1500S Grammar In The Book Of Mormon. Help Me See Why That's "dramatically Exciting"

[DJBrown]

What you need to do, is first of all get hold of an 1820s felt

stovepipe hat -- white, or very light in color -- old, worn out,

with irregularities, holes, patches, voids along a once circular

interior brim.

 

Once you have such a large, multi-holed, thin light-colored hat,

you need to set it on a table next to a whale oil lamp, turned up

so that the wick is producing the brightest light. A kerosene

lamp will generally not be so bright.

 

Now, once you have that set-up on the table, place a couple of

playing cards inside the hat. When you peer inside, do not force

your face down with any amount of pressure. Just rest your

forehead and cheeks against the hat's edges.

 

Having done as I've suggested, I predict that you'll not only be

able to distinguish the Queen of Diamonds from the Ace of Spades,

but very likely will be able to read the fine print of the copyright

at the bottom of the spade design.

 

Try it. -- Or, just ask any experienced stage magician how best

to fool onlookers who believe they are scrutinizing your every move.

 

But, I doubt such a hat (even with a peepstone inside) will allow

you to see under the ground.

 

 

.

UD

And who was that guy who signed his letters "Old White Hat?"

 

Why do you claim the hat had holes?  Convenience?

[Glenn101]

 

Having done as I've suggested, I predict that you'll not only be

able to distinguish the Queen of Diamonds from the Ace of Spades,

but very likely will be able to read the fine print of the copyright

at the bottom of the spade design.

 

Try it. -- Or, just ask any experienced stage magician how best

to fool onlookers who believe they are scrutinizing your every move.

 

But, I doubt such a hat (even with a peepstone inside) will allow

you to see under the ground.

 

 

 

.

UD

And who was that guy who signed his letters "Old White Hat?"

 

A new twist that we cannot prove or disprove right now. But may I express my doubts??? From hat I have read, the hat in question was probably a top hat, as you have noted, but it also was probably made of beaver skins, which was the favorite material up until some time in the 1830's. Joseph's hat may have been white and possibly the outer material was felt, however, if that felt was worn through, the underlying base material which gave the hat it;s strength would hardly have been worn through enough to allow a significant amount of light. Good try though,

 

And now, you are claiming that Joseph was an accomplished magician???

 

Glenn

[VideoGameJunkie]

They should retranslate the Book of Mormon into modern English. More people would read it and understand it better. People have told me they have a hard time understanding scriptures because of the language of English it's written in.

[Uncle Dale]

Why do you claim the hat had holes?  Convenience?

 

.

Joseph's stovepipe hat is variously described as old,

worn, etc. Whether it had holes the size of a gap in

the seems, or holes the size of moth-bites is not the

major point here. Postulate a few such holes, or fewer

still -- the main consideration is the white color. Just

like a white sheet passes more light, when set up as

a screen, than a black one, so does a white hat.

 

Now, if Joseph's discarded tophat (which he may have

picked up from a Manchester rubbish heap) had been a

brown or black beaver -- the interior would have been

predictably darker (even with a few holes and other

light-emitting irregularities).

 

But a worn-out, thin white stovepipe was just the magician's

tophat most suited for various parlor tricks.

 

Then again -- some might remind us that Oliver Cowdery,

who sat close to the "translator" hour and after hour, and

day after day, never reported any suspicion of Joseph's

playing such tricks. And Oliver Cowdery had plenty of

opportunities to denounce Smith as an impostor during

Oliver's years away from the Church.

 

If every single word in the Book of Mormon was dictated

to Oliver, with Joseph Smith's head looking into even a

dimly illuminated hat, then Smith would have betrayed

some evidence of imposture somewhere amid all those

many days and nights. Oliver's failure to communicate any

such suspicion would be Smith's best alibi, I suppose.

 

UD

(that is -- IF every single word was so dictated, of course)

[mfbukowski]

The large quantity of verbatim KJV Bible is what I find to be the biggest single critique of the BoM's authenticity.  It is for all intents and purposes impossible for that amount of text to be translated exactly the same, especially given the number of languages involved.  In addition, there isn't any consistency in the changes.  You have verses that are identical, some with differences in meaning, but the big WTF are those that are nearly identical, but with a few changed words that offer no discernable change in meaning to the scripture.  It's almost as if JS was memorizing the Bible verses and simply missed a couple of words.  

