The conensus on if the BoM is directly from God.

[cdowis]

We are not discussing used cars.  He needs to be taught the basic lesson Christ told Peter

Matt 16  [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Do you think Christ was "kidding"?

Shortly after I joined the church, I asked one of the missionaries about polygamy.  He paused, and said, 'Don't worry about it."  
Best advice I have ever heard.

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

How did he do it?

If you don't mind me saying so, your questions are strange. I mean weirdly strange. "How big was that hat?  Large enough to hold a table, a candle and the source manuscript of the BOM?  Or did the hat have a window where JS could dictate from a manuscript.  How did he turn the pages."

How big was JS's hat? Really?

If you're willing to accept that, as JS told it, he took his hat from his head, placed his stone in it, then placed his face so that all light was blocked from entering,.... that would pretty much sum it up. I assumed that Joseph Smith's hat was a fairly standard top hat, common for that time.

Top hats came in various models: the empire, the high top, square, belled, Abe Lincoln, caroler, topper, John bell, to name a few. They were named, by style, as an Aylesbury, Tilbury, Oxonian, Anglesea, Collegian, etc. They were made from wool felt or silk plush or beaver skin, depending on a person's wallet and if water proofing was desired. The standard height, for a top hat, was from 16cm, to at the most, 20 centimeters (6-8 inches), slightly smaller than the size of a standard face. 

Somehow you've come up with the idea of a table, a candle and a manuscript, inside his hat. Then you introduce the idea of windows and the problem of turning pages, inside his hat. Your ideas seem more of an "Alice in Wonderland" characterization than of any disciplined discussion.

What we know of the details are, as I stated above; Joseph Smith took his hat from his head, placed his stone in it, then placed his face, covering the hole in the hat, so that no light could enter and then began dictating.

 

There are two possibilities, it would seem to me, that would come from someone putting their face into a top hat and blocking out all light.

1.) the hat would be completely dark, with a stone lying in the bottom. Without any light seeping in, the stone would remain unviewable and the hat would remain dark. If some light did seep in, the stone would be visible but probably out of focus, because it is very difficult to focus clearly on objects that are very close to the face.

If JS had a top hat, of the most outlandish style, of 8 inches high, and the stone (as from the pictures of the brown seer stone published by the church) was approximately 1 to 1 ½ inches high, the stone's surface would be within 5 to 7 inches from his eyes. Normal eyes don't focus that close to an object. try it.

2.) the stone in the hat would glow, with letters/words/concepts appearing on it/in it. The text would remain visible on the stone until the dictation was deemed correct. The stone continued to glow with each use for Joseph Smith, but apparently didn't/doesn't work for anyone else.

You have already stated which of these two possibilities you believe in. I believe in number 1.

So, no hat with table and candles inside, just darkness. The words that Joseph Smith dictated to his scribes came from Joseph's mind and mouth. It's as simple as that.

 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 3:40 PM, Tacenda said:

Today I found out that the word Atonement was made up by someone in the 1600's. How come it is in the BoM then? Is this just another anachronism that has been shuffled off as maybe Joseph Smith switching a word to help the reader understand? 

And did JS really read word for word on the Seerstone coming from God. If so, how did this word get in the BoM. I'm sure many of you have an answer and this is probably a non-issue. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

"According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."

 

 

Honestly I would  LLLOOOVVVEEE for this to be an anachronism...but sadly...I can't see how it could or would be.  The word Atonement, although having its origins in the Tyndale Bible, one of the first English Bibles, in the 16th century, was a word that was created to satisfy the need of putting into the English language a word that would convey the same meaning in English as its Greek equivalent. εξιλέωση.  So sadly no...its not anachronistic at all...and would have been in wide use by the time Joesph Smith penned his Book of Mormon

Edited September 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[cdowis]

It is reasonable to assume that there was no manuscript in the hat, and that he did not have some super eidetic memory (although we can leave this for further research).

It is a  fact that Joseph Smith specifically refused to describe the translation process, EVEN to his closest associates, including his brother Hyrum.  We also know that the physical presence of the stone was necessary in the translation process.  We know that JS had to have the plates in his possession, but it was not necessary for them to be physically present.

Any description on how JS used the stone is speculation.

