Book of Mormon Origin

[Johnnie Cake]

No disrespect intended...but out of respect I have removed the word magic from my post on how Shakespeare wrote his works. 

But I do have a few questions for you?  Do you find it impossible to accept that Joseph Smith, just like Shakespeare, is the author of his own dictated works?  To me, this is the simplest and most likely scenario.  And if you can accept that Shakespeare is the lone author of his works, why not Smith?  Which is more likely, that he dictated them himself or that the churches narrative occurred?  Seriously this seems to be a no brainier.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[James Tunney]

46 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No disrespect intended...but out of respect I have removed the word magic from my post on how Shakespeare wrote his works. 

But I do have a few questions for you?  Do you find it impossible to accept that Joseph Smith, just like Shakespeare, is the author of his own dictated works?  To me, this is the simplest and most likely scenario.  And if you can accept that Shakespeare is the lone author of his works, why not Smith?  Which is more likely, that he dictated them himself or that the churches narrative occurred?  Seriously this seems to be a no brainier.

Indeed.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Not exactly, I'm merely stating that it makes more sense to me that an angel gave him the plates that he translated with his rock into his works than that any human being would have the breath of imagination and skills necessary to produce the works attributed to Shakespeare.  This makes perfect sense.

Then, why don't you believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph's story???

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

On 6/22/2016 at 9:26 AM, stemelbow said:

We'll never seem to really ever resolve how the BoM came to be. 

And never will.

It is a mystery beyond human ability to explain, and that is why I go with my testimony.  It's the only thing that works for me.

Thanks for the great post.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/22/2016 at 10:33 AM, CV75 said:

Direct or indirect... why or how does it matter? Does it matter whether either of us came directly or indirectly from God?

It cant matter!

Clearly it came through Joseph's mind, whatever the source.  All scripture comes thru a human mind

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No disrespect intended...but out of respect I have removed the word magic from my post on how Shakespeare wrote his works. 

But I do have a few questions for you?  Do you find it impossible to accept that Joseph Smith, just like Shakespeare, is the author of his own dictated works?  To me, this is the simplest and most likely scenario.  And if you can accept that Shakespeare is the lone author of his works, why not Smith?  Which is more likely, that he dictated them himself or that the churches narrative occurred?  Seriously this seems to be a no brainier.

Harold Bloom does not think it to be a "no brainer." He is quoted as saying "I can only attribute to his genius or daemons his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly." (Harold Bloom, The American Religion, 101.)

Dr. Bloom is an atheist, so the idea of a divine inspiration is not an option. He is reduced to acknowledging Joseph as a genius (without being able to explain how genius could divine things it has never been exposed to) or "daemons." How strange that an atheist should believe in demons!!!!

Glenn

 

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No disrespect intended...but out of respect I have removed the word magic from my post on how Shakespeare wrote his works. 

But I do have a few questions for you?  Do you find it impossible to accept that Joseph Smith, just like Shakespeare, is the author of his own dictated works?  To me, this is the simplest and most likely scenario.  And if you can accept that Shakespeare is the lone author of his works, why not Smith?  Which is more likely, that he dictated them himself or that the churches narrative occurred?  Seriously this seems to be a no brainier.

The simplest solution would seem to be that it occured exactly as Joseph Smith described.   Smith's testimony is that the Book of Mormon was translated by the "gift and power of God."  Any other scenario would either need to prove that God cannot bestow the necessary gifts upon man, or that he didn't bestow this gift upon Joseph Smith, or that Smith made the whole gold plates thing up.

Edited July 18, 2016 by ksfisher

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There is no historical record on Shakespeare's education...either for or against

QED

[why me]

9 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I work with live witnesses too. However, as you may know, historical witnesses are usually dead (unless we are dealing with the recent past) so it's hard to speak to them. Does the fact that one can't speak to dead witnesses mean that the dead witnesses cannot be dismissed? Surely you can think of a scenario where dead witnesses can be discounted and dismissed.

