Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

That process seems to be overly theatrical .... in order to bolster authority ... like a magician who employs dramatic music and lighting to make the ordinary card tricks seem to be more than they are.

I suppose one could look at it that way. On the other hand, it is totally in line with the "stone in the hat" and the "interpreters" used by Joseph Smith. I'm sure there is a source to which he had access that taught him this trick from ancient Judaism.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Again, I don't believe the fabricated plates needed engravings. IMHO the plates were always viewed in vision, so they wouldn't need to be golden or have engravings in reality. I'm not aware of any person describing engravings from feeling them under a cloth.

That being said, I'm not wedded to the idea of tin. I don't know hardly anything about metallurgy and I trust your suggestion that tin would make for lousy fabricated plates.

So if we eliminate tin plate, what else could Joseph have used to fabricate fake metal plates he needed to fool his visionary friends? I am pursuing this because there were actual plates that people saw, lifted, and touched. If they were not the gold plates of Mormon and Moroni and not tin, what were they? I think it is crucial to that particular criticism.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

Wait, did this article just refer to the "shining of specific letters upon the stone"?

Isn't this exactly the way the seer stone in the hat was supposed to have worked? Hmmm...

BTW, if I recall the story correctly (and no, I don't have a source, just a fuzzy recollection), JS tried to use the Urim and Thummim found with the plates, but they didn't fit JS's rather large frame very well. He was a pretty big guy, ater all, and maybe that's why he switched to the seer stone.

Yes, the way the Temple Institute scholars describe the use of the stones in the urim v'tummim is like that associated with Joseph's stone in the hat. The reason, IMO, it was in the hat was to shut out light so the letters could be seen more clearly. It's also interesting that in the Book of Mormon, a Nephite general went to his high priest Alma and asked a question similar to the one posed in the Temple Institute example...."should I go to war/where will I find the Lamanites?" The stone in the hat absolutely does not give me heartburn, nor should it for anyone who believes in the God of the Old/New Testament and the Book of Mormon.

Alma 6

Quote

5 Therefore, he that had been appointed chief captain over the armies of the Nephites, (and his name was Zoram, and he had two sons, Lehi and Aha)—now Zoram and his two sons, knowing that Alma was high priest over the church, and having heard that he had the spirit of prophecy, therefore they went unto him and desired of him to know whither the Lord would that they should go into the wilderness in search of their brethren, who had been taken captive by the Lamanites. 6 And it came to pass that Alma inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And Alma returned and said unto them: Behold, the Lamanites will cross the river Sidon in the south wilderness, away up beyond the borders of the land of Manti. And behold there shall ye meet them, on the east of the river Sidon, and there the Lord will deliver unto thee thy brethren who have been taken captive by the Lamanites.

Alma as high priest, of course, had possession of the interpreters.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Actually just the opposite, someone reported that the Urim and Thummim stones were inconveniently large and so JS defaulted to the seerstone.

Either way, the letters shown in the stones of the High Priest's vestment and in the stone in the hat. Curious.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If a stone in the hat gives you heartburn, consider this from The Temple Institute in Jerusalem

https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

 

Interesting.  Thanks.

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I suppose one could look at it that way. On the other hand, it is totally in line with the "stone in the hat" and the "interpreters" used by Joseph Smith. I'm sure there is a source to which he had access that taught him this trick from ancient Judaism.

Actually, there possibly was. Michael Quinn identified concrete links between the Smith family lumens and specific books (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View). One of these books is Scot Reginald's The Discoverie of Witchcraft. I've attached a photograph of the relevant paragraph found on page 98.

It talks about the brightness of the 12 stones by which the priests "could prognosticate or expound anie thing." This also echoes the language JS used to describe the Urim and Thummim, according to Joseph Knight:

Quote

"It is ten times better then I expected." Then he went on to tell the length and width and thickness of the plates, and said he, "they appear to be gold." But he seemed to think more of the glasses or the urim and thummim than he did of the plates, for, says he, "I can see anything; they are marvelous." ("Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History," BYU Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1; spelling modernized; online version)

 EDIT: I should also explain that this chapter includes Urim in the title, and the title is listed in the table of contents. Also all of the chapters are short, and this one spans less than a page, meaning the content wouldn't have been difficult to find.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So if we eliminate tin plate, what else could Joseph have used to fabricate fake metal plates he needed to fool his visionary friends? I am pursuing this because there were actual plates that people saw, lifted, and touched. If they were not the gold plates of Mormon and Moroni and not tin, what were they? I think it is crucial to that particular criticism.

