Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I don't know how else to describe this other than as a cop out. The research is being done. It's being presented. One of the researchers is on here constantly clarifying issues and answering questions. So go read the papers. Get clarifications where you don't understand. Some of it is quite technical and difficult to understand for a lay person, I admit. But the vast majority of it understandable to an intelligent person with a good understanding of English like yourself. And with some additional work by the lay person, even the more technical parts become easier to comprehend. I can only imagine champatsch's frustrations as people constantly dismiss the research without even engaging it.

We all gravitate to studying the things that we find interesting and useful with our limited time and resources available.  This avenue of inquiry doesn't meet those basic requirements for me to invest my time and energy to.  Like I said, I'll read the summary when a non-church employed apologist reviews their work with a more critical eye.  

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Discounting the eleven witnesses who saw and hefted the plates, the three of those who saw the angel and heard the voice of God, you may be right.  It may be difficult to prove to a skeptic.  But would you agree that it is a tight and large conspiracy that would hold together long after the primary conspirator had been killed and others of the witnesses left the Church?

I tend to believe that a physical object existed for the plates.  The way the witnesses viewed the plates was in their mind's eye, that is my opinion from review of the witness statements and how Joseph was operating, I don't think they were given a visual view of the object in tangible sense with their eyes.  But none of that has any direct determination on who the author of the BoM was.  The person dictating the text was Joseph and we don't have any confusion on that point, the majority of believers and non-believers can agree that Joseph dictated the text, and by that definition is the author of the BoM.  Now, whether there was some other text he was working from, and how much help he may have had in that production is a question that everyone wants to debate.  I feel pretty comfortable saying the strongest evidence suggests Joseph is the author.  

49 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Then there is that pesky little fact that is nearly universally ignored by skeptics, the witness of millions who testify that God spoke to them via the Holy Ghost, causing them to testify that they also know the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet (rather than a bright young author, brilliant executive, city planner and builder, architecht, visionary and merely an inspiring leader of many thousands and now millions who left their homes and families to work for free to build an enterprise that is world renowned for it's great success to this day.)

Here are a few paragraphs from an article in Meridian Magazine or ldsmag.com about David Whitmer's testimony:

DAVID WHITMER'S TESTIMONY

I don't see anything in the testimony of David Whitmer that conflicts with my statement that Joseph was the person who dictated the BoM and is therefore the author.  David likely believed Joseph was inspired by God in that process.   Brigham Young made a statement years after Joseph was killed, where he said that if the BoM was translated again it would be quite different in many ways.  Brigham certainly had a different opinion about how the BoM translation process worked.  

Quote

Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation

What can we learn about the BoM translation from the perspective of one of his closest followers and believers in Brigham Young.  Could it be possible that Joseph wasn't creating a historically accurate text in the first place?  Could it be that the process of studying things out in his mind, a creative exploration process, that Joseph was responding to the current events and issues that were going through his mind and were relevant to that time and place.  What do you think about Brigham's statement?  

[Glenn101]

20 hours ago, JarMan said:

The atonement theory of the Book of Mormon did not originate with Joseph Smith. It originated in 17th Century Europe. I agree, though, that it makes no sense in a 4th Century work.

No, the atonement theory did not originate with Joseph Smith. It originated with God. It has a definite place in a 4th century work because those prophets received it by revelation, which was the way Joseph Smith received it. Revelation answers all of the questions as to how, but not necessarily the why of some things.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The person dictating the text was Joseph and we don't have any confusion on that point, the majority of believers and non-believers can agree that Joseph dictated the text, and by that definition is the author of the BoM.  Now, whether there was some other text he was working from, and how much help he may have had in that production is a question that everyone wants to debate. I feel pretty comfortable saying the strongest evidence suggests Joseph is the author.  

I wonder what the debate would be like if God had just published the Book of Mormon anonymously with no accompanying title, introduction, history, backstory or accompanying speculation about where the narrative took place.

Just a page saying "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", and leave it at that.