The problem with these witnesses to the book of mormon is that they never denied what they experienced. And for some it lasted a lifetime, even on death beds. This is quite strong in favor of the BoM. Now if just three recounted their exeperiences, it would all be over. But they never retracted even after it would have been very beneficial to do so. Thus, the problem that we have today. It is quite amazing if a fraud existed, that such Joseph was able to have such luck in choosing who he chose to be a witness. And lets face it, some of these witnesses, if they were engaged in a fraud saw much suffering of people because of their fraud.

[why me]

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No disrespect intended...but out of respect I have removed the word magic from my post on how Shakespeare wrote his works. 

But I do have a few questions for you?  Do you find it impossible to accept that Joseph Smith, just like Shakespeare, is the author of his own dictated works?  To me, this is the simplest and most likely scenario.  And if you can accept that Shakespeare is the lone author of his works, why not Smith?  Which is more likely, that he dictated them himself or that the churches narrative occurred?  Seriously this seems to be a no brainier.

I see a difference. WS knew that he was writing a poem or a play. Joseph would have to be willingly comitting a fraud. And seemlngly doing it in secret.. Where to buy the feathered pens, the ink, the paper etc, without someone coming forward saying that they sold joseph such materials? It would take much ink, paper, and pens to write such a book. And what to do with the drafts to the book or the scrap paper?

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, James Tunney said:

 

Quote

Robert F. Smith said:

See now Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack, “Editing Out the ‘Bad Grammar’ in the Book of Mormon,” BYU lecture, April 6, 2016, formal transcript published by Interpreter, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/grammatical-variation.pdf .

Thanks for the link.  I think Mr. Skousen privileges the 17 witnesses too much in paragraph 3 of his conclusion.  We see groups of people be tricked and defrauded all the time by certain persons touting mlm schemes.  Recently, millions believed that real estate prices would continue to increase only to find that they were victims of fraud.  So, having to deal with the 17 witness victims isn't that hard at all.  They were duped by a magician.  They were overly credulous to begin with.  Martin Harris believed anything and everything from talking to jesus who supposedly was in the form of a deer to the plates supposedly found and translated by Strang.  Whitmer thought a nephite messenger was under his shed where later his mother supposedly saw the plates.  Cowdery wanted to believe in the plates story so badly he could taste it. So, having these overly credulous witnesses isn't that remarkable and yes they can be dismissed.   

So the witness evidence is merely a multi-level-marketing scheme?  And we can freely apply this to angelic appearances, gold plates and other paraphernalia, the empty tomb, Jesus on the road to Emmaus, and the Bible.

As if that is the focus of attention of Skousen & Carmack, and as though that is the only matter at issue.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

On June 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM, stemelbow said:

We'll never seem to really ever resolve how the BoM came to be.  At some point along the way, no matter what your conclusion is about what the book is, you seem to have to add certain assumptions to your line of reasoning.  I consider here Stanford Carmack's work (http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/stanfordc/) in trying to prove the EModE (Early Modern English) base for the BoM wording, or however best to put that.  And then the theory that it was translated in 16 Century English sometime before Joseph Smith and then that translation was dictated to Joseph Smith.  Filling in the tight translation theory proposed by Skousen and we fit nicely some of the scribes explanation of how the translation--phrases appeared to Joseph and he read them off, some words would not disappear until they were spelled correctly.  I mean, alright, piecing that all together just feels difficult (http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/royal-skousen-on-a-theory-a-theory-we-have-already-got-a-theory-and-there-cannot-be-any-more-theories/), but it seems to work to some extent.  The added problem this faces is perhaps Joseph and others used some to many sources to piece it together.  I mean if that language once existed it must have been found somewhere.  It's almost like the theories proposed here could do more damage to the book being scripture than anything else.  Or does it?