Joseph Smith's family had a cooper shop on their property, couldn't he have constructed something using that outbuilding and supplies to wrap barrels?

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If a stone in the hat gives you heartburn, consider this from The Temple Institute in Jerusalem

https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

..... 

The Identity of G-d is the Source of Creation

What does this mean? What are the implications of this fact, the knowledge that it is the name of G-d itself which brought about the illumination of the urim v'tummim? This is indeed a lofty concept, but one whose lesson can be readily appreciated, at least on a simple level of understanding.

G-d is the Creator of all existence; His power is unlimited. He has no form whatsoever, neither has He beginning or end... He is the Supreme Being. He is perfect and absolute unity. And He is also totally unknowable.

Yet in numerous passages throughout the Bible, we are commanded to "know" G-d. "In all of your ways, know Him"(Proverbs 3:6); "And I shall betroth you in faith, and you shall know the L-rd" (Hosea 2:22) are but two examples of many such instances.

Truly, how can we come to know G-d, who is omnipotent and infinite? Yet we are commanded - and therefore expected-to do just that. And there is a general rule with regard to the Torah's commandments: the Holy One never makes unfair demands on a person (BT Avodah Zara 3:A).

 

My opinion:

Rather than ex nihilo creation, we know that God "organized" matter unorganized into the world as we know it.  In so doing, naming is an essential part of organizing.

We are told that everything was organized by "The Word" and throughout Genesis that is shown by God giving his creations/organizations names.  I will quote I will quote Genesis below but I will add quotation marks and emphasis to show where I believe it indicates that we are talking about the WORDS and definitions of reality as we know it in human language.

Quote

 

5 And God called the light "Day," and the darkness he called "Night". And the evening and the morning were the "first day".

6 And God said, Let there be a "firmament" in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were "under" the firmament from the waters which were "above" the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament "Heaven". And the evening and the morning were the "second day".

 

Remember too that the relationships of "over and under" did not exist until they were defined as words which describe the relative positions OF "over and under"

So the Lord was defining as he was organizing.  He was organizing categories and relationships as well as things.  

He was organizing the way we think about things.

Quote

 

John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

....."And the Word was God"...

The identity of God as the Word (in this case the savior) is the source of Creation, or organization of the worlds.

In my opinion of course.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, James Tunney said:

My thought is that it seems equally silly as creating fictional stories and not letting us know that it's fiction as to believe that God would not know how to communicate his words properly so that there wasnt the chance for a mistake. Instead, ad hoc, it's claimed that of course he has to go through a human filter and that's why the supposedly quoted words from God change, or the fundamental concepts of God change, etc.

Couldn't God, in the economy of God, have sent his words to us like we send emails or like I'm sending these words over the internet? Didn't God supposedly write the ten commandments on tablets for Moses? Sure there is always a chance with misinterpretation by those who receive the words, but at least one side, God, would be telling us exactly what he means.

The Bible is our prime example of God's imperfect mode of transmission, the same mode of transmission He used with Joseph Smith.  Your critique of Joseph is a critique of the Bible, for the same reasons.  The call to perfection is a classic fallacy.  There are no perfect human communications, as witness the exchanges we have on this board.  I often wonder why you just don't get it, James.  Might it not be the nature of human communication?

In the case of rampant denominational Christianity, we see another example of failure to read the Bible the same way across a broad range of people.  How can that be, if the interpretation is so easily discerned?  You want to eliminate any chance for a mistake in communication, but are you being realistic?  Do any scholars share your view that God would not allow any chance for misinterpretation?  I know of none, except in Lala Land.  

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

My best guess is that Moroni was not a real ancient Native American, and I don't think it's likely that he was an objectively physical angelic being (before anyone gets too offended, those are just guesses!). For me, he is very likely part of a a self directed visionary projection of Joseph's own mind. I also think its possible, even likely judging from the fruits of JS work and the BOM, that his visionary experience incorporated authentic divine components. Obviously, this isn't the only interpretation, but it appears to be a valid possibility to me.

EDIT: I also want to clarify that my belief that there was divine components in JS visions/revelations is not based soley on fruits. It's based on the fact that JS's visions fit the patterns of visionary experience as studied in academia, and that those experience largely effect significant life change for the positive in experiencers and often communicate a number of key core common elements (importance of love, life after death, etc.). My belief is also based on some of the significant data Mormon apologists have pointed to. Finally, it's also based on my own personal experience with revelation, which has led me to the belief in the existence of God, or, at the very least on my most agnostic days, the belief that there something out there or inside of us that humans can easily perceive as a personal God. 