Yeah and Joseph was too stupid to think anyone would notice, right?

 

Like maybe "Uh, If I slip this in there - no one ever reads the bible anyway, so who will even know?"   Is that what you think, or do you think there must be another explanation?

 

Have you ever even thought this through as if you were a fraud writing a "scripture"??  Would you include huge passages that were not even original and think no one would notice?

 

Do you think as a fraud that maybe you might have come up with a better idea?

 

I would really like to hear an explanation for why you think those quotes are there- assuming of course those quotes confirm that the BOM is inauthentic, in your mind.

 

I find that kind of hypothesis absurd.  Think like a crooked Joseph Smith would think and tell me precisely why you would do that.

Edited March 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think it could have been a combination of a good memory and the use of aids. Witnesses claimed Joseph never used a Bible, but he wouldn't have had to. All he would have really needed were notes with the verses written down that could have easily been concealed and placed in the hat. Or if you believe Oliver was more than just a good scribe, the notes could have been in plain sight and then quickly hidden if someone came in unexpectedly.

WHY would he do that?  When he could just make up some other stories?   What was that supposed to accomplish?

 

Throw in a couple of more wars, or spiritual parables, or whatever.  Why raise questions??

Edited March 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

And now, you are claiming that Joseph was an accomplished magician???

 

 

.

No more so than was Joseph Howard of Sodus (a little north of Palmyra).

Young Howard played the role of prophet and trance-preacher for a

year or two, during the height of the 1817 Palmyra area religious revival.

 

Then he was brought to Dr. McIntyre (the Smiths' family doctor) and

was "cured of" (or dissuaded from) his religious imposition. I'm more

than half-convinced that his mentor in such trickery was Walters the

Magician, of Sodus -- but I'll have to conduct additional research to

see how close their families lived to each other, and what connection

can be documented.

 

At any rate, I'm told that Walters bragged about having traveled to

Europe, was able to deceive an audience, etc. Sounds like an early

promoter of Mesmerism (or deceiver with some knowledge of it).

 

A local phoney magician like Walters was just the sort of fellow to

claim abilities for supernatural activities -- seeing under the ground,

etc. If young Smith knew a mentor like Walters, that would have

provided a very useful apprenticeship for a peepstone artist.

 

UD

Edited March 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

If I was making up a fake scripture I would not include ANYTHING which made my case LESS plausible.   It was already a totally ridiculous story- angels and plates- why would you include verses from the bible verbatim?

 

It makes no sense

 

Even today people see this as a "problem" in the BOM.  Suppose he did some reverse psychology and put it in there to CAUSE this question to be raised.

 

Why would he do that??   Arguably it is still causing him problems nearly 200 years later.

 

There is no way I would do that.

 

Any way you see it, Joseph was no dummie

Edited March 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

 

Any way you see it, Joseph was no dummie

 

.

Nor was the fellow who composed the 1824 "3rd Epistle of Peter."

It's KJV lingo emulation is done nicely enough to have impressed

the Rev. Elias Smith and Elder Alexander Campbell (both of whom

reprinted the pseudo-scripture).

 

 

It would not have taken a theological genius to discern that this

"long lost scripture" was a clever piece of anti-clerical satire --

but satire written with more than cynicism in mind -- satire put

forth in "thees" and "thous" to expose hireling priests who

deceive their parishioners in order to get gain.

 

The fellow who took the trouble to compose that sermon disguised

as St. Peter's ancient preaching had a purpose in mind, and his

acid wit demonstrates that he was no dummie, either. In a fairly

short span of ersatz King James prose that writer conveyed the

fact that modern (for 1824) creedal Christianity had some very

bad problems, and was in need of a restoration, back to the

Old Jerusalem Gospel of Peter the Great Fisherman.

 

UD

(Dr. Criddle identifies the composer's wordprint as being the same as Sidney Rigdon's)

Edited March 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Robert F. Smith]

A new twist that we cannot prove or disprove right now. But may I express my doubts??? From hat I have read, the hat in question was probably a top hat, as you have noted, but it also was probably made of beaver skins, which was the favorite material up until some time in the 1830's. Joseph's hat may have been white and possibly the outer material was felt, however, if that felt was worn through, the underlying base material which gave the hat it;s strength would hardly have been worn through enough to allow a significant amount of light. Good try though,

 

And now, you are claiming that Joseph was an accomplished magician???

