Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The theology in the BoM is all 19th century Christian theology, many uniquely Christian phrases that weren't found even in the KJV have more modern roots.  If we want to get into the game of why didn't Joseph include one thing or another about contemporary ideas of native American's, then we need to also wrestle with the many anachronisms.  I don't find all this study interesting or worthwhile for further study, I think the simplest and most compelling answer is that Joseph, the man who dictated the book, is also the author of the book. 

OK. We don't really have to wrestle with anything else as far as my question is concerned. 

So far, your explanation of how that is possible, given all that is known about him, is severely lacking. 

Edited March 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

See Solomon Spaulding's opus for a hint of how such came from an educated man.

Glenn

Thanks. I have done extensive study of the Spalding Manuscript Found....place names, personal names, names of deities, clothing, animals, utility objects, ceremonies, housing, warfare, stereotypical depiction of Native Americans, etc. He didn't write the Book of Mormon.

[JarMan]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The theology in the BoM is all 19th century Christian theology, many uniquely Christian phrases that weren't found even in the KJV have more modern roots.  If we want to get into the game of why didn't Joseph include one thing or another about contemporary ideas of native American's, then we need to also wrestle with the many anachronisms.  I don't find all this study interesting or worthwhile for further study, I think the simplest and most compelling answer is that Joseph, the man who dictated the book, is also the author of the book. 

Book of Mormon theology is as 19th Century as it is 21st Century. What I mean by that is that each and every theological aspect in the Book of Mormon can also be found today outside the Book of Mormon. This is also true of the 20th Century, the 19th Century, the 18th Century, and the 17th Century. The point is that identifying parallels to the 19th Century doesn't rule out an earlier production. If you really want to use theology for determining the time of origin you really need to find where all of the Book of Mormon ideas existed together closely in time and space. You need to find a convergence. But there just wasn't a convergence in 19th Century upstate New York that combined all of these theological views into a consistent whole. If you examine Book of Mormon soteriology, atonement theory, heaven, hell, satan, Garden of Eden, original sin, infant baptism, trinity, faith vs works, and anti-Christ, just to name a few, you will see a convergence of these ideas in a very small group of people in 17th Century Europe. The 19th Century, like the 21st Century, simply contains the ideas in pieces scattered far and wide.

[champatsch]

Quote

The theology in the BoM is all 19th century Christian theology, many uniquely Christian phrases that weren't found even in the KJV have more modern roots.  If we want to get into the game of why didn't Joseph include one thing or another about contemporary ideas of native American's, then we need to also wrestle with the many anachronisms.  I don't find all this study interesting or worthwhile for further study, I think the simplest and most compelling answer is that Joseph, the man who dictated the book, is also the author of the book.

Insufficient scholarship.  The fountain of Protestantism is the 16c and the 17c.  Almost all the phrases begin then.  Many of them persisted.  The anachronisms are understandable as flowing from a dynamic translation — one which varied between literal and non-literal — that the Lord carried out, and which incorporated lots of King James language.

This may fall on deaf ears, but when you look at a large number of less contextual elements in the Book of Mormon, and compare them to the usage found in pseudo-biblical texts, what you find is that archaism in the Book of Mormon is far beyond that of the pseudo-biblical texts, and that it is often significantly different from King James archaism.

Conclusion:  The less contextual aspects of the Book of Mormon text, the parts that were mostly subconsciously produced, were a foreign language to Joseph Smith.  Based on this fundamental linguistic evidence, it is extremely unlikely, even virtually impossible, that Joseph was the English-language translator or author.