What would we think about the book then?

Edited March 7, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Brigham Young made a statement years after Joseph was killed, where he said that if the BoM was translated again it would be quite different in many ways.  Brigham certainly had a different opinion about how the BoM translation process worked.  

What can we learn about the BoM translation from the perspective of one of his closest followers and believers in Brigham Young. 

“Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings (Brigham Young, July 13 1862, JD9:311).

To me that somewhat explains the problems many find with the Book of Mormon. It sounds as if Brigham is proposing that the Book of Mormon was written for a very specific audience in a particular time and place. Perhaps 19th century Americas. And if the Book of Mormon scribes were to write it again for a different time and place, say 21st century Asia, it would be very different from what it is now.

This sounds not like a loose translation, but a loose writing. Interesting quote. 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I wonder what the debate would be like if God had just published the Book of Mormon anonymously with no accompanying title, introduction, history, backstory or accompanying speculation about where the narrative took place.

Just a page saying "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", and leave it at that.

What would we think about the book then?

Like God writing words on stone tablets.  Maybe in the current age God could upgrade to a word processor just for convenience.  

[champatsch]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, this is interesting, as I thought that you were a proponent of a tight translation.  So how would non-literal material work in the tight translation model?  

"Tight translation" can be a confusing term and should be avoided.  It tends to confuse and conflate the key concepts, which are (1) the nature of the delivery of the text and (2) the nature of the translation.  Back in 1998, Royal Skousen introduced three terms in a JBMS paper (7.1) about the nature of the delivery of the text to Joseph Smith: "tight control" (transmitted words), "loose control" (transmitted ideas), "iron-clad control" (no mistakes).  The latter is clearly impossible from an inspection of the original MS.  As for the nature of the English-language translation, literal and non-literal are good terms to use in relation to this, certainly preferable to tight and loose.

We cannot exclude the possibility that the Lord carried out a dynamic translation – both literal and non-literal.  Asserting or assuming otherwise is a convenient, indefensible claim that is used to support a variety of views related to Book of Mormon translation.
 

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Humans speak words and write books.  In this case I believe Joseph was the author because I see no compelling evidence otherwise.  I don't know of any method that could be used to evaluate that claim.  Are these words I just typed from God or from me.  My fingers are typing them on the screen, but maybe God is telling me these thoughts and I'm translating them into English and typing them up.  Or maybe God is just controlling my body like a puppet?  Or perhaps God is dictating a letter to me in English inside my brain and I'm just the secretary typing out the words that God dictates to me.  How could anyone possibly evaluate any of the above scenarios?

Of course the dictation of the Book of Mormon is clearly distinguishable from your caricatured scenario.  I've outlined a method to determine authorship, what is probably the most reliable method.

Consider the following:

Michael Morse’s interview by W. W. Blair of the RLDS Church.
THE SAINTS’ HERALD.
Official Paper of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Vol. 26. Plano, Ill., June 15, 1879. No. 12. Pages 190–91.

Quote

It should be premised that Mr. Morse is not, and has never been a believer in the prophetic mission of Joseph.
* * *
 Bro. Cadwell enquired as to whether Joseph was sufficiently intelligent and talented to compose and dictate of his own ability the matter written down by the scribes. To this Mr. Morse replied with decided emphasis, No. He said he then was not at all learned, yet was confident he had more learning than Joseph then had.
  Bro. Cadwell enquired how he (Morse) accounted for Joseph’s dictating the Book of Mormon in the manner he had described. To this he replied he did not know. He said it was a strange piece of work, and he had thought that Joseph might have found the writings of some good man and, committing them to memory, recited them to his scribes from time to time.
 We suggested that if this were true, Joseph must have had a prodigious memory — a memory that could be had only by miraculous endowment. To this Mr[.] Morse replied that he, of course, did not know as to how Joseph was enabled to furnish the matter he dictated.