 

Glenn

Maybe he is saying that Joe Smith was a Renaissance Magus.

[Robert F. Smith]

.

No more so than was Joseph Howard of Sodus (a little north of Palmyra).

Young Howard played the role of prophet and trance-preacher for a

year or two, during the height of the 1817 Palmyra area religious revival.

 

Then he was brought to Dr. McIntyre (the Smiths' family doctor) and

was "cured of" (or dissuaded from) his religious imposition. I'm more

than half-convinced that his mentor in such trickery was Walters the

Magician, of Sodus -- but I'll have to conduct additional research to

see how close their families lived to each other, and what connection

can be documented.

 

At any rate, I'm told that Walters bragged about having traveled to

Europe, was able to deceive an audience, etc. Sounds like an early

promoter of Mesmerism (or deceiver with some knowledge of it).

 

A local phoney magician like Walters was just the sort of fellow to

claim abilities for supernatural activities -- seeing under the ground,

etc. If young Smith knew a mentor like Walters, that would have

provided a very useful apprenticeship for a peepstone artist.

 

UD

Reminds me of Richard Bushman, "Joseph Smith and the Palmyra Magicians," paper presented April 13, 1978, at the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians.

 

Also reminds me of a lecture once given by the late Rev. Wesley P. Walters in which he referred to the magician Walters.  He had to stop and swear that he was "not making any of this up," to a good deal of laughter.

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................   

I predict that the vast majority of those charts will portray word,

grammar, style, etc. patterns consistent with the first quarter and

the last quarter of the text, not only being written in sequence,

at the end of the "translation" process, but also documenting

shifts in language use occurring in that same chronological

sequence.

 

Certainly such a set of charts (say, a couple of hundred) would

provide a useful resource for serious students of the Nephite

Record and its text-critical analysis.

 

Correct?

 

UD

I understood you on that score as well, and think it a worthwhile research program.  However, it remains to be proved, QED.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think it could have been a combination of a good memory and the use of aids. Witnesses claimed Joseph never used a Bible, but he wouldn't have had to. All he would have really needed were notes with the verses written down that could have easily been concealed and placed in the hat. Or if you believe Oliver was more than just a good scribe, the notes could have been in plain sight and then quickly hidden if someone came in unexpectedly.

The problem is that people circulated in and out all the time, including Emma, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, and others, and none recall seeing any aides memoire.  There was no blanket separating the translator, scribe, and family.

[Uncle Dale]

The problem is that people circulated in and out all the time, including Emma, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, and others, and none recall seeing any aides memoire.  There was no blanket separating the translator, scribe, and family.

 

 

Of course all of that observation would mean very little, if what those

people saw dictated was not the text that ended up in the book itself.

At Harmony Smith was penniless, and paper probably came dear.

 

At the Whitmer home sheets of foolscap (folded lengthwise, making

four longish pages to the sheet) no doubt came more easily. Entire

sheets could be discarded, without a worry about replacing the paper.

Who is to say that what was written down under observing eyes was

the same as made it into the printed book, in each and every instance?

 

Whitmer observation most likely was not continuous -- nor would Oliver's

solitary, "after hours" efforts have drawn much attention.

 

One possibility is that some of the text was dictated (as observed) and

some of it was produced in other ways. Without the full Dictated MS

available for consultation, we do not know which pages in that original

contained artifacts of dictation and which pages might have had the

look of "clean copy" -- produced away from Whitmer scrutiny.

 

No doubt some of the text was dictated and written down as it was

being dictated. Maybe some of it was even thus produced in Badger's

Tavern near Colesville, with various and sundry lookers-on. But I've

heard of nothing in the way of evidence that would have prevented

entire signatures of the MS being written down by Cowdery on his

own, away from prying eyes.

 

UD

Edited March 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[omni]

.

No more so than was Joseph Howard of Sodus (a little north of Palmyra).

Young Howard played the role of prophet and trance-preacher for a

year or two, during the height of the 1817 Palmyra area religious revival.

 

Then he was brought to Dr. McIntyre (the Smiths' family doctor) and

was "cured of" (or dissuaded from) his religious imposition. I'm more

than half-convinced that his mentor in such trickery was Walters the

Magician, of Sodus -- but I'll have to conduct additional research to

see how close their families lived to each other, and what connection

can be documented.