Less contextual linguistic evidence is primary; more contextual linguistic evidence (the above) is secondary.  The primary evidence of course trumps the secondary evidence.  In the above quote HFT argues from secondary linguistic evidence, not primary evidence.  Once that is understood, then we can appreciate how such an approach must be abandoned.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is where I want to just ask the Mark Bukowski's of the world to jump in here and say that everything is a fiction, and that's the whole point.  While I don't completely agree with all his perspectives, I see a lot of value in going through a dark night of the soul experience.  Papa, if I were to give advice I would tell you that you NEED to lose your faith in order to find yourself.  The whole idea of God and religion and scripture and salvation and sin and exaltation and Christ and the fall and the atonement.  It is all a fiction.  You have to lose your faith in it literally to find the value on the other side of belief.  You have to experience the loss in order to see that the images in Plato's cave that you've been viewing all this time are just shadows, they aren't what's real, they are an illusion.  And this experience might need to happen multiple times to each of us at various times in our life.  We have to lose ourselves to find the true self.  This might sound absurd to you, but it is the realization I'm learning about more and more clearly on the other side of my faith reconstruction.

I wish you the best, this is a journey you can go on if you're ready and if you're willing to.  Its might sound absurd and scary, but there is so much growth and learning as you let go of your certainty and dive into the struggle for meaning in the chaos.  

 Am a convert, and my testimony of the Book of Mormon came in an instant when it was handed to me. I did not know what it was, nor what it contained. It was that experience that caused me to read most of it throughout that night. I am not an atheist, nor could I ever be, as I have known my entire life that there is (I was going to say, "a God", but will not) God. I do not view the Bible, BoM, or any other scripture as "history books". What is important is how they came to be, this includes that somewhere "plates" do exist. However, if I were an atheist, I would have the same values, as scripture only accounts for some of those values, 99% of my core values come from my environment and parents, that being my adoptive Father and birth Mother. My firm moral center as it relates to being a true and faithful husband and father, stems from the horrible example demonstrated by my horrible bio-father. I do not need to loose my faith to find it, I have already found it, and I am not selling my soul today, or any other day!  

[hope_for_things]

57 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Book of Mormon theology is as 19th Century as it is 21st Century. What I mean by that is that each and every theological aspect in the Book of Mormon can also be found today outside the Book of Mormon. This is also true of the 20th Century, the 19th Century, the 18th Century, and the 17th Century. The point is that identifying parallels to the 19th Century doesn't rule out an earlier production. If you really want to use theology for determining the time of origin you really need to find where all of the Book of Mormon ideas existed together closely in time and space. You need to find a convergence. But there just wasn't a convergence in 19th Century upstate New York that combined all of these theological views into a consistent whole. If you examine Book of Mormon soteriology, atonement theory, heaven, hell, satan, Garden of Eden, original sin, infant baptism, trinity, faith vs works, and anti-Christ, just to name a few, you will see a convergence of these ideas in a very small group of people in 17th Century Europe. The 19th Century, like the 21st Century, simply contains the ideas in pieces scattered far and wide.

The key point about modern ideas in the BoM is that we have no plausible explanation for how these ideas got there if you ascribe to a strictly ancient source for the content in the BoM.  How could King Benjamin or Nephi have possibly articulated complex theological ideas that didn’t exist when they purportedly lived.  

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Insufficient scholarship.  The fountain of Protestantism is the 16c and the 17c.  Almost all the phrases begin then.  Many of them persisted.  The anachronisms are understandable as flowing from a dynamic translation — one which varied between literal and non-literal — that the Lord carried out, and which incorporated lots of King James language.

This may fall on deaf ears, but when you look at a large number of less contextual elements in the Book of Mormon, and compare them to the usage found in pseudo-biblical texts, what you find is that archaism in the Book of Mormon is far beyond that of the pseudo-biblical texts, and that it is often significantly different from King James archaism.

Conclusion:  The less contextual aspects of the Book of Mormon text, the parts that were mostly subconsciously produced, were a foreign language to Joseph Smith.  Based on this fundamental linguistic evidence, it is extremely unlikely, even virtually impossible, that Joseph was the English-language translator or author.

Less contextual linguistic evidence is primary; more contextual linguistic evidence (the above) is secondary.  The primary evidence of course trumps the secondary evidence.  In the above quote HFT argues from secondary linguistic evidence, not primary evidence.  Once that is understood, then we can appreciate how such an approach must be abandoned.