EDIT: We've been discussing the golden plates a bunch up thread, and I think my comments there are also very relevant to our discussion here.

The question one  might ask is whether those "authentic divine components" acquired during vision include real history.  In other words, are you saying that the seance is a real source of otherwise unobtainable information?  How can that be if it is a self-directed vision?  Or do you have in mind the enlightenment obtained by Lord Siddharta during his meditative vision under the Bodhi Tree?

If indeed you have in mind real historical information about ancient peoples and languages obrtained in vision, isn't that magical enough to invalidate your notion that the Book of Mormon is fiction?  Do you see how self-contradictory your account becomes?  You seem to accept the ineffable in order to account for and invalidate the ineffable.  Just a bit circular, Benjamin.

[James Tunney]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I suppose one could look at it that way. On the other hand, it is totally in line with the "stone in the hat" and the "interpreters" used by Joseph Smith. I'm sure there is a source to which he had access that taught him this trick from ancient Judaism.

Well Im sure that you won't be surprised if I say that all these people made it up or were deluded. Nevertheless, one can say that Joseph Smith's claims on the method are similar to others who have claimed revelation in the past.

[Benjamin Seeker]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The question one  might ask is whether those "authentic divine components" acquired during vision include real history.  In other words, are you saying that the seance is a real source of otherwise unobtainable information?  How can that be if it is a self-directed vision?  Or do you have in mind the enlightenment obtained by Lord Siddharta during his meditative vision under the Bodhi Tree?

If indeed you have in mind real historical information about ancient peoples and languages obrtained in vision, isn't that magical enough to invalidate your notion that the Book of Mormon is fiction?  Do you see how self-contradictory your account becomes?  You seem to accept the ineffable in order to account for and invalidate the ineffable.  Just a bit circular, Benjamin.

I see a close relationship between creativity and revelation. Various composers have experienced what they describe as revelation while composing. I've already cited Edgar Allen Poe, who seems to illustrate the point as well. I've also experienced this kind of thing in my personal creative endeavors.

Coming at it from a different angle, another interesting precedent is distance viewing or remote viewing, which is worth reading the Wikipedia article on. It produced both verifiable facts and what could be called noise. I think it's possible that the facts are a product of revelatory-like phenomenon and the noise could be simply imagination.

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The UandT could be removed from their frames and apparently used in the same way as the seer stones.  They were used for the lost 116 pages, iirc, but then removed by the angel with the plates when the pages were lost.  Can't remember if they were returned to JS's possession or only brought back when shown to the witnesses.

You are right that the spectacle frame didn't fit JS, can't remember if too big or too small.  The breastplate description doesn't look that comfortable or practical either (not quickly removed and hidden like a stone can be popped into a pocket.  Perhaps JS saw the UT as someone else's tools and felt more comfortable using what he saw as his own.  Or perhaps it was a hassle to remove and replace them in the spectacles and he was afraid of bending or breaking them (once my glass lens start popping out, they are never as secure).

Josiah Stowell was a good guy, I would not be surprised at all if a plate had enough corrosion to catch his attention from just a brief view and a corner would be the most likely to get worn or damaged and thus expose the gold/copper alloy underneath the pure gold surface of tumbaga.

Their testimonies are not contradictory, IMO.

I will find the reference if requested, but I remember reading that the breastplate was much too big for Joseph and the stones were two far apart form him to look through both of them simultaneously.

The question I have always entertained is just how Joseph determined that he could use his seer stone to accomplish the job. Maybe directions from Moroni?

As far as Stowell, I understand that he was in the room when Joseph handed them in through the window at night and saw a corner of the plates exposed. I would not be surprised to find that their was some type of mold or mildew on the outer surface of those plates after being in the ground for so many hundreds of years. I doubt that the stone box was all that moisture proof.

Glenn

[Benjamin Seeker]

50 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I will find the reference if requested, but I remember reading that the breastplate was much too big for Joseph and the stones were two far apart form him to look through both of them simultaneously.

The question I have always entertained is just how Joseph determined that he could use his seer stone to accomplish the job. Maybe directions from Moroni?

As far as Stowell, I understand that he was in the room when Joseph handed them in through the window at night and saw a corner of the plates exposed. I would not be surprised to find that their was some type of mold or mildew on the outer surface of those plates after being in the ground for so many hundreds of years. I doubt that the stone box was all that moisture proof.

Glenn

On the Urim and Thummim, that's along the lines of what I remember reading also. There is at least one account saying that he stuck one of the Urim and Thummim stones into his hat because it was harder to translate/dictate in the light. 