It is also worth pointing out that Skousen wrote the following almost 25 years ago:

Quote

JBMS 3.1 (1994), 32:
In fact, internal evidence from the original manuscript as well as statements from witnesses of the translation provide strong support that the Lord exercised “tight control” over the translation* process and that he indeed is the source for the original text of the Book of Mormon. From this perspective, Joseph Smith’s editing for the second edition of the Book of Mormon may be viewed as translating the text into standard English rather than cleaning up grammatical errors.

*In this 1994 quote, "translation" process should be thought of as 'transmission' process, similar to how the verb translate is used in AoF 8.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

No, the atonement theory did not originate with Joseph Smith. It originated with God. It has a definite place in a 4th century work because those prophets received it by revelation, which was the way Joseph Smith received it. Revelation answers all of the questions as to how, but not necessarily the why of some things.

 

From a theological perspective, that answers every question. From a historical perspective, it's like bringing golf clubs to a football game.

[Rajah Manchou]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Like God writing words on stone tablets.  Maybe in the current age God could upgrade to a word processor just for convenience.  

I need to remember you take everything quite literally. So let me rephrase the question so you won't be so tempted to be so dismissive.

"I wonder what the debate would be like if the author(s) of the Book of Mormon had just published the Book of Mormon anonymously with no accompanying title, introduction, history, backstory or accompanying speculation about where the narrative took place."

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I wonder what the debate would be like if God had just published the Book of Mormon anonymously with no accompanying title, introduction, history, backstory or accompanying speculation about where the narrative took place.

Just a page saying "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", and leave it at that.

What would we think about the book then?

 

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

No, the atonement theory did not originate with Joseph Smith. It originated with God. It has a definite place in a 4th century work because those prophets received it by revelation, which was the way Joseph Smith received it. Revelation answers all of the questions as to how, but not necessarily the why of some things.

 

Where did the description of the afterlife in the Book of Mormon originate from?  Was it also from revelation? Because the Book of Mormon version was abandoned after only a few years. Why would God reveal something that was wrong?

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We all gravitate to studying the things that we find interesting and useful with our limited time and resources available.  This avenue of inquiry doesn't meet those basic requirements for me to invest my time and energy to.  Like I said, I'll read the summary when a non-church employed apologist reviews their work with a more critical eye.  

Look, I get that most of us on this forum are not professional scholars. We research these things more or less as a hobby and enjoy discussing them with other people with similar interests. If we are gonna discuss ideas in terms of supporting evidence, though, it seems to me we ought to be familiar with that evidence. And on topics where we’re not reasonably familiar with the evidence (none of us is an expert in everything) we ought to at least refrain from scoffing at or prejudging someone’s idea just because it seems unconventional. 

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Where did the description of the afterlife in the Book of Mormon originate from?  Was it also from revelation? Because the Book of Mormon version was abandoned after only a few years. Why would God reveal something that was wrong?

A large chunk of the Book of Mormon chronology operated under a law of Moses society.  It makes perfect sense that chunks of the Book of Mormon would operate under limited light and knowledge as the Old Testament people did.  Much as the early LDS church in the Kirtland period appears to teach doctrine that differs from the Nauvoo and early Utah period.

Not an explanation of everything but a consideration nonetheless.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

A large chunk of the Book of Mormon chronology operated under a law of Moses society.  It makes perfect sense that chunks of the Book of Mormon would operate under limited light and knowledge as the Old Testament people did.  Much as the early LDS church in the Kirtland period appears to teach doctrine that differs from the Nauvoo and early Utah period.

Not an explanation of everything but a consideration nonetheless.

Here’s a puzzle, though. The theology expressed by Nephi and Jacob is perfectly consistent with Mormon’s and Moroni’s theology 1,000 years later. We expect these things to evolve over time. We certainly see that with historical Judeo-Christianity. And we’ve seen significant change in Mormonism in less than 200 years. In the Book of Mormon we have 1,000 years of afterlife theology that doesn’t evolve. Then Joseph Smith comes on the scene and the whole system is scrapped and replaced in the blink of an eye. Add to this the idea of a pre-existence that is not found in the Book of Mormon. But Moses and Abraham had it according to the Pearl of Great Price. Why would the pre-existence be left out of the Book of Mormon?