The evidence is that the words were dictated in  consistent six word groups, which is suggestive of the process.  Now, whether he was looking at the stone, or through the stone are the two reasonable  possibilities, and I favor the latter for the very reason you gave in your post.

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

It is reasonable to assume that there was no manuscript in the hat, and that he did not have some super eidetic memory (although we can leave this for further research).

It is a  fact that Joseph Smith specifically refused to describe the translation process, EVEN to his closest associates, including his brother Hyrum.  We also know that the physical presence of the stone was necessary in the translation process.  We know that JS had to have the plates in his possession, but it was not necessary for them to be physically present.

Any description on how JS used the stone is speculation.

The evidence is that the words were dictated in  consistent six word groups, which is suggestive of the process.  Now, whether he was looking at the stone, or through the stone are the two reasonable  possibilities, and I favor the latter for the very reason you gave in your post.

 

Thank you for your post. I understand much better where you are coming from.

[canard78]

On 27 September 2016 at 2:05 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, since Joseph was merely reading the Engish words from the stone, we do not in fact know who did the translation into English -- although scholars now suggest that the translation bears all the earmarks of Early Modern English style and syntax in the 16th century.

The English word atonement “unity, onement,” is the source for the verb atone “to make amends for, expiate, make reparation.”  Atonement is the doctrine of the reconciliation of God and man, especially through the life, suffering, and death of Jesus Christ (Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary).  It is merely used to translate Hebrew, Greek, and other ancient terms in both Bible and Book of Mormon (Exodus 29:33,36, Romans 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:10, Alma 36:17).

 

The Jewish “Day of Atonement,” for example, comes from Hebrew yom kippur, the most holy day of the Jewish year.

 

Compare the Ugaritic sacrificial term np, npy “atonement, expurgation, purification, expiation,”[1] or Ugaritic tšlm “redemption/ payment, atonement.”[2]

 

---

[1] G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, 2^nd ed. (Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 16-17,123; KTU 1.40:1,19,36.

 

[2]G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, 2^nd ed., 165 and n. 106; KTU 1.111:22-23; G. del Olmo Lete & J. Sanmartin, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 2^nd ed., 197, 419.

 

"Actually..."???

There are several hypotheses about the translation process and where the words Joseph dictated came from. 

What you describe, with a confident certainty, is a process that was never described by Joseph himself. Joseph didn't say he read words off a stone. The accounts and hypotheses of where the words came from are fairly varied. 

Did any other witness see these "actual" words or are they making assumptions?

[cdowis]

On 9/29/2016 at 3:24 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

Thank you for your post. I understand much better where you are coming from.

I try to be obscure until I am forced to clarify.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

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

There are several hypotheses about the translation process and where the words Joseph dictated came from. 

What you describe, with a confident certainty, is a process that was never described by Joseph himself. Joseph didn't say he read words off a stone. The accounts and hypotheses of where the words came from are fairly varied. 

Did any other witness see these "actual" words or are they making assumptions?

Yes, there are varied points of view on this, and I have RLDS friends (with university degrees) who totally reject the notion of words being displayed on the screen of a solid-state device.  To each his own, I suppose.  However, the views of those closest to Joseph (and presumably hearing what he had to say personally of the process) cannot be denied, and I have covered them in the past in my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10)” (Independence, MO, June 1980), online 2010 at https://www.scribd.com/doc/46307834/Translation-of-Languages .  More recent research by others only solidifies that position, and is the reason why the LDS Gospel Topics Essays include that same view: http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng .

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, there are varied points of view on this, and I have RLDS friends (with university degrees) who totally reject the notion of words being displayed on the screen of a solid-state device.  

 

Just chiming in to say I appreciate your humor here

[champatsch]

Quote

Royal Skousen, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998): 22–31.
Abstract: Details of the translation process Joseph Smith used for translating the Book of Mormon from the plates can be adduced from statements of witnesses and from evidence in the original and printer’s manuscripts. According to witnesses, Joseph Smith often translated without the plates being present and used the interpreters to receive the revealed text. Evidence from the manuscripts themselves shows that the original manuscript was written from dictation, that Joseph Smith was working with at least twenty words at a time, that Joseph Smith could see the spelling of names, that the scribe repeated the text to Joseph Smith, and that the word chapter and the corresponding chapter numbers were not part of the revealed text. The manuscripts and text show that Joseph Smith apparently received the translation word for word and letter for letter, in what is known as “tight control.”