When you consider what scripture is, outside of Mormonism and within traditional Christianity, it often amounts to nothing more than someone writing stories that were had.  Matthew, for instance, wasn't written by Matthew.  It was written and then attributed to Matthew, it appears, based off of oral stories and, in the case of Matthew, Mark's account (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/03/who-wrote-the-gospels-part-1/).  This makes me want more and more to hypothesize that the Book Of Mormon was written by Joseph and if scripture, as in inspired at all, it came by Joseph reiterating in a dictated fashion, stories he sees and is told.  But in so doing he had to consult other sources, like the Bible when quoted.  That variations from the biblical text are interesting, except on these principles it could be that the variations from the KJV were there because they were essentially summarized to Joseph, rather than directly quoted.  But maybe it wasn't Joseph or his partners who consulted other sources. 

I'm remembering that whole "the Late War" thing from years ago that seems to have mostly gone away.  Joseph used "the Late Way" and/or other books to come up with certain turns of phrases and the like.  How else did similarities appear?  Or perhaps those wizardry souls assigned to send the messages to Joseph were reading other works like the Late war for their own personal entertainment--"hey we' gots time to kill too, you know?"  or maybe they were stuck reading 16 century works, and didn't feel obliged to leave that era, at least not quite yet. 

The issue we have with scripture is none of it was written by God, as some like to think.  None of it was God making sure each recorded word was correct or represented His ideas.  That's the case with the BoM and the Bible.  Most of it feels like inspired commentary with parts attributed to God or His messengers.  Why should we consider the Bom to be any different?  I found this recently:  http://www.bookofmormonorigins.com/. I believe it's from those brothers who started the Late War stuff.  Here it is said:

If this is true, then it could be that the book was limited to what Joseph could comprehend.  I mean this group wants to say the BoM is not scripture because it obviously came from Joseph's environment.  I wish them well in their quest but I won't be joining because it doesn't seem to address my interest or questions.  All scripture is influenced by its time and place in history.  that's why parts of the OT, like in Isaiah, are anachronistic. 

 

Anyway, peace to you.  I know this topic is all over this board, but I wanted to get this out again. 

If the book came from his environment and was a history of the ancestors of the American Indians, then why didn't he use the words that were commonly used by his contemporary writers who also wrote about American Indians, such as canoe, tepee, wigwam, wikiup, coup, medicine, the Plains, horsemanship, tribes and clans, squaw, bison/buffalo, eagles, crows, caribou, beavers, wolves and coyotes, bear, deer, elk, and moose, tomahawks, wampum, totem, Wapiti, red, tawny, or copper skin, feathers, beads, pottery and weaving, war songs and ceremonial dances, tom-toms, drums, corn, squash, moccassins, robes, blankets, leggings, warriors and chiefs, among others?

Edited July 18, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If the book came from his environment and was a history of the ancestors of the American Indians, then why didn't he use the words that were commonly used by his contemporary writers who also wrote about American Indians, such as canoe, tepee, wigwam, wikiup, coup, medicine, the Plains, horsemanship, tribes and clans, squaw, bison/buffalo, eagles, crows, caribou, beavers, wolves and coyotes, bear, deer, elk, and moose, tomahawks, wampum, totem, Wapiti, red, tawny, or copper skin, feathers, beads, pottery and weaving, war songs and ceremonial dances, tom-toms, drums, corn, squash, moccassins, robes, blankets, leggings, warriors and chiefs, among others?

Beats me.  If it were written by Mormon and co, why did it include weird phrases found most common, and sometimes seemingly exclusively in a century other than their's and Joseph's?  I don't know.  I guess that's why Carmack and Skousen are want to see a 16th century translation previous to Joseph's dictation. 