 

At any rate, I'm told that Walters bragged about having traveled to

Europe, was able to deceive an audience, etc. Sounds like an early

promoter of Mesmerism (or deceiver with some knowledge of it).

 

A local phoney magician like Walters was just the sort of fellow to

claim abilities for supernatural activities -- seeing under the ground,

etc. If young Smith knew a mentor like Walters, that would have

provided a very useful apprenticeship for a peepstone artist.

 

UD

 

You make great points about the ease it would be to read notes from the hat.  As to your point about possible connections to Joseph and Walters, while it may be possible, I don't believe Joseph would have had to of known an accomplished magician in order to pull it off.  Misdirection, slight of hand and the power of suggestion are some of the most basic and fundamental rules of magic - people have been using them for thousands of years.  Joseph could have easily picked up a few basic techniques during his experience at money digging.  These people believed Joseph to be a prophet, why would they offend God and not believe Joseph when he tells them "there's nothing in my hat" or "up my sleeve"?

[omni]

Yeah and Joseph was too stupid to think anyone would notice, right?

 

 

 

Actually, I think Joseph was brilliant in many aspects, but that doesn't mean he wasn't prone to make mistakes expected of an uneducated farm boy living 1830 upstate New York (refer to exhibit 1: BoM Anachronisms).  While I believe this to be a glaring and unexplainable red flag, I realize I'm probably in the minority here.  I've never read of anybody losing their testimony over this issue and I'm sure there are many people sitting in the pews today that are much more intelligent than I who have never given it a second thought.  Doesn't mean either of us are stupid, just that we may think differently.

 

Like maybe "Uh, If I slip this in there - no one ever reads the bible anyway, so who will even know?"   Is that what you think, or do you think there must be another explanation?

 

 

 

Which is why Joseph changed half of the verses.  If I'm correct about my theory, then at the time Joseph would not have been very familiar with legitimate translations and it would not be unreasonable for him to believe this to be sufficient.  This shouldn't come to any surprise considering his circumstances and the fact that vast majority of BoM readers today (who are much more educated than he was) likely never give it a second thought.

 

Have you ever even thought this through as if you were a fraud writing a "scripture"??  Would you include huge passages that were not even original and think no one would notice?

 

 

 

Absolutely not, but that has no bearing on what Joseph might have done.

 

 

I would really like to hear an explanation for why you think those quotes are there- assuming of course those quotes confirm that the BOM is inauthentic, in your mind.

 

 

I've given you my theories, now your turn.  Why are there 202 verbatim KJV Isaiah verses in the BoM?  What's you explanation as to how Joseph's translation matched verbatim those of the committee that translated the KJV.  Remember, the BoM verses were translated from ancient Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian to an ancient American language written by Mormon to Jacobean English.  This would have certainly caused a lot of variance in words, even if the "correct" message or meaning remained.  Statistically, I think one could expect a few of the verses to match exactly, but certainly not half of them.  How do you explain the verses that were changed by just a few words, but offer no change in meaning to the verse?

[omni]

WHY would he do that?  When he could just make up some other stories?   What was that supposed to accomplish?

 

Throw in a couple of more wars, or spiritual parables, or whatever.  Why raise questions??

 

Tying the Bible to the BoM adds legitimacy.  The Bible was the only scripture most of these people knew, why would he not created that connection?

[omni]

The problem is that people circulated in and out all the time, including Emma, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, and others, and none recall seeing any aides memoire.  There was no blanket separating the translator, scribe, and family.

 

I don't know if Emma is the most reliable witness as she went to her grave denying Joseph ever practiced polygamy.  Even still, as Dale and I have explained, it would not have been difficult for Joseph to have hidden notes to refer to.

[Glenn101]

.

Joseph's stovepipe hat is variously described as old,

worn, etc. Whether it had holes the size of a gap in

the seems, or holes the size of moth-bites is not the

major point here. Postulate a few such holes, or fewer

still -- the main consideration is the white color. Just

like a white sheet passes more light, when set up as

a screen, than a black one, so does a white hat.

 

Now, if Joseph's discarded tophat (which he may have

picked up from a Manchester rubbish heap) had been a

brown or black beaver -- the interior would have been

predictably darker (even with a few holes and other

light-emitting irregularities).

 

But a worn-out, thin white stovepipe was just the magician's

tophat most suited for various parlor tricks.