I haven’t heard the term dynamic translation before, do you mean an Ostler like expansion, loose translation model or something else.  

I agree that there are some elements that it’s hard to explain where or how Joseph was able to come up with, however unless we have a plausible alternative explanation for the source of that material, I personally have to stick with the simplest explanation that Joseph was the source in spite of questions about how that’s possible and not having easy answers. 

Can you clarify what you mean by secondary vs. primary evidence?  Are you saying the theological concepts in the text is secondary?  

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. I have done extensive study of the Spalding Manuscript Found....place names, personal names, names of deities, clothing, animals, utility objects, ceremonies, housing, warfare, stereotypical depiction of Native Americans, etc. He didn't write the Book of Mormon.

Oh I agree that Solomon Spaulding was not the author of the Book of Mormon. I was just using him as an example of what one educated man did when he wrote a romance about the Naive Americans, this one involving a lost Roman Legion. Although he was pretty well educated, Spaulding's literary attainments were less than stellar. I have not been able to find much in the way of Christian fiction from the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries to get an idea of how regular authors approached the genre.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The key point about modern ideas in the BoM is that we have no plausible explanation for how these ideas got there if you ascribe to a strictly ancient source for the content in the BoM.  How could King Benjamin or Nephi have possibly articulated complex theological ideas that didn’t exist when they purportedly lived.  

Revelation.

 

[JarMan]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The key point about modern ideas in the BoM is that we have no plausible explanation for how these ideas got there if you ascribe to a strictly ancient source for the content in the BoM.  How could King Benjamin or Nephi have possibly articulated complex theological ideas that didn’t exist when they purportedly lived.  

Like you, I don't ascribe to a strictly ancient source for the content of the Book of Mormon. You look at it and see 19th Century America. I look at it and see 17th Century Europe. You suppose that Joseph Smith came up with it all. I suppose that an early modern scholar came up with it all. The ideas in the Book of Mormon (not to mention the language) are all clustered together, not in Joseph's environment, but in the environment of a 17th Century Dutch scholar named Hugo Grotius. If you're considering a naturalistic explanation of the Book of Mormon I think you have to consider the source to be somebody who was actually capable of producing it. To me, the "Joseph did it" explanation has always seemed less likely than the "angel delivered it" explanation.

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

 Am a convert, and my testimony of the Book of Mormon came in an instant when it was handed to me. I did not know what it was, nor what it contained. It was that experience that caused me to read most of it throughout that night. I am not an atheist, nor could I ever be, as I have known my entire life that there is (I was going to say, "a God", but will not) God. I do not view the Bible, BoM, or any other scripture as "history books". What is important is how they came to be, this includes that somewhere "plates" do exist. However, if I were an atheist, I would have the same values, as scripture only accounts for some of those values, 99% of my core values come from my environment and parents, that being my adoptive Father and birth Mother. My firm moral center as it relates to being a true and faithful husband and father, stems from the horrible example demonstrated by my horrible bio-father. I do not need to loose my faith to find it, I have already found it, and I am not selling my soul today, or any other day!  

I’m glad you’ve found much value and peace in your beliefs.  Sorry you think that my invitation is akin to “selling your soul.”  Ouch!  

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Revelation.

 

In what way?  How would a theory about atonement theology that didn’t exist anywhere in the world, had never even been imagined by a human being, that’s built upon earlier concepts and theologies and has a clear imprint based on the time and place with which it gained prominence, how would those concepts all of the sudden show up in another time and place many hundreds of years earlier?   

[Gray]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not a very relevant one, though.  

I could just as easily say "In the BOM case, the evidence against is lacking."

In the eye of the beholder, I think.  In fact, some of these purported anachronisms have turned out to be . . . something else.  Consider these remarks by Jeff Lindsay:

I think that's right.

I'm okay with that.  This is more a matter of tastes and preferences an expectations, and much less a matter of evaluating the evidence.

