even more impressive from a believer's perspective.

I think you're missing his point - the point being that, from one who does not feel the need to believe 'translation time' was the only access points Joseph had with the unfolding and development of the story, there is no need to discount the 5 or so years where the storyline, events, and characters, and even speeches can be being creatively developed. While the time sitting down and dictating the story is impressively short, the critical view does not need to account for the story being created and dictated at the exact same time.

[altersteve]

I think you're missing his point - the point being that, from one who does not feel the need to believe 'translation time' was the only access points Joseph had with the unfolding and development of the story, there is no need to discount the 5 or so years where the storyline, events, and characters, and even speeches can be being creatively developed. While the time sitting down and dictating the story is impressively short, the critical view does not need to account for the story being created and dictated at the exact same time.

I guess you're right. I didn't consider that.

[cinepro]

He didn't spend all that time translating. He spent a total time of about 6 months. The fact that they weren't consecutive is even more impressive from a believer's perspective.

But do you also assume that they weren't reading the manuscript and discussing the story between periods of translation?

[altersteve]

But do you also assume that they weren't reading the manuscript and discussing the story between periods of translation?

No, I don't. Like I said, I hadn't considered that.

[volgadon]

But do you also assume that they weren't reading the manuscript and discussing the story between periods of translation?

Especially as part of the Joseph Smith History in the PoGP states that they did.

[DWhitmer]

Book of Mormon Authorship Theories...Grant Palmer's...I want a layman's account

Sorry no one helped so far, here are some facts:

FACT 1 - Palmer has an axe to grind. He was familiar with David Whtimer's first hand statements and chose instead to cite 2nd and 3rd hand disparaging accounts instead.

FACT 2 - David Whitmer (like his entire family), sat within inches of J.Smith while he read the English from another dimension. There is no mystery, only misunderstanding, fear and apologetic overstep (explained below).

FACT 3 - The scriptures are clear how it would go:

20 thou shalt

read the words

which I shall give unto thee

22 when thou hast

read the words

which I have commanded thee

24 shall

read the words

that shall be delivered him (2 Nephi 27)

LDS leaders are ignorant by and large of things pertaining to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Despite reading of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in both the Bible and BoM, LDS members are yet to witness in any meeting, public or private, temple or meeting house that which accompanies a strong outpouring of the Spirit - the speaking in tongues (the tongue of angels) or being "slain in the Spirit" let alone prophecy or words of knowledge.

Having said that, why therefore would you trust the interpretation of some academic at the Y for his explanation of a spiritual process? Most of the misunderstanding of the dictation process stems from one Sidney Sperry, someone held in high esteem by some:

"No responsible authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has ever claimed that God or an angel dictated the physical format of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, or directed what the grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization of the text should be. Nor has any responsible authority of the Church, past or present, said in specific terms that the translation in the Book of Mormon was dictated word for word to Joseph Smith by divine means." (Sperry,

Problems of the Book of Mormon

, [later renamed

Answers to Book of Mormon Questions

] Bookcraft, 1964, p. 183.)

Instead of standing by what scripture said, Sperry reached forth with his puny mind to try and explain the alleged "bad grammar" and Brant Gardner is the last person still trying to counter what the Word of God said. Royal Skousen has backed up what the WoG said:

"I began to see considerable evidence for the traditional interpretation that witnesses of the translation process claimed: (1) the text was given word for word, (2) Book of Mormon names were frequently spelled out the first time they occurred in the text, and (3) during dictation there was no rewriting of the text except to correct errors in taking down the dictation. Joseph Smith was literally reading off an already composed English-language text. The evidence in the manuscripts and in the language of the text itself supports the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon was a precisely determined text. I do not consider this conclusion apologetic, but instead as one demanded by the evidence." (

12 Questions and a Book by Royal Skousen

, [see #8] 9/6/9)

The view that J.Smith "studies it out in his mind" has led to all types of misunderstandings among LDS regarding how revelation worked/(s). The whole purpose of using someone "uneducated" was so God would receive the credit, not Joe. And what have Mormons been trying to do? Give the credit to Joe.

No matter what a critic throws at the BoM, there will never be an explanation for its profound preaching and the twenty or so witnesses to the dictation process, which btw, always began with the bended knee and prayer. I particularly like this account of Sarah Heller Conrad By Oliver B. Huntington:

Sunday, June 13, 1897-I conversed with one old lady eighty-eight years old who lived with David Whitmer when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were translating the Book of Mormon in the upper room of the house, and she, only a girl, saw them come down from [the] translating room several times when they looked so exceedingly white and strange that she inquired of Mrs. Whitmer the cause of their unusual appearance, but Mrs. Whitmer was unwilling to tell the hired girl the true cause, as it was a sacred, holy event connected with a holy, sacred work which was opposed and persecuted by nearly everyone who heard of it.

The girl felt so strangely at seeing so strange and unusual appearance, she finally told Mrs. Whitmer that she would not stay with her until she knew the cause of the strange looks of these men.

Sister Whitmer then told her what the men were doing in the room above and that the power of God was so great in the room that they could hardly endure it; at times angels were in the room in their glory, which nearly consumed them. This satisfied the girl. (Oliver B. Huntington,

History of the Life of Oliver B. Huntington

, p. 49-50)

Don't doubt the record, if those were J.Smith's words, he would have quoted them often, but he rarely quoted from the BoM at all, and certainly was not a follower of it. Everything David Whitmer said was true!