 

Then again -- some might remind us that Oliver Cowdery,

who sat close to the "translator" hour and after hour, and

day after day, never reported any suspicion of Joseph's

playing such tricks. And Oliver Cowdery had plenty of

opportunities to denounce Smith as an impostor during

Oliver's years away from the Church.

 

If every single word in the Book of Mormon was dictated

to Oliver, with Joseph Smith's head looking into even a

dimly illuminated hat, then Smith would have betrayed

some evidence of imposture somewhere amid all those

many days and nights. Oliver's failure to communicate any

such suspicion would be Smith's best alibi, I suppose.

 

UD

(that is -- IF every single word was so dictated, of course)

 

Dale, you missed the point about the construction of the top hats. Even if the outer covering was felt and was worn thin, the base construction materials were not porous and easily worn through. Your theory has holes in it where no holes exist.

 

And yes, the many witness accounts, some who were not "friendly" observers, i.e. believers in Joseph's stories, paint a pretty tight picture. The "magician" angle is another attempt to explain how Joseph may have done something, with no evidence to back it up.

 

 

 

 

In Post #116, Omni said:

 

"Which is why Joseph changed half of the verses.  If I'm correct about my theory, then at the time Joseph would not have been very familiar with legitimate translations and it would not be unreasonable for him to believe this to be sufficient.  This shouldn't come to any surprise considering his circumstances and the fact that vast majority of BoM readers today (who are much more educated than he was) likely never give it a second thought."

 

 

There are scholars that have given the matter a lot of thought. Again, maybe you should read John A. Tvedtnes work on "Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon."  I will quote one section here:

 

"To be frank, I did not expect to find the volume of support for the BM version of Isaiah that I did in fact discover. I knew enough about ancient manuscripts to realize that there were oftentimes several different versions, no two of which agreed completely with one another. In such cases it is impossible to know which version, if any, is the “original.” It was therefore necessary to allow for errors on the brass plates of Laban from which the BM Isaiah passages were taken."

 

Some scholar or other needs to ascertain why or how Joseph Smith was able to make his "alterations" agree with so many variants found in many ancient manuscripts.

 

Glenn

[UtahTexan]

Actually, I think Joseph was brilliant in many aspects, but that doesn't mean he wasn't prone to make mistakes expected of an uneducated farm boy living 1830 upstate New York (refer to exhibit 1: BoM Anachronisms).  While I believe this to be a glaring and unexplainable red flag, I realize I'm probably in the minority here.  I've never read of anybody losing their testimony over this issue and I'm sure there are many people sitting in the pews today that are much more intelligent than I who have never given it a second thought.  Doesn't mean either of us are stupid, just that we may think differently.

 

 

Which is why Joseph changed half of the verses.  If I'm correct about my theory, then at the time Joseph would not have been very familiar with legitimate translations and it would not be unreasonable for him to believe this to be sufficient.  This shouldn't come to any surprise considering his circumstances and the fact that vast majority of BoM readers today (who are much more educated than he was) likely never give it a second thought.

 

 

Absolutely not, but that has no bearing on what Joseph might have done.

 

 

I've given you my theories, now your turn.  Why are there 202 verbatim KJV Isaiah verses in the BoM?  What's you explanation as to how Joseph's translation matched verbatim those of the committee that translated the KJV.  Remember, the BoM verses were translated from ancient Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian to an ancient American language written by Mormon to Jacobean English.  This would have certainly caused a lot of variance in words, even if the "correct" message or meaning remained.  Statistically, I think one could expect a few of the verses to match exactly, but certainly not half of them.  How do you explain the verses that were changed by just a few words, but offer no change in meaning to the verse?

The parts of the Book or Mormon that were taken from the Bible was the least of the red flags I encountered when I was anti.  Now, I now consider myself coming back to the Church, but I will address why this was never a red flag for me in my anti-days.

 

If I was instructed to write a book.....and I was to teach things that were already taught by a different author, it would make sense for me to simply quote those passages the best I could and the provide attribution.  That is exactly what was done here.  Why would there be a need to interpret if the Lord has told me that this teaching is found in the Bible...and even though they are also on the plates, ........

 

It was never a red flag for me.  I can imagine Joseph wondering if people would reject the Book for this reason, but God telling Joseph that His teaching is just as valuable in either Book.....

[omni]

 

Whitmer observation most likely was not continuous -- nor would Oliver's

solitary, "after hours" efforts have drawn much attention.