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If the book came from his environment and was a history of the ancestors of the American Indians, then why didn't he use the words that were commonly used by his contemporary writers who also wrote about American Indians, such as canoe, tepee, wigwam, wikiup, coup, medicine, the Plains, horsemanship, tribes and clans, squaw, bison/buffalo, eagles, crows, caribou, beavers, wolves and coyotes, bear, deer, elk, and moose, tomahawks, wampum, totem, Wapiti, red, tawny, or copper skin, feathers, beads, pottery and weaving, war songs and ceremonial dances, tom-toms, drums, corn, squash, moccassins, robes, blankets, leggings, warriors and chiefs, among others?

Some of those things would have been more consistent with an ancient book of Mormon. The one concession to Native American terminology in the BOM that I can recall off hand is references to the "Great Spirit." Otherwise the language and objects described are very Biblical .

[Johnnie Cake]

Something occurred to me this morning when I logged onto MD&D...a thought really... It happened as I was reading posts to catchup on this particular thread on the Book of Mormon Origins...the thought?  "What's the point?"  The fact is, I just don't believe it any more.  I don't believe in some super natural, spectacular, suspend reality occurrence that would have had to of taken place for the Book of Mormon to have come forth according to the LDS narrative.  To me The Book of Mormon came about just like any other book ever written, through man made means.  This continuous back and forth between believers and non-believers just gets tiresome, everyone in their fixed positions defending their territory, me included, continuously picking at each other's position, looking for that dig or crack in an argument that we can get our zinger through.  And in the grand scheme of things, it makes not a single bit of difference.  No one is ever convinced, no one ever changes their position, its just an exhaustive exercise in futility.

I'm tired of this, and need to take a break. (How long I just don't know) Each of you have my greatest respect....particularly the believers who exposed themselves to posters like me and those much more knowledgeable than me and yet remain believers.  Frankly I don't know how you do it, but you have my respect.  I wish I could believe...but I just don't.   You have challenged me and yet I remain unconvinced, to me everything I know about the world and how it operates points to the Book of Mormon as a complete and utter man made fiction...I don't say that to offend anyone...its just how I see things.

Until we meet again, I bid you Adieu

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Something occurred to me this morning when I logged onto MD&D...a thought really... It happened as I was reading posts to catchup on this particular thread on the Book of Mormon Origins...the thought?  "What's the point?"  The fact is, I just don't believe it any more.  I don't believe in some super natural, spectacular, suspend reality occurrence that would have had to of taken place for the Book of Mormon to have come forth according to the LDS narrative.  To me The Book of Mormon came about just like any other book ever written, through man made means.  This continuous back and forth between believers and non-believers just gets tiresome, everyone in their fixed positions defending their territory, me included, continuously picking at each other's position, looking for that dig or crack in an argument that we can get our zinger through.  And in the grand scheme of things, it makes not a single bit of difference.  No one is ever convinced, no one ever changes their position, its just an exhaustive exercise in futility.

I'm tired of this, and need to take a break. (How long I just don't know) Each of you have my greatest respect....particularly the believers who exposed themselves to posters like me and those much more knowledgeable than me and yet remain believers.  Frankly I don't know how you do it, but you have my respect.  I wish I could believe...but I just don't.   You have challenged me and yet I remain unconvinced, to me everything I know about the world and how it operates points to the Book of Mormon as a complete and utter man made fiction...I don't say that to offend anyone...its just how I see things.

Until we meet again, I bid you Adieu

 

yep we'll see ya.  I enjoy the pushing against the LDS norm voice you brought. 

Anyway, why can't a complete and utter man made fiction be scripture?  Oh wait...you're out. 

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

Some of those things would have been more consistent with an ancient book of Mormon. The one concession to Native American terminology in the BOM that I can recall off hand is references to the "Great Spirit." Otherwise the language and objects described are very Biblical .