I also remember reading an Interpeter article a few years ago that suggested that JS didn't necessarily get the Urim and Thummim back permanently after the 116 pages debacle, and so he resorted to the seer stone. He may have had undocumented revelation on the seer stone that helped him to make the transition. I speculate that because there is a possible precedent in Alma with the Gazelem verse that could be talking about a seerstone, and there are plenty of other passages in the BOM that seem to address JS circumstances in regards to the translation (the verses about the three witnesses spring to mind).

On Stowell's corner, a variant of what Glenn has suggested should be mentioned. Witnesses described the sealed portion as nearly a solid block of metal with the pages so tightly compressed they couldn't be pulled apart. It's possible that Stowell got a peak at a corner of the sealed portion with some green oxidation or mold, and it could have easily looked like a "stone of greenish caste."

Edited November 27, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I see a close relationship between creativity and revelation. Various composers have experienced what they describe as revelation while composing. I've already cited Edgar Allen Poe, who seems to illustrate the point as well. I've also experienced this kind of thing in my personal creative endeavors.

A good many people, including scholars share the view that revelation and creativity are to be cross-identified.  That is why I already mentioned Bob Dylan's explicit statement that God gave him his lyrics.  However, most scholars take that as metaphor, and it is a major feature of scholarship on religion, as found for example in Mircea Eliade's Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., 15 vols. (Macmillan, 2005).  That does not mean that they accept revelation or inspiration as objective reality.  Indeed, they claim that we have no access to objective reality through revelation -- because it is merely a feature of our imaginary world.  Just because someone is brilliantly clever and creative does not mean that he has been conversing with God.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Coming at it from a different angle, another interesting precedent is distance viewing or remote viewing, which is worth reading the Wikipedia article on. It produced both verifiable facts and what could be called noise. I think it's possible that the facts are a product of revelatory-like phenomenon and the noise could be simply imagination.

You differentiate revelation (fact) and imagination (noise) here.  Something the scholars do not do.  The phenomenology of religion is observant and descriptive.  It does not make judgments about the truth in any religious assertions.  Scholars simply do not do that.  For that you need to consult with archeologists, asking hard questions about how likely it is that pure imagination could describe an ancient reality which is otherwise inaccessible. 

Like the experienced crime scene investigator (CSI), your task is not imaginary, but rather based on hard, scientific facts.  Only then can meaningful inferences and conclusions be drawn.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Well Im sure that you won't be surprised if I say that all these people made it up or were deluded. Nevertheless, one can say that Joseph Smith's claims on the method are similar to others who have claimed revelation in the past.

There are a couple of problems with those assumptions: (1) they pretend to ignore authentically ancient history disclosed by scholarship and not otherwise available, and (2) they fully ignore the ancient biblical world which Bernard Gui mentioned.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Interesting.  Thanks.

You're welcome. Still have heartburn?

 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Actually, there possibly was. Michael Quinn identified concrete links between the Smith family lumens and specific books (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View). One of these books is Scot Reginald's The Discoverie of Witchcraft. I've attached a photograph of the relevant paragraph found on page 98.

It talks about the brightness of the 12 stones by which the priests "could prognosticate or expound anie thing." This also echoes the language JS used to describe the Urim and Thummim, according to Joseph Knight:

 EDIT: I should also explain that this chapter includes Urim in the title, and the title is listed in the table of contents. Also all of the chapters are short, and this one spans less than a page, meaning the content wouldn't have been difficult to find.

Hmm. Looks like 15th century English to me. This was available for check out at the Palmyra Public Library. Or maybe Joseph Sr. borrowed it from a fellow Mason and used it as a reading tutor for his kids, or maybe Joseph read it in the nearby college library. Or Oliver stole it from a printer's shop, or an itinerant Methodist minister quoted this in his tent meetings. Sidney Rigdon probably read this at Solomon Spaulding's home when he snuck in to steal the manuscript. Or something. 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Joseph Smith's family had a cooper shop on their property, couldn't he have constructed something using that outbuilding and supplies to wrap barrels?

Such as...... 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My opinion:

Rather than ex nihilo creation, we know that God "organized" matter unorganized into the world as we know it.  In so doing, naming is an essential part of organizing.

We are told that everything was organized by "The Word" and throughout Genesis that is shown by God giving his creations/organizations names.  I will quote I will quote Genesis below but I will add quotation marks and emphasis to show where I believe it indicates that we are talking about the WORDS and definitions of reality as we know it in human language.