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Why would the pre-existence be left out of the Book of Mormon?

Helaman 14:17: 'But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord'.

 

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Helaman 14:17: 'But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord'.

 

That's a lot of doctrinal weight to put on a single word.

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, champatsch said:

It is also worth pointing out that Skousen wrote the following almost 25 years ago:

Quote

JBMS 3.1 (1994), 32:
In fact, internal evidence from the original manuscript as well as statements from witnesses of the translation provide strong support that the Lord exercised “tight control” over the translation* process and that he indeed is the source for the original text of the Book of Mormon. From this perspective, Joseph Smith’s editing for the second edition of the Book of Mormon may be viewed as translating the text into standard English rather than cleaning up grammatical errors.

*In this 1994 quote, "translation" process should be thought of as 'transmission' process, similar to how the verb translate is used in AoF 8.

What internal evidence identifies God as even existing?  How can there be evidence that God is the source of the English Original Book of Mormon, when it is largely accepted that proving God is impossible to begin with?  It sounds to me he's saying, he assume God' exists and therefore assumes that God must be the source of the original text.  If I'm wrong, let's start with the proof of God.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, champatsch said:

"Tight translation" can be a confusing term and should be avoided.  It tends to confuse and conflate the key concepts, which are (1) the nature of the delivery of the text and (2) the nature of the translation.  Back in 1998, Royal Skousen introduced three terms in a JBMS paper (7.1) about the nature of the delivery of the text to Joseph Smith: "tight control" (transmitted words), "loose control" (transmitted ideas), "iron-clad control" (no mistakes).  The latter is clearly impossible from an inspection of the original MS.  As for the nature of the English-language translation, literal and non-literal are good terms to use in relation to this, certainly preferable to tight and loose.

We cannot exclude the possibility that the Lord carried out a dynamic translation – both literal and non-literal.  Asserting or assuming otherwise is a convenient, indefensible claim that is used to support a variety of views related to Book of Mormon translation.

Ok, so dynamic translation in your description sounds how I understood loose control.  I find that interesting because I thought based on what I've heard Skousen say that he is a proponent of the tight control delivery.  I honestly don't remember the distinction between translation and delivery of text that you mention.  But if Skousen is a tight control proponent, I just assumed based on your close work together that you would align with him on that, rather than allow for dynamic translation.  

11 hours ago, champatsch said:

Consider the following:

Michael Morse’s interview by W. W. Blair of the RLDS Church.
THE SAINTS’ HERALD.
Official Paper of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Vol. 26. Plano, Ill., June 15, 1879. No. 12. Pages 190–91.

The Michael Morse quote is interesting.  Its late and second hand, but many of the other details about the translation that were given about the stone in the hat line up.  I find it interesting that he proposes that Joseph must have been using other materials that he was memorizing.  He seems to acknowledge the Joseph's memory must have been good, but he doesn't agree when they ask him if it was a divinely given ability.    

I'm open to evidence to show that Joseph was using other material, and I'm sure he was using the KJV, but other than that, I don't think we have any strong evidence for other source materials being used.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I need to remember you take everything quite literally. So let me rephrase the question so you won't be so tempted to be so dismissive.

"I wonder what the debate would be like if the author(s) of the Book of Mormon had just published the Book of Mormon anonymously with no accompanying title, introduction, history, backstory or accompanying speculation about where the narrative took place."

Ha, sorry to misunderstand what you're saying.  I definitely don't look at religion literally, quite the opposite.  