Moreover, the Book of Mormon will never been demonstrated empirically.  That's my view.  It will always fundamentally come down to a matter of faith, with space for people acting in good faith to both accept and not accept it for what it claims to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's put it this way. Ignoring all the evidence against its historicity, the testimony of a dozen or so closely connected, interdependent witnesses from a single rural American community about some supernatural events and a strange translation process is not enough to establish the existence of Nephites, who are otherwise completely unattested to in history.

Yes, the BOM is principally a matter of faith, and that's where it really provides the most value.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

If there are multiple witnesses to the same event, who have actual physical contact with the alien -- each of eight witnesses carefully examine him closely, and they literally pick him up and "heft" him, I would take that more seriously then someone who simply says, "I don't believe it", regardless of their academic credentials.

Then there are an awful lot of alien abduction stories you'll probably find compelling.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Like you, I don't ascribe to a strictly ancient source for the content of the Book of Mormon. You look at it and see 19th Century America. I look at it and see 17th Century Europe. You suppose that Joseph Smith came up with it all. I suppose that an early modern scholar came up with it all. The ideas in the Book of Mormon (not to mention the language) are all clustered together, not in Joseph's environment, but in the environment of a 17th Century Dutch scholar named Hugo Grotius. If you're considering a naturalistic explanation of the Book of Mormon I think you have to consider the source to be somebody who was actually capable of producing it. To me, the "Joseph did it" explanation has always seemed less likely than the "angel delivered it" explanation.

We agree that it’s modern, but I roll my eyes at theories like this because they are just rampant speculation with shabby evidence.  I’m sorry, but I can’t take that seriously without substantial evidence somewhere.  

How would Joseph have received this 17th century text?  Do you proposed that he received it via seer stone or do you think he obtained a copy of this 17th century text and then memorized it sufficiently to dictate it to his scribes?  

[smac97]

Just now, Gray said:

Let's put it this way. Ignoring all the evidence against its historicity,

And for its historicity...

Just now, Gray said:

the testimony of a dozen or so closely connected, interdependent witnesses from a single rural American community about some supernatural events and a strange translation process is not enough to establish the existence of Nephites,

I agree.

That said, the Eight Witnesses did not testify about "supernatural events" or "a strange translation process."  

Just now, Gray said:

who are otherwise completely unattested to in history.

I'm not sure I agree to that.  There may very well be Nephite locations and artifacts that are extant, but which have not yet been identified as "Nephite."  If we were to create two piles of A) things we know about Mesoamerica and B) things we do not know about Mesoamerica (or else do not fully understand), Pile (B) would be far, far bigger than Pile (A).

When all is said and done, I have found the Book of Mormon to be . . . plausible.  I think it could fit quite well into a proposed Mesoamerican setting.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Give me the list of archaeologists with intimate knowledge of the BOM == are you saying there are no "good" scholars amongst them?  You live in an alternative reality if you REALLY believe such an individual exists when it comes to the BOM.

I have no idea. But, for instance, if you were to produce a contemporary (late 18th century) account of the American revolution that said George Washington was really into slam poetry  and hip hop, it would be immediately obvious there was something wrong. That's the level of anachronisms we're dealing with in the BOM.

 

Quote

Assertions are so easy to make when no specifics are given.
PS  I understand the difference between facts and opinions so don't waste our time with  "current scholastic opinion and consensus" pretending to be facts.

If you reject Biblical scholarship, what's the problem? Just accept the BOM on theological grounds and the argument is entirely over.

 

Quote

There is a difference between missionary and apologetic/scholastic activities.  Both are possible in my reality.

The former is entirely theological, the latter is theologically-driven research, or scholarship hemmed in by theological commitments. Neither is the same as critical scholarship, which is what I'm talking about when I say "history". Totally different methodologies.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Gray

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m glad you’ve found much value and peace in your beliefs.  Sorry you think that my invitation is akin to “selling your soul.”  Ouch!  