 

[Glenn101]

On 9/28/2016 at 5:46 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

So, no hat with table and candles inside, just darkness. The words that Joseph Smith dictated to his scribes came from Joseph's mind and mouth. It's as simple as that.

Would you mind expanding on that a bit? Although the level of Joseph's education has been downplayed and upplayed (I know, that is not a word, but I am adding it to the dictionary as the opposite of downplayed) but whatever the case, he one could not accurately describe him as being anywhere near the erudite level. Many of the critics of the day refused to believe that Joseph had the capability of producing any such document. "Ignoramus" was popular description of his abilities. Do you believe that Joseph made the entire thing up as he went along, or that he was reciting from a memorized script? Or maybe something else? Are you able (and willing) to produce a coherent theory that can account for the production of the Book of Mormon?

Glenn

[Cold Steel]

On 9/28/2016 at 6:11 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Honestly I would  LLLOOOVVVEEE for this to be an anachronism...but sadly...I can't see how it could or would be.  The word Atonement, although having its origins in the Tyndale Bible, one of the first English Bibles, in the 16th century, was a word that was created to satisfy the need of putting into the English language a word that would convey the same meaning in English as its Greek equivalent. εξιλέωση.  So sadly no...its not anachronistic at all...and would have been in wide use by the time Joesph Smith penned his Book of Mormon

The truth is, the word "atonement" isn't in the Book of Mormon as written by the ancient Nephite prophets. Neither is "adieu." That said, neither did the words "and" or "it" or "came" or "to" or "pass." In fact, it contained no English or Greek at all. That means no "Christ" either, even though it appears throughout the translation. As far as I know, the word didn't even exist in 500 B.C. Instead, the Book of Mormon contains English words translated from other words, words that almost assuredly changed over the near thousand-year history of the Nephite people. "Atonement" (meaning, of course, "at one"-ment) was a translation. To assume there was no corresponding Nephite word is, in my view, absurdly presumptuous. "Christ" and "Messiah" both are translations, perhaps of the same word. "Adieu" also was a translation, and critics will get nowhere with arguments to the contrary.

These types of translation issues have been around ever since the Book of Mormon appeared, but they show a misunderstanding of the process on converting one language to another. 

 

[JAHS]

On 9/28/2016 at 2:46 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

If you don't mind me saying so, your questions are strange. I mean weirdly strange. "How big was that hat?  Large enough to hold a table, a candle and the source manuscript of the BOM?  Or did the hat have a window where JS could dictate from a manuscript.  How did he turn the pages."

How big was JS's hat? Really?

If you're willing to accept that, as JS told it, he took his hat from his head, placed his stone in it, then placed his face so that all light was blocked from entering,.... that would pretty much sum it up. I assumed that Joseph Smith's hat was a fairly standard top hat, common for that time.

Top hats came in various models: the empire, the high top, square, belled, Abe Lincoln, caroler, topper, John bell, to name a few. They were named, by style, as an Aylesbury, Tilbury, Oxonian, Anglesea, Collegian, etc. They were made from wool felt or silk plush or beaver skin, depending on a person's wallet and if water proofing was desired. The standard height, for a top hat, was from 16cm, to at the most, 20 centimeters (6-8 inches), slightly smaller than the size of a standard face. 

Somehow you've come up with the idea of a table, a candle and a manuscript, inside his hat. Then you introduce the idea of windows and the problem of turning pages, inside his hat. Your ideas seem more of an "Alice in Wonderland" characterization than of any disciplined discussion.

What we know of the details are, as I stated above; Joseph Smith took his hat from his head, placed his stone in it, then placed his face, covering the hole in the hat, so that no light could enter and then began dictating.

 

There are two possibilities, it would seem to me, that would come from someone putting their face into a top hat and blocking out all light.

1.) the hat would be completely dark, with a stone lying in the bottom. Without any light seeping in, the stone would remain unviewable and the hat would remain dark. If some light did seep in, the stone would be visible but probably out of focus, because it is very difficult to focus clearly on objects that are very close to the face.