Then it did not come from his environment, n'est-ce pas? Writing from his environment, he would most likely include those words commonly used in periodicals, novels, and historical works with which (so say the critics) he was so intimately familiar. Spalding, Irving, Smith, Cooper, Longfellow, Hawthorne, etc., most certainly did.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[why me]

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Something occurred to me this morning when I logged onto MD&D...a thought really... It happened as I was reading posts to catchup on this particular thread on the Book of Mormon Origins...the thought?  "What's the point?"  The fact is, I just don't believe it any more.  I don't believe in some super natural, spectacular, suspend reality occurrence that would have had to of taken place for the Book of Mormon to have come forth according to the LDS narrative.  To me The Book of Mormon came about just like any other book ever written, through man made means.  This continuous back and forth between believers and non-believers just gets tiresome, everyone in their fixed positions defending their territory, me included, continuously picking at each other's position, looking for that dig or crack in an argument that we can get our zinger through.  And in the grand scheme of things, it makes not a single bit of difference.  No one is ever convinced, no one ever changes their position, its just an exhaustive exercise in futility.

I'm tired of this, and need to take a break. (How long I just don't know) Each of you have my greatest respect....particularly the believers who exposed themselves to posters like me and those much more knowledgeable than me and yet remain believers.  Frankly I don't know how you do it, but you have my respect.  I wish I could believe...but I just don't.   You have challenged me and yet I remain unconvinced, to me everything I know about the world and how it operates points to the Book of Mormon as a complete and utter man made fiction...I don't say that to offend anyone...its just how I see things.

Until we meet again, I bid you Adieu

 

How did he write the book? Where did he write it? Where did he get the means to write it? Who knew that he was writing a book? Why do it in secret? To form a plot to dupe people into believing in a new religion and if so, for what purpose? Why stick his head in a hat? Why the big narrative?

But I understand that you are tiried. I have distanced myself from the board also but then again, I have been here for more than ten years.

 

[Gray]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then it did not come from his environment, n'est-ce pas? Writing from his environment, he would most likely include those words commonly used in periodicals, novels, and historical works with which (so say the critics) he was so intimately familiar. Spalding, Irving, Smith, Cooper, Longfellow, Hawthorne, etc., most certainly did.

The imagery and language is Biblical. The topics dealt with do appear to come from his environment, though. 

[Nevo]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If the book came from his environment and was a history of the ancestors of the American Indians, then why didn't he use the words that were commonly used by his contemporary writers who also wrote about American Indians, such as canoe, tepee, wigwam, wikiup, coup, medicine, the Plains, horsemanship, tribes and clans, squaw, bison/buffalo, eagles, crows, caribou, beavers, wolves and coyotes, bear, deer, elk, and moose, tomahawks, wampum, totem, Wapiti, red, tawny, or copper skin, feathers, beads, pottery and weaving, war songs and ceremonial dances, tom-toms, drums, corn, squash, moccassins, robes, blankets, leggings, warriors and chiefs, among others?

Probably half of these terms were never used by contemporary writers (I'm thinking particularly of tepee, wikiup, counting coup, bison/buffalo, totems, tom-toms, pottery, etc.—terms associated with western and southwestern tribes that were either unknown or virtually unknown in the 1820s), so this list needs to be refined. But the exercise strikes me as misguided since Joseph Smith never presented the Book of Mormon as an account of contemporary Indians. It purported to be a history of ancient Israelites (and ancient Mesopotamians before that)—a civilized, technologically advanced society that lived in cities. Most of the Book of Mormon describes those people. So it wasn't The Last of the Mohicans. The Book of Mormon peoples had wives, not squaws, and lived in houses, not wigwams. They traded precious metals and fine silks, not beads and blankets and wampum. Occasionally, however, we get a glimpse of Lamanites that have descended into a completely savage state. These are said to live in tents and "[wander] about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax." They don't even cook their meat; like beasts of prey, they eat it raw (Enos 1:20). To my ears at least, this mention of loincloths, shaven heads, and skill with a bow and arrow and "the ax" (tomahawk?) doesn't sound wholly incongruous with early nineteenth-century stereotypes (although the addition of a cimeter is rather exotic). Neither do the later references to "the Great Spirit." 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