My words, but when you know as I do that God is real, then becoming an atheist is akin to "selling my soul". I am not just a believer, I know, and have known of the reality of God from my infancy. I know that God lives as well as any human ever has. Would you have me deny this, so that I can agree with you? 

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And for its historicity...

I agree.

That said, the Eight Witnesses did not testify about "supernatural events" or "a strange translation process."  

I'm not sure I agree to that.  There may very well be Nephite locations and artifacts that are extant, but which have not yet been identified as "Nephite."  If we were to create two piles of A) things we know about Mesoamerica and B) things we do not know about Mesoamerica (or else do not fully understand), Pile (B) would be far, far bigger than Pile (A).

When all is said and done, I have found the Book of Mormon to be . . . plausible.  I think it could fit quite well into a proposed Mesoamerican setting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Joseph Smith at first said the BoM lands were in the New York area.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Tacenda

[cdowis]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

I have no idea.

Then stop appealing to authority until you do have an idea.  

But, for instance, if you were to produce a contemporary (late 18th century) account of the American revolution that said George Washington was really into slam poetry  and hip hop, it would be immediately obvious there was something wrong. That's the level of anachronisms we're dealing with in the BOM.

Please be specific.  Do you include sheum, NHM, Pahoran, Paanchi, cement cities, codex, sophisticated calendar, horses (be careful) in that list?
Stop making broad generalizations without specific examples without documentation.  BTW "Not found not exist" is a logical fallacy.  

If you reject Biblical scholarship, what's the problem? Just accept the BOM on theological grounds and the argument is entirely over.

I do not "reject" legitimate Biblical scholarship, UNLESS the expert has never read the Bible!  (if you get my meaning)

 

The former is entirely theological, the latter is theologically-driven research, or scholarship hemmed in by theological commitments. Neither is the same as critical scholarship, which is what I'm talking about when I say "history". Totally different methodologies.

 

[Glenn101]

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

In what way?  How would a theory about atonement theology that didn’t exist anywhere in the world, had never even been imagined by a human being, that’s built upon earlier concepts and theologies and has a clear imprint based on the time and place with which it gained prominence, how would those concepts all of the sudden show up in another time and place many hundreds of years earlier?   

Revelation

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Joseph Smith at first said the BoM lands were in the New York area.

Okay.  And the point is then...?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  And the point is then...?

Thanks,

-Smac

I just wonder how important it is for a real prophet to reveal things, when we have the scripture about false prophets. If they say something and it doesn't come to pass.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Tacenda

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

In what way?  How would a theory about atonement theology that didn’t exist anywhere in the world, had never even been imagined by a human being, that’s built upon earlier concepts and theologies and has a clear imprint based on the time and place with which it gained prominence, how would those concepts all of the sudden show up in another time and place many hundreds of years earlier?   

According to the text itself, the Book of Mormon was compiled in the 5th century AD. There was plenty of atonement theology in the 5th century AD. 

There was also a text compiled in the 5th century AD about Israelites (Rechabites) departing Jerusalem in the 6th century BC and arriving on an island that was set aside for them by God. Problem is, the text wasn't translated into English until the 1890s. There is also substantial literature describing these Rechabites (or Rahmans as they were also known) containing  many of the same theological concepts as the Book of Mormon. As far as I can tell, this material was not available in English to Joseph Smith.

So how did these concepts locked up in Syriac and Slavonic texts turn up in the 1830 Book of Mormon? The only way to explain it would be that Joseph Smith somehow had access to material that was unknown in English-speaking scholarship until after the publication of the Book of Mormon. I'm open to 19th century Joseph Smith authorship, but it doesn't explain everything.

And Biblical scholars are interested. I've been in communication with several regarding the similarities between the Book of Mormon internal geography and the physical geography of the Rechabites in Russian literature. There is interest. 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Glenn101]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just wonder how important it is for a real prophet to reveal things, when we have the scripture about false prophets. If they say something and it doesn't come to pass.

Do you include Jonah and Jesus in your list of false prophets?