If JS had a top hat, of the most outlandish style, of 8 inches high, and the stone (as from the pictures of the brown seer stone published by the church) was approximately 1 to 1 ½ inches high, the stone's surface would be within 5 to 7 inches from his eyes. Normal eyes don't focus that close to an object. try it.

2.) the stone in the hat would glow, with letters/words/concepts appearing on it/in it. The text would remain visible on the stone until the dictation was deemed correct. The stone continued to glow with each use for Joseph Smith, but apparently didn't/doesn't work for anyone else.

You have already stated which of these two possibilities you believe in. I believe in number 1.

So, no hat with table and candles inside, just darkness. The words that Joseph Smith dictated to his scribes came from Joseph's mind and mouth. It's as simple as that.

 

 

We do a lot of speculation and we have to rely on the descriptions of those around Joseph. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for him to relate these things" (HC 1:220).

[canard78]

On 28 September 2016 at 10:46 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

If you don't mind me saying so, your questions are strange. I mean weirdly strange. "How big was that hat?  Large enough to hold a table, a candle and the source manuscript of the BOM?  Or did the hat have a window where JS could dictate from a manuscript.  How did he turn the pages."

How big was JS's hat? Really?

If you're willing to accept that, as JS told it, he took his hat from his head, placed his stone in it, then placed his face so that all light was blocked from entering,.... that would pretty much sum it up. I assumed that Joseph Smith's hat was a fairly standard top hat, common for that time.

Top hats came in various models: the empire, the high top, square, belled, Abe Lincoln, caroler, topper, John bell, to name a few. They were named, by style, as an Aylesbury, Tilbury, Oxonian, Anglesea, Collegian, etc. They were made from wool felt or silk plush or beaver skin, depending on a person's wallet and if water proofing was desired. The standard height, for a top hat, was from 16cm, to at the most, 20 centimeters (6-8 inches), slightly smaller than the size of a standard face. 

Somehow you've come up with the idea of a table, a candle and a manuscript, inside his hat. Then you introduce the idea of windows and the problem of turning pages, inside his hat. Your ideas seem more of an "Alice in Wonderland" characterization than of any disciplined discussion.

What we know of the details are, as I stated above; Joseph Smith took his hat from his head, placed his stone in it, then placed his face, covering the hole in the hat, so that no light could enter and then began dictating.

 

There are two possibilities, it would seem to me, that would come from someone putting their face into a top hat and blocking out all light.

1.) the hat would be completely dark, with a stone lying in the bottom. Without any light seeping in, the stone would remain unviewable and the hat would remain dark. If some light did seep in, the stone would be visible but probably out of focus, because it is very difficult to focus clearly on objects that are very close to the face.

If JS had a top hat, of the most outlandish style, of 8 inches high, and the stone (as from the pictures of the brown seer stone published by the church) was approximately 1 to 1 ½ inches high, the stone's surface would be within 5 to 7 inches from his eyes. Normal eyes don't focus that close to an object. try it.

2.) the stone in the hat would glow, with letters/words/concepts appearing on it/in it. The text would remain visible on the stone until the dictation was deemed correct. The stone continued to glow with each use for Joseph Smith, but apparently didn't/doesn't work for anyone else.

You have already stated which of these two possibilities you believe in. I believe in number 1.

So, no hat with table and candles inside, just darkness. The words that Joseph Smith dictated to his scribes came from Joseph's mind and mouth. It's as simple as that.

It would be easier for them if you just made up fantastical stories that lack any kind of rational credibility. 

You know, like an angel appearing in a room full of teenagers three days times in one night but only waking one of them. 

[cdowis]

10 minutes ago, canard78 said:

It would be easier for them if you just made up fantastical stories that lack any kind of rational credibility. 

You know, like an angel appearing in a room full of teenagers three days times in one night but only waking one of them. 

Yeah, God is able to create the universe, but His angel is unable to appear in a room without waking up someone in that room.
Makes sense, I guess.

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

We do a lot of speculation and we have to rely on the descriptions of those around Joseph. Only Joseph Smith knew the actual process, and he declined to describe it in public. At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and…it was not expedient for him to relate these things" (HC 1:220).

Hyrum invites Joseph to describe the process of how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph answers he can't tell particulars nor is it expedient.

