Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For all I know, Joseph may have been no more than a ventriloquist's dummy, doing no more than reading the words and phrases he saw on his stone.  Others define him as the actual author of a pseudepigraphon.  Since we now know that this last notion was impossible, we are left in limbo, wondering how an Early Modern English text got into Joseph's hands at all.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say;

We are left wondering how EmodE got into the Book of Mormon?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

Then please cite specific examples of "minute textual studies" that "analyze the genre and structure of every part of English text" of the Bible that do not refer to and use source language. 

Identifying words or phrases of a pre-19th century origin in the Book of Mormon is hardly shocking.  What proof is there that there was a pre-translation of the dictation?

“To defend something is always to discredit it. Let a man have a warehouse full of gold, let him be willing to give away a ducat to every one of the poor - but let him also be stupid enough to begin this charitable undertaking of his with a defence in which he offers three good reasons in justification; and it will almost come to the point of people finding it doubtful whether indeed he is doing something good. But now for Christianity. Yes, the person who defends that has never believed in it. If he does believe, then the enthusiasm of faith is not a defence, no, it is the assault and the victory; a believer is a victor.”

You need attribution for quotes even if you believe most people should be knowledgeable in it, board rules.

[Calm]

Quote

They had more time for reading, writing, and poetry. It was their entertainment!

Lack of technology meant their work wasn't just 9-5, but generally from sunup to sundown and most often till bedtime.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You know..I love you too Papa...your life experiences shared relate to some of my own experiences.  I am happy that you are happy and get to have all these grand children and share with a wife (grandmother)...I will never have that.  Though I appreciate your thoughts and hope for me..it is important that you realize that I am not in the dark..because I left the LDS church does NOT mean that the spirit has left me..this is thinking that needs to be done away with between mormons and ex mormons..Thanks for your love..for that beautiful poem you wrote me...and for understanding so much of heart.  But I do not live in darkness..I am so full of love and gratitude.

My dear sister, I AM SO SORRY, if you thought I was speaking of you living in darkness. I was speaking of the fact that now despite my abundant faith, and the joys that are before me, it is I, the believer, the poet, the Father, the Papa, that is walking through that valley of depression, as even the believing do, but especially the poet in me. A term I often hate to use, and I would not, could not compare myself to the true poets, with true talent. But I do know that without these difficulties, there would be little dept in me that might help others, which in my case is the dept of a puddle, via my poorly written words. I could nor cannot bare the burden of my words harming those I care about, not even others that read the poetry, born of joy, confusion, despair, need, and the need to deliver even deliver myself. 

I hurt so much, I am forgetting so much, also due to my wife working, because I can not. My son and daughter-in-law working, and not even a second care, I spend every day in isolation, barely even able to walk around my own property. All factors that lead to even more despair. I did not know that (as you put it) "I will never have that". If I did, like so many things, I remember things of long, or longer ago, but forgetting so much of the present. Please forgive me for the misunderstanding, for the forgetting, for scattered thoughts that cause such misunderstandings, and pray for me. If I continue to make such errors and cause others to misunderstand what I desire to say, then I will soon have to say, have to do as Moroni did, when he said (looking this up, so I don't get it wrong). "And now I bid thee farewell...until my spirit and body shall again reunite..." (Moroni 10: 34). Then and only then can I be sure that my errors and confusion will end. Until this thread and another, Ihave almost completely unplugged, and I wonder if that is the answer. I have had a couple of children tell me that on Facebook, I am embarrassing them and myself. Others (even here "privately") that my medication might be to blame, other PM's attacking me for sounding like a fool. Maybe, I will ride out this (my thread) finish with the other, and stay in the Social Forum. This place has allowed me an escape from my week long isolationisms, until the weekends and Sunday going to Church. 

I am of course glad of my many studies throughout my youth and when younger, as memories from longer ago remain fresh in my mind. So, again forgive me for this misunderstanding, I would never knowingly cause such harm. So for at least for today, Papa signing out. God bless you.   

[Maidservant]

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But why don't people ask the same questions about works by other historical figures.  Like the ones I listed, great scientific minds and great artists.  Why hold the BoM to a different standard by seeking to explain how Joseph could have produced it.  We know he did produce it, so why question how to these lengths that Mormons do and not do the same thing with other works produced by other figures in history?  

