Book Of Mormon Authorship Theories

[Brant Gardner]

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.

I can't imagine that information as every dealing with historicity at all. It is really quite clear that there are phrases in the Book of Mormon that come from a modern source. The most obvious is the Bible. There are other indications of other modern phrases. None of that is surprising in translation and the only way any of that becomes a counterindication for historicity is if one holds to an absolute literal translation of the text. Of course, that would admit that it was a translation so that creates a different kind of issue.

As Ben McGuire has pointed out several times, the issue of borrowing from another source requires much more than suspicious similarity. The case for historicity also requires more than suspicious similarity. That is the reason that I try hard not to get involved in the "what is the best proof" questions. They are based on incorrect assumptions about the nature of the evidence, which has to be much more complex and interrelated.

Because the Book of Mormon claims to be a translation, emphasis on the vocabulary as proof of either modernity or historicity makes undemonstrated assumptions. What has to be done is discern the nature of the culture whose thought patterns, political history, and economics underlie the translated text. While the naturalistic assumption of origin makes some points, very few of them actually match the text. For example, we have the criticism that the Book of Mormon reflects a republican form of government. That is quite a patriotic assumption, and would have been quite logical for an 1830 book. It isn't what the text describes, however. What the text describes as a political system is very different from anything most people in 1830 would have known. In that case, what appears to be a logical description of where Joseph got his idea falls apart upon close reading of the text.

On the other hand, it fits very well with descriptions we have of Mesoamerican political systems. The ancient context more completely represents the text than the modern. Were that the only possible test, it would force us to side with historicity. Of course there are others, but very few facets of the text have a better explanation against a modern background.

[why me]

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.

The last part of the quotations sound like the star trek opening. How is a person supposed to describe going to a wilderness where no one has ever been? Please give examples of how you would do it.

Edited May 10, 2012 by why me

[Brant Gardner]

The last part of the quotations sound like the star trek opening.

Oh no! I knew that Battlestar Gallactica was Mormon-influenced, but now Star Trek? Oh my, when will the borrowing end?

[DBMormon]

this is so awesome... Brant Gardner is commenting on my thread... I think I am going to faint!!!!!

[Monster]

Evidence first then belief. The problem with believing the BofM is what it claims is there just is no evidence that warrants belief in it. You can draw conclusions but no real evidence. Putting belief before evidence is just not an effective way of determining truth or determining it as best we can. Beliefs in general of supernatural origins should be put aside until there is real evidence they exist. It does not mean the Bof M is not divine it just means we do not give it that label until it is proven that it is. The error many people make is that they say "prove it is wrong". That is not the way we figure out things in this world. We need to prove something is right before we accept it. Proving means more than opinion and theory. It means replicating the feat or some physical evidence that the theory is correct. The whole issue could be settled in and instant if Moroni showed up with the plates and let them be studied. Then it would move from theory to fact. And before someone throws out the need for faith, I reject that. Faith is just a term people use when they can not prove an opinion or point of view. I once heard "scripture is that opinion that survived the longest"

[Benjamin McGuire]

Palerider writes:

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.

In what way does it seem like an awfully big coincidence? How you do measure something - or rather, how would you distinguish between something that is an awfully big coincidence and something that is a minor coincidence? If I can find this kind of similarity between any two unrelated texts, what does it mean?

Ben M.

[Buzzard]

Evidence first then belief. The problem with believing the BofM is what it claims is there just is no evidence that warrants belief in it. You can draw conclusions but no real evidence. Putting belief before evidence is just not an effective way of determining truth or determining it as best we can. Beliefs in general of supernatural origins should be put aside until there is real evidence they exist. It does not mean the Bof M is not divine it just means we do not give it that label until it is proven that it is. The error many people make is that they say "prove it is wrong". That is not the way we figure out things in this world. We need to prove something is right before we accept it. Proving means more than opinion and theory. It means replicating the feat or some physical evidence that the theory is correct. The whole issue could be settled in and instant if Moroni showed up with the plates and let them be studied. Then it would move from theory to fact. And before someone throws out the need for faith, I reject that. Faith is just a term people use when they can not prove an opinion or point of view. I once heard "scripture is that opinion that survived the longest"

There is a lot of evidence for the truth of the BOM. And I've read discussions of said evidence several times in my short time on this board. Just go look at some of the threads present and recent past. Very few of the folks that read and post here are of the "Just have faith" variety. You say that to prove something we must be able to replicate it, yet that is one of the strongest evidence of the Book of Mormon, that it is not replicatable. You can have an opinion as to how JS wrote the book, but I don't know of anyone who has taken up the gauntlet to produce a similar book in the time frame that Joseph produced the BOM. Please elucidate me if that feat has been attempted, successful or not.