 

One possibility is that some of the text was dictated (as observed) and

some of it was produced in other ways. Without the full Dictated MS

available for consultation, we do not know which pages in that original

contained artifacts of dictation and which pages might have had the

look of "clean copy" -- produced away from Whitmer scrutiny.

 

No doubt some of the text was dictated and written down as it was

being dictated. Maybe some of it was even thus produced in Badger's

Tavern near Colesville, with various and sundry lookers-on. But I've

heard of nothing in the way of evidence that would have prevented

entire signatures of the MS being written down by Cowdery on his

own, away from prying eyes.

 

UD

 

I hope this isn't a derail, but what are your thoughts on Oliver helping Joseph write the BoM?  I haven't spent a lot of time on this, but it makes sense to me that he did.  

 

• OC was the primary scribe for the BoM.  I read somewhere that during his time as scribe that he averaged three times as many pages per day as with the other scribes.   
• As far as I'm aware, OC was the only witness to also have an additional angelic visitation (John the Baptist) with Joseph.
• Oliver's connection with View of the Hebrews.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...it would make sense for me to simply quote those passages the best I could and the provide attribution....

 

Something along these lines has long constituted the consensus

Reorganized LDS view of the book and its "author and proprietor."

 

That anything that leads a sinner to Jesus is essentially "true" and

"good" -- even if the parable is symbolic (never actually happened)

or the narration dramatic (such as Job's story, which cab be viewed

as a morality play, rather than an authentic history).

 

The 21st Century Community of Christ membership has seemingly

advanced a step beyond the consensus viewpoint of the church I

once knew, and today most younger members consider the Book of

Mormon to be no more authentic history than is the Book of Abraham,

and thus of no more "divinity" than Milton's "Paradise Lost," or than

Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" (both pious Christian narratives).

 

Jan Shipps ventured into something like this stance, way back when

the very first issue of the MHA's "Journal" was published -- that Smith

was a prophet (of sorts) even though something of a puzzle. Many

non-Mormon scholars have accepted her general viewpoint -- that

Smith meant to do good, and to bring souls to Christ, and that is the

basic starting point that any outsider should consider, when beginning

to think about or to study the results of his 19th century "prophetship."

 

Ex-Mormons like Dan Vogel and Mike Quinn retain a high respect for

Smith, seeing him as a highly virtuous religious innovator who now

and then utilized saintly trickery and elements of popular "white magic,"

but who truly wished to bring the Gospel to sinners.

 

Fawn Brodie may be credited as having given birth to these various

positive views of Smith and his book (even to the RLDS relaxation of

previously held views, though the RLDS leaders initially felt that she

had betrayed their trust in having shared archival sources with her).

 

A split among Brodie's followers can be seen, however, with advocates

like Dan Vogel representing the "pro" side of the division, and Sandra

Tanner the "con" side (yes -- pun definitely intended).

 

To Vogel Smith was an admirable Christian leader who graduated from

claiming to see things hidden under the ground, to a sincere (but

somewhat self-deluded) evangelist of the Gospel, who patterned his

scripture-like sermons and pseudo-historical innovations upon the

working out of religious conflicts encountered in his own life, and thus

"writ large" upon the mass scale of a successful religious movement,

 

To Sandra Tanner Smith remained the cunning pretender who conned

money-diggers, all his life through. His gold bible, seen from such a

fundamentalist Christian perspective is nothing but blasphemy.

 

I suppose that a modern, observant Mormon can accept none of the

"con" side of questions arising out of the "prophet puzzle." Such members

"know beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the book is "true" history, and

can bear a sincere and truthful testimony to that effect. They will only

accept those bits and pieces of history (pointed out by Brodie and those

who followed in her footsteps) where that "history" remains compatible

with pious testimony. For many of them, even Rough Stone Rolling may

be a bridge too far.

 

UD

[Uncle Dale]

 

I hope this isn't a derail, but what are your thoughts on Oliver helping Joseph write the BoM?  I haven't spent a lot of time on this, but it makes sense to me that he did.  

 

• OC was the primary scribe for the BoM.  I read somewhere that during his time as scribe that he averaged three times as many pages per day as with the other scribes.   
• As far as I'm aware, OC was the only witness to also have an additional angelic visitation (John the Baptist) with Joseph.
• Oliver's connection with View of the Hebrews.