Remember too that the relationships of "over and under" did not exist until they were defined as words which describe the relative positions OF "over and under"

So the Lord was defining as he was organizing.  He was organizing categories and relationships as well as things.  

He was organizing the way we think about things.

....."And the Word was God"...

The identity of God as the Word (in this case the savior) is the source of Creation, or organization of the worlds.

In my opinion of course.

Well, your opinions are about as good as mine. Maybe better. 

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Well Im sure that you won't be surprised if I say that all these people made it up or were deluded. Nevertheless, one can say that Joseph Smith's claims on the method are similar to others who have claimed revelation in the past.

No, I'm not surprised at anything. At my age, I've pretty much seen it all. 

One could say that God does uses unusual (to our minds) means to reveal his words, and he used the same methods with the High Priest in Israel, Joseph Smith in America, and Alma, wherever he was. That wouldn't surprise me.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A good many people, including scholars share the view that revelation and creativity are to be cross-identified.  That is why I already mentioned Bob Dylan's explicit statement that God gave him his lyrics.  However, most scholars take that as metaphor, and it is a major feature of scholarship on religion, as found for example in Mircea Eliade's Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., 15 vols. (Macmillan, 2005).  That does not mean that they accept revelation or inspiration as objective reality.  Indeed, they claim that we have no access to objective reality through revelation -- because it is merely a feature of our imaginary world.  Just because someone is brilliantly clever and creative does not mean that he has been conversing with God.

You differentiate revelation (fact) and imagination (noise) here.  Something the scholars do not do.  The phenomenology of religion is observant and descriptive.  It does not make judgments about the truth in any religious assertions.  Scholars simply do not do that.  For that you need to consult with archeologists, asking hard questions about how likely it is that pure imagination could describe an ancient reality which is otherwise inaccessible. 

Like the experienced crime scene investigator (CSI), your task is not imaginary, but rather based on hard, scientific facts.  Only then can meaningful inferences and conclusions be drawn.

As a professional orchestra musician, I have had many very intense creative/emotional moments in music performance and listening. As a Mormon I have had a few very intense spiritual moments of communion with God. The difference is like comparing a smoldering ember with a roaring fire.

[Benjamin Seeker]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hmm. Looks like 15th century English to me. This was available for check out at the Palmyra Public Library. Or maybe Joseph Sr. borrowed it from a fellow Mason and used it as a reading tutor for his kids, or maybe Joseph read it in the nearby college library. Or Oliver stole it from a printer's shop, or an itinerant Methodist minister quoted this in his tent meetings. Sidney Rigdon probably read this at Solomon Spaulding's home when he snuck in to steal the manuscript. Or something. 

Rather, it was one of the most common books from which folk magic was learned in New England up through the 19th century. I could look it up for you, but there is one or more elements from the Smith family lumens that is uniquely sourced from this book.

Just looking at the table of contents there are several other possible connections to JS (ex. "Times and seasons" "signs and tokens" "miracles are ceased"). Also, the English is from a few centuries earlier. Curious.

EDIT: Still, I think it's significant that there is a common method of revelation shared between JS and ancient Israel, whether JS originally arrived to the idea by browsing Discoverie or through pure inspiration/revelation.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[James Tunney]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are a couple of problems with those assumptions: (1) they pretend to ignore authentically ancient history disclosed by scholarship and not otherwise available, and (2) they fully ignore the ancient biblical world which Bernard Gui mentioned.

People made up stories and myths back then as they do now. Failure to buy into those invented myths or believe them, I guess, could be considered as ignoring them. If that is what you mean then I don't think it is a bad thing to ignore them.

[Gervin]

On 11/26/2016 at 0:47 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

All the Mormon anthropologists I know are mainstream anthropologists.  So you formulated your question inappropriately.

You've changed the definition of 'mainstream' to fit your worldview.  The definition of "mainstream" is "the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend."  You characterize Mr. Gardner as a "mainstream" anthropologist, but would he agree that his books meet the standard definition of "mainstream" as it pertains to Mesoamerican anthropology?

Quote

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the main obstacle has always been (and continues to be) the lack of knowledge of non-Mormon anthropologists of the contents of the BofM.  

But who's responsible for imparting knowledge to the non-Mormon (and vast majority of) anthropologists?  You certainly have a right to interpret data any way you feel led, but its incumbent on LDS scholars to insist on mainstream validation - if they believe they have a case to make.

Quote

What is of prime importance is that all those commenting on the BofM accept standard anthropology, rather than in engaging in agitprop (agitation and propaganda operations)

I have a hard time connecting "agitation and propaganda operations" with mainstream mesoamerican anthropology.  Sorta telling.