Now, almost 200 years later, we have the story of JS's hat, we have the seer stone. We know that JS didn't have to have the golden plates anywhere around him to do the translating. What are we missing? What particulars are we missing? Are we living in a time more expedient than when JS was himself the prophet and leader?

Did Joseph Smith, at a later time from this conference in 1830, decide to disclose more information about the translating process?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Now, almost 200 years later, we have the story of JS's hat, we have the seer stone. We know that JS didn't have to have the golden plates anywhere around him to do the translating. What are we missing? What particulars are we missing? Are we living in a time more expedient than when JS was himself the prophet and leader?

We're missing everything, really. The process from revelation, to perceiving the revelation, to processing the revelation, to expressing it in verbal English, to hearing it dictated, to writing it down. We have no idea what that process was like, and it seems that Joseph Smith couldn't begin to describe it to others. The witnesses assumed that he read a text revealed to him, but they didn't know, and it seems he didn't (couldn't) describe it. I think that B.H. Roberts correctly argued in the early 1900s against the theory that he read a sacred text.

[canard78]

21 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Would you mind expanding on that a bit? Although the level of Joseph's education has been downplayed and upplayed (I know, that is not a word, but I am adding it to the dictionary as the opposite of downplayed) but whatever the case, he one could not accurately describe him as being anywhere near the erudite level. Many of the critics of the day refused to believe that Joseph had the capability of producing any such document. "Ignoramus" was popular description of his abilities. Do you believe that Joseph made the entire thing up as he went along, or that he was reciting from a memorized script? Or maybe something else? Are you able (and willing) to produce a coherent theory that can account for the production of the Book of Mormon?

Glenn

Based on his account of the first visitation Moroni, Joseph claims to have had an in-depth knowledge of the Bible and to be deeply familiar with multiple passages of it. He also claims to have an incredible memory.

Consider the following account:

Quote

36 After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:
37 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
39 He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.
40 In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,” but soon would come.
41 He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. He quoted many other passages of scripture, and offered many explanations which cannot be mentioned here.
...
45 He commenced, and again related the very same things which he had done at his first visit, without the least variation

Based on this, Joseph feels comfortable claiming that at 17 he knew the Old Testament and New Testament well enough to:

• Recognise multiple exact quotations, including book, chapter & verse
• Spot the variances from the KJV when being quoted

In addition he also claims to have a strong enough memory to remember those variance well enough to recall them at a later date. 

He also talks about being able to remember the full message of the first visit well enough to identify that the second (and third) delivery were done without any variation.

Do I think Joseph could be the source for the Book of Mormon? Absolutely, yes. I've no problem seeing that as possible. I think there's a fairly good chance that Oliver Cowdery assisted, or it could be all from Joseph. I don't base that just on the above points, there are many factors.

[rongo]

His account was written in 1838, though, not in 1823 when he was 17. I agree that he had a divinely-supplemented memory (to say the least), but I don't think he knew the Bible like that during Moroni's visit. He recognized the differences later in life. I think that the First Vision and Moroni's visit spurred him to read the Bible, and the Holy Ghost blessed him with total recall. Both his mother and his brother William said that Joseph was the least-inclined to read of the Smith children growing up.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

It would be easier for them if you just made up fantastical stories that lack any kind of rational credibility. 

You know, like an angel appearing in a room full of teenagers three days times in one night but only waking one of them. 

If God can keep a man asleep while removing a rib, don't see it as out of the limit of his abilities to keep a bunch of tired teens oblivious to their surroundings.  Not that hard to do when they are awake.

Just in case someone takes this seriously....please don't.  At least the first part.  Totally serious about oblivious teens....as in 'pick up that clutter please', 'what clutter?'

Edited October 1, 2016 by Calm

[canard78]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

Yeah, God is able to create the universe, but His angel is unable to appear in a room without waking up someone in that room.
Makes sense, I guess.

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

If God can keep a man asleep while removing a rib, don't see it as out of the limit of his abilities to keep a bunch of tired teens oblivious to their surroundings.  Not that hard to do when they are awake.

Just in case someone takes this seriously....please don't.  At least the first part.  Totally serious about oblivious teens....as in 'pick up that clutter please', 'what clutter?'