Perhaps already answered--but unlike the others, he CLAIMED it had another source.  Did any of your others make such a claim, or were they claiming it as their own?

So the claim may also be evaluated (as desired), not simply the text and 'author' itself.

[Gray]

D&C 9 seems to describe a very different translation method than the "read the words as they popped up on the stone method." Since that method has been brought up several times, I thought I bring up this alternative (and canonized) description of the process:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.7,9?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6

 

Quote

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.

11 Behold, it was expedient when you commenced; but you feared, and the time is past, and it is not expedient now;

 

According to this description, translation sounds like a process where you come up with the words in your mind first. Then you ask God if the words you came up with are right.

That doesn't sound anything like reading words from a rock. It sounds an awful lot like the process any writer might use to compose a book, with the added step of asking God if you've got the words right. Perhaps it's very similar to the process that many ancient writers of scripture might have used to compose their theological works. But it doesn't sound like a process that could ever yield an actual translation of an ancient text.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say;

We are left wondering how EmodE got into the Book of Mormon?

Since A = B, therefore B = A.  The BofM is Early Modern English.  Some have speculated that reading Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress would have enabled Joseph to write an Early Modern English book, but that seems to me impossible.  That isn't how language works.  Perhaps there is a better scenario, but what might that be?

[Maidservant]

 

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

A Course in Miracles

A Course in Miracles is, as I recall (?), a claim of channeling Jesus.  I don't have a problem with channeling (why not?) nor Jesus (why not?).  Who am I to know? I wasn't there.  I find the perspective in ACIM a little breathtakingly beautiful and healing, although I don't agree with it all.  Again--it's not just the work to be evaluated.  It's the claim.  Sometimes these don't use the same issues and arguments and lines of thought. 

I actually take the tack when people tell me things happen TO ACCEPT IT as the primary position (because how would I know, it's not my experience), and only compelling contradictions (compelling to me) would cause me to NOT ACCEPT IT.  Thus, if Joseph Smith said that he was not the author, perhaps your primary position would be that his claim was unacceptable until proven acceptable. (I don't know, is that fair to say?)  I would have as my primary position that his claim IS acceptable until proven unacceptable (to me).  I think either way is a valid approach.  Who says we have to start with the unacceptable position?  In fact, I think it is healthier to start with the acceptable position, because, again, we are dealing with human experience, and how do I know what people did and did not experience (until and unless I investigate further).

For example, there is a statue of Mary in eastern Europe who does some kind of miracle or there is a woman who channels her.  My FIRST thought is--sure, why not.  How do I know, I wasn't at the statue?  I ACCEPT IT.  Now in this case, I read some of the words of the channeler and was not particularly impressed.  Nothing that would make me even want to know more.   I understand that many people's FIRST thought is--that could never happen. NOT ACCEPTED.  But again, does it matter which position to start from?  I like my way :).

 

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Appeals to authority don’t impress me much these days.  I’m more interested in appeals to pragmatism.  

But is it okay if others are interested in appeals to authority?   As well, is the insertion of God in the equation only to be framed as an 'appeal to authority' or is it okay if others view it as an appeal to an advanced Being who loves us and is interested in helping us?  In other words, it's okay if you don't find any of that compelling, but does it mean that others can't formulate an argument around some things that many still do find compelling?

 

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

I believe I can name one person who fits the bill. Someone considered to be one of the brightest minds in history. Someone who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the bible and wrote volumes of commentary on it. Someone who extensively studied and wrote about history, politics, war, religion, and theology. Someone who produced great literary works about the Garden of Eden, Joseph in Egypt, and Christ's Passion, among other subjects. Someone who lived an exemplary and pious life who was a master of several languages including Hebrew and who knew about chiasmus. Someone, even, whose theology and theory of government and warfare is reflected in the Book of Mormon. Someone who believed that people came to America anciently by sailing across the Pacific Ocean. Someone who lived during a terrible period of warfare and witnessed both intense domestic strife and devastating war casualties the level of which had never been seen in human history. Someone whose life, education and experience qualify him in every way to have written the Book of Mormon. Hint: this someone is not named Joseph Smith.

I guess I read your further posts and saw where you were going with this, but funny, I was thinking Mormon when I read all this :).
 

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

Or do you think God wanted some mystery mixed in his book?

God wanted to give us the warning for our time to not completely slaughter each other.