I HAVE read the book, I HAVE studied the evidences that it is a translation of an ancient record in a Semetic language, and I find both my spiritual witness and the internal evidences in the BOM compelling. Taken together, I find them utterly convincing.

If you don't want to get with the program, that's your issue, not mine, not the churches.

[cdowis]

Evidence first then belief. The problem with believing the BofM is what it claims is there just is no evidence that warrants belief in it. You can draw conclusions but no real evidence.

OK. A few observations:

If I have an astronomy textbook, should I complain that it says little or nothing about anthropology or the history of the British monarchy. You can "prove" that it is an authentic textbook by testing its description of astrometric/mathematical equations and principles. It may describe various instruments and experiments.

The BOM was not written to provide evidence in archeology or science. The writers were specifically commanded to restrict their writings to one purpose -- to bring people to Christ. Most of that evidence regarding history, archeology, etc are found on the large plates. Like testing the math textbook, the BOM gives us several specific tests whether it is the word of God, Moroni 10:4-5, Alma 32, etc.

Astronomy has its own scientific instruments, and religion has its own mechanics for testing as well. They astronomy textbook was never meant to be tested by social history, and the BOM is to be tested by direct contact with our Maker and Creator. And if your "instrument" is broken and very weak, it tells you what to do about that as well.

[Gervin]

The writers were specifically commanded to restrict their writings to one purpose -- to bring people to Christ.

CFR

[cdowis]

CFR

I will be delighted to give a lesson on the BOM.

**1 Ne 6:4-6 **

9:3-4

19:3-6

**Jacob 1:2-4 **

Edited May 11, 2012 by cdowis

[Gervin]

I will be delighted to give a lesson on the BOM.

**1 Ne 6:4-6 **

9:3-4

19:3-6

**Jacob 1:2-4 **

You claimed that "The [book of Mormon] writers were specifically commanded to restrict their writings to one purpose -- to bring people to Christ." You've provided verses from two writers - Nephi and Jacob - and the name Christ is not present in any of the verses. In fact, if I may be permitted to school you; the introduction to 1 Nephi states Nephi writes of the things of God—Nephi’s purpose is to persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham." Specifically, not Christ. Fail.

[altersteve]

You claimed that "The [book of Mormon] writers were specifically commanded to restrict their writings to one purpose -- to bring people to Christ." You've provided verses from two writers - Nephi and Jacob - and the name Christ is not present in any of the verses. In fact, if I may be permitted to school you; the introduction to 1 Nephi states Nephi writes of the things of God—Nephi’s purpose is to persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham." Specifically, not Christ. Fail.

Christ is the God of Abraham. And I'm not sure what Book of Mormon you're reading, but a title used to refer to Christ is present in all of those passages that cdowis cited ("the Lord," "the God of Abraham," etc., and the name "Christ" itself is present in the passage from Jacob).

Fail.

Edited May 12, 2012 by altersteve

[volgadon]

You've provided verses from two writers - Nephi and Jacob - and the name Christ is not present in any of the verses.

Are you sure you were reading the same Jacob 1:4?

[why me]

Oh no! I knew that Battlestar Gallactica was Mormon-influenced, but now Star Trek? Oh my, when will the borrowing end?

I think that the Star Trek producers borrowed from the Book of Mormon. But the point that there are only a few ways to describe going into the wilderness and finding no one there. The sad fact is: there are very few people in the wilderness so most likely there will be no one there. Also, the people at the time of Joseph Smith knew the View of the Hebrews and Joseph himself did mention the book at one time. I am sure that he was asked about it more than once.