Funny thing is, you've focused on the sleeping teens... The Angel appearing in a bedroom was the bit of the story I find incredulous

[Glenn101]

58 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Based on his account of the first visitation Moroni, Joseph claims to have had an in-depth knowledge of the Bible and to be deeply familiar with multiple passages of it. He also claims to have an incredible memory.

Consider the following account:

Based on this, Joseph feels comfortable claiming that at 17 he knew the Old Testament and New Testament well enough to:

• Recognise multiple exact quotations, including book, chapter & verse
• Spot the variances from the KJV when being quoted

In addition he also claims to have a strong enough memory to remember those variance well enough to recall them at a later date. 

He also talks about being able to remember the full message of the first visit well enough to identify that the second (and third) delivery were done without any variation.

Do I think Joseph could be the source for the Book of Mormon? Absolutely, yes. I've no problem seeing that as possible. I think there's a fairly good chance that Oliver Cowdery assisted, or it could be all from Joseph. I don't base that just on the above points, there are many factors.

As rongo noted, Joseph apparently did not read the Bible as much as others in his family. But, Moroni appeared to Joseph three times that night giving the same message with slightly different twists.

Now, since you believe that Joseph Smith could have done the deed, maybe you can give some plausible explanations (with some supporting evidence please) to account for the many different anomalies that have been reproduced in the Book of Mormon. Feel free to visit the Maxwell institute and the Interpreter for some idea of the things you will have to account for.

Just for starters, there are something like 340 different proper names in the Book of Mormon. Some 180 plus are names not attested to in the Bible. Do you have any idea of just how difficult it would have been for Joseph or anyone else to have developed a plot and sub plots and to keep track of all of the characters and names? Especially and do it surreptitiously?

But I would like to see you take your best shot. It is one thing to airily dismiss something. It is another to actually put some substance in the air.

Glenn

[thesometimesaint]

37 minutes ago, canard78 said:

 

Funny thing is, you've focused on the sleeping teens... The Angel appearing in a bedroom was the bit of the story I find incredulous

I don't know about visiting angels, but as a teen you could have set off a bomb next to me while I slept and I'd never know it. It wasn't until I was well into adulthood that sleeping became a problem.

Edited October 1, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[canard78]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

His account was written in 1838, though, not in 1823 when he was 17. I agree that he had a divinely-supplemented memory (to say the least), but I don't think he knew the Bible like that during Moroni's visit. He recognized the differences later in life. I think that the First Vision and Moroni's visit spurred him to read the Bible, and the Holy Ghost blessed him with total recall. Both his mother and his brother William said that Joseph was the least-inclined to read of the Smith children growing up.

Did they say that before or after he published the Book of Mormon? For those supporting his prophetic abilities, pushing the narrative that he was an ignorant farm-boy who couldn't possibly have made it up seems to one that has a long and proud history. 

"Divinely-supplemented memory..." It's amazing the new inventions that religious people can invent when needing to provide an explanation.

 

[canard78]

36 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

As rongo noted, Joseph apparently did not read the Bible as much as others in his family. But, Moroni appeared to Joseph three times that night giving the same message with slightly different twists.

Now, since you believe that Joseph Smith could have done the deed, maybe you can give some plausible explanations (with some supporting evidence please) to account for the many different anomalies that have been reproduced in the Book of Mormon. Feel free to visit the Maxwell institute and the Interpreter for some idea of the things you will have to account for.

Just for starters, there are something like 340 different proper names in the Book of Mormon. Some 180 plus are names not attested to in the Bible. Do you have any idea of just how difficult it would have been for Joseph or anyone else to have developed a plot and sub plots and to keep track of all of the characters and names? Especially and do it surreptitiously?

But I would like to see you take your best shot. It is one thing to airily dismiss something. It is another to actually put some substance in the air.

Glenn

It's really simple Glenn. My options are:

- to believe that a resurrected Native American, of Hebrew origin, visited Joseph and gave him ancient gold plates which he then translated by reading words off a glowing rock that he placed in the bottom of his hat.

or 

- that the BoM is the product of reasonably above average 19thC brilliance but with no supernatural explanation needed. I've read, listened to, watched and consumed multiple items of creative excellence in my life. They are all beyond my ability to replicate and sometimes leave me wondering how they are possible. None of them require angelic explanations to accept that they actually are, in fact, possible.