[Brant Gardner]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since A = B, therefore B = A.  The BofM is Early Modern English.  Some have speculated that reading Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress would have enabled Joseph to write an Early Modern English book, but that seems to me impossible.  That isn't how language works.  Perhaps there is a better scenario, but what might that be?

It is beyond the evidence that Carmack presents to suggest that the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English. He says that there is Early Modern English in it, but also "revisions" from later times--both in grammar and vocabulary. The result is a book that is more like Johnny Cash's song "One Piece At a Time." For those who haven't heard it, please look it up. The song is fun--and really is an analogy for what some are claiming for the Book of Mormon.

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since A = B, therefore B = A.  The BofM is Early Modern English.  Some have speculated that reading Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress would have enabled Joseph to write an Early Modern English book, but that seems to me impossible.  That isn't how language works.  Perhaps there is a better scenario, but what might that be?

Well in this thread you  asked me how I deal honestly with issues.

For me, the way to deal with this issue it to acknowledge there are some interesting textual usages in the Book of Mormon and refrain from speculating how they might of got there. I think that claiming that they are from an earlier translation is just conjecture. 

 

On Edit.  I hate when Brant Gardner sneaks a post in before mine.  It's like being the next act on stage after Bruno Mars. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by CA Steve

[JarMan]

14 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

It is beyond the evidence that Carmack presents to suggest that the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English. He says that there is Early Modern English in it, but also "revisions" from later times--both in grammar and vocabulary. The result is a book that is more like Johnny Cash's song "One Piece At a Time." For those who haven't heard it, please look it up. The song is fun--and really is an analogy for what some are claiming for the Book of Mormon.

I don't think "One Piece at a Time" is the only solution. I've been developing a 17th Century production hypothesis and I have a specific candidate in mind. He produced the Book of Mormon between 1635 and 1645, though it's possible that all or part of the Book of Moroni was added after the writer's death (which occurred in 1645) by another person. The original work was in Latin but it was not translated into English all at once. The first half of the translation, up to about Mormon (corresponding with the wherefore/therefore break), was done by one translator. The second half was done by a different translator. The second translator may have also done some revisions in the first half. These translations would have occurred sometime between 1635 and the early 1700's. It's possible there was a third translator/revisor who did some final work before it was set aside for good in the early 1700's. It seems that this hypothesis fits with the data but I am eagerly awaiting the next volume of the critical text project to help me test/revise my hypothesis.

[JarMan]

41 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I guess I read your further posts and saw where you were going with this, but funny, I was thinking Mormon when I read all this :).

I was referring to "Mormon." It's just that my "Mormon" was a real live person that lived in the 17th Century.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

On Edit.  I hate when Brant Gardner sneaks a post in before mine.  It's like being the next act on stage after Bruno Mars. 

Absolutely fantastic postscript.  I may have to give you a dozen rep points even if I hate a post.  

[Josh Khinder]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 11:46 AM, hope_for_things said:

Where did the Book of Mormon come from.  I constantly hear this idea argued from both apologetic and critical sides.  All in an attempt to explain how Joseph could have produced the Book of Mormon.  Yet, when it comes right down to it, both sides should be able to agree on some pretty basic historical facts from the evidence.  

• Joseph Smith dictated the content of the BoM to some scribes

Nearly everyone should be able to agree on that statement, and I think that really explains it in a nutshell.  I was thinking about other figures in history that are revered for things they produced.  Newton, Einstein, Beethoven, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc.  Do anyone else spend so much time asking where they came up with their masterpiece works?  Where did Einstein get that amazing theory of relativity?  Where did Michelangelo get that amazing statue of David.  How could they have possibly produced these things?  Where did they come from?  

I think we spend so much time looking for evidence, trying to find parallels, seeking to understand where the BoM came from, that we are missing the answer right in front of our faces and we should all be able to agree on.  The BoM came from Joseph Smith.  This is the clear and straightforward answer that both believers and nonbelievers should be able to agree on, and its the simple answer to a highly debated question.  

Joseph Smith was a Trinitarian at the time The Book of Mormon was published so it agrees with The 4th and 5th century Creeds completely teaching God the Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit were three separate and distinct persons, it all teaches all three persons were eternally ONE GOD , not 3 . So who ever wrote the Book of Mormon was a Creedal theologian .  