The scenario would change the foundations of Mormonism.  Many historians have commented on how the BoM was used in the early church, primarily as proof of Joseph's divine calling and to convert new members.  If they just left that detail out of the book, would they still talk about the origins and backstory as part of their missionary efforts.  I'm thinking yes, but if they didn't use the BoM the same way, we can only speculate of course, I think it might have changed the entire early Mormon development of the religion.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

Look, I get that most of us on this forum are not professional scholars. We research these things more or less as a hobby and enjoy discussing them with other people with similar interests. If we are gonna discuss ideas in terms of supporting evidence, though, it seems to me we ought to be familiar with that evidence. And on topics where we’re not reasonably familiar with the evidence (none of us is an expert in everything) we ought to at least refrain from scoffing at or prejudging someone’s idea just because it seems unconventional. 

I understand your point, and I'm pretty sure I haven't scoffed, at least I haven't meant to.  I did say I was baffled by the study, and I'm very skeptical of any new theories that turn the existing evidence on its head.  I also am skeptical of authors when I find other arguments that they make don't align with the data, like Skousen and his belief in tight control.  So of course I'm going to be skeptical of these new findings that haven't been peer reviewed to my knowledge especially when I already disagree with the interpretation of Skousen on something related, the tight control model.  

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Helaman 14:17: 'But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord'.

 

From the context we can see that the pre-existence is not being referred to here. Notice that verse 15 says that the resurrection is necessary in order to bring us "into the presence of the Lord." It omits the word "back." But then we get to verse 16 and it refers to Adam, who once being in the presence of the Lord in the Garden, was cut off. All men are considered to be cut off from the Lord's presence as Adam was, even though we weren't literally cut off. We were not in the garden. So then we get to verse 17 and it talks about men going "back" into the presence of the Lord. It's clear that we are only going "back" to the presence of the Lord through Adam in the same way that we were cut off from the presence of the Lord through Adam.

Edited March 7, 2018 by JarMan

[Glenn101]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

From a theological perspective, that answers every question. From a historical perspective, it's like bringing golf clubs to a football game.

Of course. If one does not accept the divinely produced explanation then one must look for something else. Critics have been doing that ever since the Book of Mormon was produced, but none of the proposed explanations cover all or even most of the bases.

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I understand your point, and I'm pretty sure I haven't scoffed, at least I haven't meant to.  I did say I was baffled by the study, and I'm very skeptical of any new theories that turn the existing evidence on its head.  I also am skeptical of authors when I find other arguments that they make don't align with the data, like Skousen and his belief in tight control.  So of course I'm going to be skeptical of these new findings that haven't been peer reviewed to my knowledge especially when I already disagree with the interpretation of Skousen on something related, the tight control model.  

I don't know what "existing evidence" you are referring to that is being turned on its head. The way I understand Skousen (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) is that he consistently saw on the Original Manuscript breaks in the written text that indicated where a block of text ended and a new one began. The theory, I guess, being that the space a scribe unconsciously leaves between words as he is writing continuous text ends up being ever so slightly different than the space between words when a pause in the writing is made and then continued after some space of time. This lead him to believe that words were being dictated in blocks. And I also understand that there is witness testimony that a block of words were written by the scribe and then repeated back to Joseph. This seems to support what Skousen saw in the manuscripts. Help me understand what evidence we have that suggests the text was transmitted in some other way.

[Glenn101]

15 hours ago, JarMan said:

Where did the description of the afterlife in the Book of Mormon originate from?  Was it also from revelation? Because the Book of Mormon version was abandoned after only a few years. Why would God reveal something that was wrong?

Please explain about the abandonment of the Book of Mormon description of the sfterlife.

 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Of course. If one does not accept the divinely produced explanation then one must look for something else. Critics have been doing that ever since the Book of Mormon was produced, but none of the proposed explanations cover all or even most of the bases.

 From a historical basis, there's really not much to "explain". The default assumption that it's a 19th century document works very well on historical grounds. On theological grounds, we're only limited by our imaginations. But good theology shouldn't depend on historians backing up every particular aspect of the story in a literal way.

Is the Book of Mormon history or is it scripture? It won't work as both. It works just fine as scripture.