 

 

Oliver learned his printer's trade somewhere -- and the most likely

time and place would have been his serving an apprenticeship with

the local Poultney, Vermont newspaper in his youth. The editor and

publisher of that paper was Ethan Smith's son, and the father's

contributions to that newspaper were being published when Oliver

was a senior schoolboy, nearing the time when he would leave New

England and travel along the road flanking the under-construction

marvel of the age -- the westward-leading Erie Canal. He need not

even have read the 1823 "View of the Hebrews," if he now and then

browsed Ethan Smith's columns in his hometown newspaper.

 

 

I can see no way that Mormonism could NOT be true, without Oliver

knowing its secret origins.

 

Either he met Christ, face-to-face, in the Kirtland Temple, standing

alongside Joseph Smith, Jr., or else he did not. If that Christophany

was "true" then I suppose Oliver's silence regarding Mormon origins

betokens nothing. What he wrote while still an active member was

his testimony -- period.

 

If Oliver lied about the Kirtland Temple vision, then we can assume

that he lied about Peter, James & John, and that he lied about the

appearance of John the Baptist as well.

 

As for Elijah and Elias -- well, Oliver's expression sure looks sincere:

 

 

A lot depends upon Oliver's having told a true account of things in

his Messenger and Advocate letters to Phelps.

 

Let each investigator come to his, or her, own conclusions.

 

UD

Edited March 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Gervin]

Many non-Mormon scholars have accepted her general viewpoint -- that

Smith meant to do good, and to bring souls to Christ, and that is the

basic starting point that any outsider should consider, when beginning

to think about or to study the results of his 19th century "prophetship."

 

 

 

 

I wonder.  I believe the motivations so wound up in the actual words that unraveling the text, authors and influences provides some "motivational factors" to consider.  And there's also the personal body of work to consider.

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................................   

The 21st Century Community of Christ membership has seemingly

advanced a step beyond the consensus viewpoint of the church I

once knew, and today most younger members consider the Book of

Mormon to be no more authentic history than is the Book of Abraham,

and thus of no more "divinity" than Milton's "Paradise Lost," or than

Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" (both pious Christian narratives).

This tendency has been quite pronounced among nominal mainstream Christians as well (which is the direction RLDS leadership has taken the CoC), which also means a massive loss of membership over time, as people drift away from what has become no more than a literary committment.  One could simply join a book club . . .

 

Jan Shipps ventured into something like this stance, way back when

the very first issue of the MHA's "Journal" was published -- that Smith

was a prophet (of sorts) even though something of a puzzle. Many

non-Mormon scholars have accepted her general viewpoint -- that

Smith meant to do good, and to bring souls to Christ, and that is the

basic starting point that any outsider should consider, when beginning

to think about or to study the results of his 19th century "prophetship."

 

Ex-Mormons like Dan Vogel and Mike Quinn retain a high respect for

Smith, seeing him as a highly virtuous religious innovator who now

and then utilized saintly trickery and elements of popular "white magic,"

but who truly wished to bring the Gospel to sinners.

Actually, Quinn (who believes the Book of Mormon historically authentic) and Shipps (who is Methodist) took a more nuanced approach:  Religion and magic are indistinguishable, something which Fawn Brodie and the Tanners could not comprehend.  Well, they (Brodie and the Tanners) were not trained historians and were unable to bring critical scholarship to bear.

 

.................................................................................

 For many of them, even Rough Stone Rolling may

be a bridge too far.

..............................................

Most have never heard of, and will never even read the book, so we will not know whether it is too much for them.

 

What we do know is that careful non-Mormon scholars have seen Joseph as the same sort of prophet which inhabits the OT, while of course noting that those OT prophets were no more authentic than Joseph Smith Jr. (cf. Eduard Meyer), and the same applies across the board with scholarly views of Jesus as a great man, but for whom there is no evidence of Resurrection.  Indeed, one scholar made the case that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon in order to defend God against his early 19th century detractors.

 

In such cases, rather than simply accepting such tendencies, some scholars have been interested in addressing the hard, substantive questions of authenticity:  Are there ways in which one can scientifically investigate biblical and Mormon claims?  Can the full range of scholarly tools be brought to bear on such religious and historical questions?  One can assemble all the historical documents and evaluate them (as Bushman and others have done).  One can also apply the best of archeological methods to the matter, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

May not seem as much fun as being a gadabout, but it brings more substantive results.