[CA Steve]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Absolutely fantastic postscript.  I may have to give you a dozen rep points even if I hate a post.  

Thanks.

 

Bruno is responsible for my wife knowing what polyandry means.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

It is beyond the evidence that Carmack presents to suggest that the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English. He says that there is Early Modern English in it, but also "revisions" from later times--both in grammar and vocabulary. The result is a book that is more like Johnny Cash's song "One Piece At a Time." For those who haven't heard it, please look it up. The song is fun--and really is an analogy for what some are claiming for the Book of Mormon.

I am still baffled and flummoxed by the systematic presence of Early Modern English grammar and vocabulary in the Book of Mormon.  It seems to me to control the narrative, despite what Carmack says about later instances of editing and revisions.  Because of that,   I have been unable to replace my own theory of the "translation" of the BofM by Joseph with anything that saves the appearances.  Perhaps this is an instance of quantum entanglement, with twin Books of Mormon existing in parallel universes.

[Rajah Manchou]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Appeals to authority don’t impress me much these days.  I’m more interested in appeals to pragmatism.  

Yes. Me too.
And many others. 

Which is why so many people are evaluating the historical claims of the Book of Mormon, yet they wouldn't do the same for, say, Einstein.

[Rajah Manchou]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps this is an instance of quantum entanglement, with twin Books of Mormon existing in parallel universes.

Kind of like the Berenstein Bears and the Berenstain Bears?

 

[CV75]

Who (other than Moroni) will come forth and present his version of the origin and production of the Book of Mormon (a la the Title Page and 2 Nephi 3) in a manner and with a promise (a la Moroni 10:2-5; 27-29)  that the Holy Spirit will confirm that such is the case?

Edited March 3, 2018 by CV75

[Gervin]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So there is no "pre-translation," but rather a translation by someone during the 16th or 17th century.  How or why that took place is a mystery to me.  The data leave all  of us hanging.

It's a quaint thought.  How many Mormon scholars, just a ballpark number, actually believe in a 16th or 17th century translations?

Quote

Sounds like Orwellian newspeak right out of WH.  

Kierkegaard.  That bum

Quote

Do you actually accept that gobbledygook, Gervin

I find the idea of defending God ludicrous. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Gervin said:

It's a quaint thought.  How many Mormon scholars, just a ballpark number, actually believe in a 16th or 17th century translations?

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

Can't be more than a handful, simply because so few scholars are even aware of the issue. And, of those who are aware of it, fewer still probably accept it.  However, I haven't taken a poll, and I get a lot of pushback here -- despite the valiant efforts of champatsch on this board.

Also, I would not say "Mormon scholars,' because this is not a faith/belief issue, but rather one of scholarship alone.  I would really like to see what non-Mormon scholars think of this problem, because I think that their evaluation should be based on the data alone.

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/1/2018 at 11:41 PM, JarMan said:

Nope. Solomon Spalding. 

I was thinking Mormon.

 

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, champatsch said:

On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that Joseph was well‑versed in many Early Modern English texts when he dictated the Book of Mormon. Hence, large deviations from both biblical and pseudo‑biblical patterns that app

Possibility....Pilgrim’s Progress.

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

One thing that doesn't get mentioned often is that Joseph Smith Sr. supposedly had an incredible memory and the ability to intelligently discuss a wide range of topics for hours on end:

"[Joseph Smith Sr.] was a slim man about 5 feet 11, and always appeared to be in a deep study. From the time of his first visit until his religious scheme was sprung I don't believe he missed a night without stopping with me for at least three hours. There wasn't a subject he couldn't discuss intelligently, and my opinion of him was high. His memory was something extraordinary. He could repeat several chapters of a book verbatim after it had been read rapidly." - William Hyde

If Joseph Smith Sr. could repeat chapters of books verbatim, this could explain a lot about Joseph Jr's abilities and access to knowledge. From the interviews Sr. gave about the narratives of the Book of Mormon, it seems to me he knew the stories better than anybody. If we're looking for an influence on the Book of Mormon, I'd propose Joseph Smith Sr. He quite literally could have been a walking library.

And Joseph Sr may well have been influenced by Pilgrim’s Progress.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some have speculated that reading Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress would have enabled Joseph to write an Early Modern English book, but that seems to me impossible

Some are asking if it has been seriously considered as an influence, not speculating that it did.