[Palerider]

The following verses from A view to the Hebrews compared to Ether 2:5 have always been quite troublesome to me....

[40] Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land.

[41] But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt,

5 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should ^ago forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been.

Seems like an awfully big coincidence. I've never thought that Joseph or Sydney (he's still in the running for authorship for me) actually plagiarized directly, it was more of a borrowing and slightly altering as we used to do with the encyclopedia in highschool when writing reports.

[Calm]

There are multiple uses of the phrase "go forth into" in the Bible; there are about 5 uses in the NT of the approximate phrase "where never man". Much more likely in my view that they both got their phrasing from somewhere else than the View being the source of the phrasing in the BoM.

[phaedrus ut]

The following verses from A view to the Hebrews compared to Ether 2:5 have always been quite troublesome to me....

I've always regarded the parallels between texts like Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, Spaulding's Manuscript Story, and the Book of Mormon to be more reflective of the Sitz Im Leben of the authors rather than any borrowing material. Ethan Smith and Joseph Smith were both products of their environment. Ethan Smith pastored Oliver Cowdery's family church. The community and social context he lived it would be very similar to that of Joseph or Spaulding. They were all product of their time reflecting their views as 19th century American males attempting to use speculative narrative to explain their country, and it's inhabitants using a biblical world view.

I may be wrong to dismiss the parallels between the texts but it's easier for me to see how three men with the same background attempting to writing a similar literary context are going to draw upon similar language and ideas.

Phaedrus

[Palerider]

There are multiple uses of the phrase "go forth into" in the Bible; there are about 5 uses in the NT of the approximate phrase "where never man". Much more likely in my view that they both got their phrasing from somewhere else than the View being the source of the phrasing in the BoM.

As usual one is looking exclusively at the words themselves rather than their context and meaning. I see nowhere in the New or Old Testaments the phrase "where never man had been" or "where never mankind dwelt".

I suspect you know perfectly well it is the context of a people being led or going into a wilderness or land where never man had dwelt and the similarities in both pieces of literature in context and verbiage, not to mention proximity in time and location that is quite damning.

[Palerider]

I've always regarded the parallels between texts like Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, Spaulding's Manuscript Story, and the Book of Mormon to be more reflective of the Sitz Im Leben of the authors rather than any borrowing material. Ethan Smith and Joseph Smith were both products of their environment. Ethan Smith pastored Oliver Cowdery's family church. The community and social context he lived it would be very similar to that of Joseph or Spaulding. They were all product of their time reflecting their views as 19th century American males attempting to use speculative narrative to explain their country, and it's inhabitants using a biblical world view.

I may be wrong to dismiss the parallels between the texts but it's easier for me to see how three men with the same background attempting to writing a similar literary context are going to draw upon similar language and ideas.

Phaedrus

It's a distinct possibility.

But using Occum's Razor the "borrowing" seems the more likely and simplest explanation to me. Especially knowing that it was a common practise among less talented writers during that period.

[Brant Gardner]

The following verses from A view to the Hebrews compared to Ether 2:5 have always been quite troublesome to me....

[40] Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land.

[41] But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt,

Why assume that it was View of the Hebrews when View of the Hebrews was quoting 2 Esdras 13:40-41? Having Joseph reference Esdras is precisely the same issue as other references to language from the KJV (his copy had the Apocrypha). If this is your biggest concern with the View of the Hebrews possible plagiarism, you may safely ignore it and account it to Joseph's Bible.

[zerinus]

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.

From my point of view, the theory behind the "gift and power of God" means everything. It tells me all that I need to know. From my point of view, whether it is a "tight" or "loose" translation (etc.) is not the most important consideration. The most important consideration is whether it is a good translation, an accurate, a reliable translation. Could it be bettered? Was there some way that it could have been done better? To me, "by the gift and power of God" means that it couldn't have been. It means that it is the most accurate, the most correct, the most reliable translation that it could have been made. It means that it is as good as it gets. There is no way that it could have been done any better. That is what the theory of the "gift and power of God" conveys to me. And both the word of the Lord and the teachings of Joseph Smith seems to confirm this. By His own word the Lord has declared, "and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true" (D&C 17:6). To me that means that it is as true as it can be. It can't be any truer. And of course, Joseph's own view of it is well known, and needs no repetition.

Edited May 9, 2012 by zerinus

[Palerider]

Why assume that it was View of the Hebrews when View of the Hebrews was quoting 2 Esdras 13:40-41? Having Joseph reference Esdras is precisely the same issue as other references to language from the KJV (his copy had the Apocrypha). If this is your biggest concern with the View of the Hebrews possible plagiarism, you may safely ignore it and account it to Joseph's Bible.

Thanks for the input. I knew that Joseph's Bible had the Apocrypha but am somewhat unfamiliar with it, having never considered it scripture. I promise I'll look into it further.

However this added knowledge, rather than give me pause as to reconsidering the veracity of the BOM only serves to expand Joseph's (or whomever the author was) avenues for fabrication. Rather than eliminating one we now have even more and neither can be ignored.