I don't think that someone writing a book would borrow a phrase, especially such a simple phrase. They would most likely borrow a storyline.

[altersteve]

Also, the people at the time of Joseph Smith knew the View of the Hebrews and Joseph himself did mention the book at one time.

Which, if he plagiarized from it, would be a very bad move.

[why me]

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.

If you were a writer and a part of the story line was that people went into a wilderness where people have never been, how would you relate this information for your readers? The book of mormon has a complex storyline. To borrow a simple phrase, then change it, would be rather stupid. Most likely, a person copying from another source copies the ideas and not the a simple phrase that can be used in many contexts.

[why me]

Which, if he plagiarized from it, would be a very bad move.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_plagerize_view.htm

There is a typo in the piece putting the lunar voyage at 1869 and not 1969.

[why me]

The view of the hebrews was first published in 1823 and reissued in 1825. The book of mormon came forth in 1830. However the writer of the book of mormon had to start his book a few years back since it would take a few years to formulate the ideas in the book of mormon and the storyline. It is not a book to be written in a day. So, lets say that the fraudster had to begin the book in 1824. Joseph was nineteen at the time, happily digging for treasure and working on the farm but in between treasure hunts, working on a farm and being interested in a woman called emma hale, he was also writing the book of mormon with the View of the Hebrews in his pocket as a guide copying simple phrases while thinking up a complicated storyline. Remembering how it was at nineteen or twenty, if I met a young woman that I was interested in, she occupied a lot of my thoughts. I don't think that joseph was much different since he married emma not long after.

He was an amazing guy. But I do not remember any family members seeing Joseph reading the View at that time.

Edited May 12, 2012 by why me

[DBMormon]

I wonder if Satan worked in some of these alternative ideas into the culture at the time to give reasons to doubt?

not that they are works of satan in an evil sense just that he knew he could draw others away with other explanantions

[phaedrus ut]

I wonder if Satan worked in some of these alternative ideas into the culture at the time to give reasons to doubt?

not that they are works of satan in an evil sense just that he knew he could draw others away with other explanantions

You can attribute almost any negative evidence to manipulation by Satan. I've long read that scientific evidence such as dinosaur bones, arguments against a global flood, and the theory of evolution are really Satan trying to keep people from the truth. If you're someone that holds to such a possibility really nothing is ultimately knowable because the possibilities for supernatural manipulation of evidence is only limited by our imagination.

Using a scientific world view you're not allowed supernatural explanations for information you don't like. When you encounter data that is contrary to your assumptions you need change your theory to incorporate the reality of the unexpected information. Neither is right or wrong, it is just a choice of worldview and how to live your life.

Phaedrus

[cdowis]

You claimed that "The [book of Mormon] writers were specifically commanded to restrict their writings to one purpose -- to bring people to Christ." You've provided verses from two writers - Nephi and Jacob - and the name Christ is not present in any of the verses. In fact, if I may be permitted to school you; the introduction to 1 Nephi states Nephi writes of the things of God—Nephi’s purpose is to persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham." Specifically, not Christ. Fail.

Again, I am happy to give you a lesson on the BOM. Your homework assignment, if you chose to take it:

1. Read a study the Title Page of the BOM.

2. 1 Ne 19:18, 23.

3. 2 Ne 33: 4.

4. Please do research on the following topics: who is the "Redeemer", who is the God of Israel (also known as Jehovah).

Having done your homework, you will understand the purpose of the BOM and the role it plays as a Testamant for Christ, the Redeemer, the God of Abraham. I understand that all of your time has been spent as a critic, so perhaps you can now become familiar with the actual text of the BOM, rather than the rantings of the antimormons.

Edited May 17, 2012 by cdowis

[Vance]

You claimed that "The [book of Mormon] writers were specifically commanded to restrict their writings to one purpose -- to bring people to Christ." You've provided verses from two writers - Nephi and Jacob - and the name Christ is not present in any of the verses. In fact, if I may be permitted to school you; the introduction to 1 Nephi states Nephi writes of the things of God—Nephi’s purpose is to persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham." Specifically, not Christ. Fail.

Humm.

1 Nephi 19:10 And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel.

So, who is the "God of Abraham"?