9 hours ago, Nevo said:

Probably half of these terms were never used by contemporary writers (I'm thinking particularly of tepee, wikiup, counting coup, bison/buffalo, totems, tom-toms, pottery, etc.—terms associated with western and southwestern tribes that were either unknown or virtually unknown in the 1820s), so this list needs to be refined. But the exercise strikes me as misguided since Joseph Smith never presented the Book of Mormon as an account of contemporary Indians. It purported to be a history of ancient Israelites (and ancient Mesopotamians before that)—a civilized, technologically advanced society that lived in cities. Most of the Book of Mormon describes those people. So it wasn't The Last of the Mohicans. The Book of Mormon peoples had wives, not squaws, and lived in houses, not wigwams. They traded precious metals and fine silks, not beads and blankets and wampum. Occasionally, however, we get a glimpse of Lamanites that have descended into a completely savage state. These are said to live in tents and "[wander] about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax." They don't even cook their meat; like beasts of prey, they eat it raw (Enos 1:20). To my ears at least, this mention of loincloths, shaven heads, and skill with a bow and arrow and "the ax" (tomahawk?) doesn't sound wholly incongruous with early nineteenth-century stereotypes (although the addition of a cimeter is rather exotic). Neither do the later references to "the Great Spirit." 

Several years ago I made an extensive search of the University of Virginia's digital library of early American literature for dozens of terms that were commonly used to describe Plains, northeastern, and woodland Native American culture and people by writers contemporary with Joseph Smith. Unfortunately I am away from home for a week and do not have access to my materials. The list above was off the top of my head so there may be words that should not be included, but there are many, many more than the ones I listed. Invariably they are not found in the Book of Mormon, except fo the brief mention of  the Great Spirit (there were other words for God more commonly used), single mentions of warrior (the ubiquitous word for soldier), tribes, and scalping (but not in the sense that it was used by American writers.) Both Ethan Smith and Solomon Spalding (proposed sources for the BoM) used such words, and many were used by Fennimore Cooper, Washington Irving, and other writers prior to 1835, which to me would make them common contemporary knowledge. Even the author of The Late War refers to tomahawks, scalping knives, scalping as an evil act of war and revenge, red savages, called Indian soldiers warriors and leaders chiefs, named beaver, eagle, foxes, divided Indians into named tribes, mentioned Indian war drums, etc.

My point is not that Joseph was writing a romance based on Indian lore such as those by Spalding or Cooper, but that if he were inventing a history of early Americans  - “there was a book...giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang," "He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, their manner of traveling, the animals which they rode, the cities that they built, and the structure of their buildings with every particular, their mode of warfare, and their religious worship as specifically as though he had spent his life with them" - from his own experience and knowledge as some critics claim, it is reasonable to assume he would have used at least some of these words and concepts. He conspicuously avoided that parlance of his time. I suppose he could have been clever enough to figure out that such words could be anachronistic and reveal his fraud. He was a pretty shrewd fellow when it came to stuff like that. Or, as I believe, the BoM events did not occur in that area of America.Simply an observation.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Rajah Manchou]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

...If he were inventing a history of early Americans  - “there was a book...giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang," "He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, their manner of traveling, the animals which they rode, the cities that they built, and the structure of their buildings with every particular, their mode of warfare, and their religious worship as specifically as though he had spent his life with them" - from his own experience and knowledge as some critics claim, it is reasonable to assume he would have used at least some of these words and concepts. He conspicuously avoided that parlance of his time. 

I've had the same thought about the geography of the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith intended to convince Americans that Israelites once lived in New York or Mesoamerica, then why doesn't the book describes the features of New York or Mesoamerica? The author, whether it was Mormon in the 5th century or Joseph Smith in the 19th century, was surely working from an internally consistent map, or knowledge of an existing physical geography. 

@Nevo Wouldn't a fraudster writing a fake American Bible at least try to make the account resemble a real place in America?