Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[champatsch]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Possibility....Pilgrim’s Progress.

There is Bunyanesque language in the Book of Mormon, but it's not an exclusive thing—that is, other authors exhibit usage similar to his.  In any event, deep knowledge of the Pilgrim's Progress is an insufficient corpus from which to base the Book of Mormon's Early Modern English (morpho)syntax.

Edited March 3, 2018 by champatsch

[Guest]

On March 1, 2018 at 8:48 PM, hope_for_things said:

The value of the BoM from my vantage point lies precisely with respect to its ability to enrich the human experience and teach truths, beauty and goodness.  It’s origin is Joseph Smith.  

The idea or notion that it came from Joseph Smith's mind is impossible in so many ways. Countless speech patterns, common quotes, and forgien descriptions and old world terms, were simply beyond someone either very cunning, intelligent, much less uneducated as he was, could not be done in the time given that he spent translating, if even over a lifetime of study. In fact many have made such claims  suggesting they could do the same, and trying to do so. When Joseph was dictating revelations he received, as many, many, have witnessed, as well as witnessed his visions, it simply cannot be dismissed. Despite (as I may have mentioned), the three witnesses who were all excommunicated, as well as others, never denied all that they have seen. Also all but one returned to the Church, except on, but he also never denied all that he had seen. In fact, I read other attempted writtings of Joseph, and you could barely recognize them, unless when he was acting as Prophet, Seer and Revelator. 

As for my observations found over almost four decades, I will just list many examples that I have noticed, but will only list two today. 

1. In the Book of Mormon during the translation, Joseph while translating one of Jacob's sermons. As record by his older brother; Nephi's book, used a phrase found in one of the greatest of sermons ever, and one of the most beautiful sermons and explnations, of the Atonement anywhere in all of Scripture. The term used that is quite powerful is founded in, 2 Nephi 9: 9, when he speaks of the fate of all mankind if there had been no Atonement. The term he used is, "and our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become Devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God..." 

Then 34 chapters later, and in Jacob's book of his own, Jacob 3: 11, he uses the term, "angels to the devil", now 37 chapters later. A description found nowhere else, of which I am aware. But only by Jacob, who's word prints match no other. Simply put Joseph was not that clever, nor that intelligent, at the time of the translation. Unless of course, you no longer believe in God, and view even the Bible as just "uplifting", if so this argument, and the next two are moot. 

2. Nephi's description of a "river of water", (1 Nephi 2: 6) as in Joseph's world, living in the East, all rivers are "rivers of water" of course. A comment found on once in maybe the shortest book in the Bible, final verse 1: 20, and then only making reference to them drying up. However, dry river beds are very normal in the world of the Old Testament, during the dry season. This would of course is the world in which Nephi speaks. 

I dare not list more, as remembering what I m writing and seeking to keep track of is getting more difficult every passing day. So forgive any errors, or ramblings. 

  

[champatsch]

23 hours 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.

How exactly the translation might have proceeded is currently unknown.  This is an area fraught with speculation.  I don't think I have stated that there must have been revisions or a revision.  I think I offered some speculative possibilities, from our limited perspective, which may prevent us from coming close to how the translation actually unfolded.  There may have been one translation event or multiple events.  Currently I don't find the question very interesting since it strikes me as an exceedingly complex issue, one that may be too difficult for us to unravel at the present time.

The (morpho)syntax of the text is almost all Early Modern English, systematically speaking, but there are certainly some items in the text that appeared in English after 1700, such as derangement, which is first attested in 1737. And of course there are a few vocabulary items for which the first attestation is currently the Book of Mormon, such as ites and unwearyingness (as of now, both of these are first attested elsewhere after 1850).  Most phrases that people have thought were exclusively post-1700, such as "demands of justice", arose in the 1500s or 1600s.  They are found in a matrix of mostly Early Modern English grammar and syntax.  Consequently, I have no qualms about thinking of those phrases as Early Modern English phrases, because they are enveloped in archaic language, though they may have been used more abundantly later.  And because they are content-rich and to a large degree contextual, it is very difficult to determine with confidence the usage rates of such phrases over time.  It would be difficult to construct a very large corpus covering centuries that represented genres even-handedly.

[smac97]

On 3/1/2018 at 3:00 PM, hope_for_things said:

But why don't people ask the same questions about works by other historical figures. 

I think because most other historical writers do not, as Joseph Smith did, disclaim authorship, and instead assert that they are functioning as a translator through divine means.  

Quote

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. 

Because Joseph Smith denied creating the text.  Because that denial is integral to many of the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church.  We rely on a Joseph-Smith-as-prophet/translator-inspired-by-God-to-discover-and-translate-an-ancient-record sort of narrative, rather than a Joseph-Smith-as-an-uneducated-fellow-with-amazing-but-unknown-to-everyone-around-him-authorial-gifts-pertaining-to-theology-philosophy-ancient-warfare-and-culture kind of narrative.

In other words, the ultimate source of the text really matters to Mormons as a matter of religious belief  It matters a lot.  Contrast this situation with, say, the debate regarding the authorship of Shakespeare's works.  Was is Shakespeare?  Or Sir Francis Bacon?  Or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford?  Christopher Marlowe?  William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby?  Someone else?  A lively debate has existed for some time.  But really how many people care about it?  Shakespeare's works are valueable principally for their brilliant content.  Their engaging characters and storylines, beautiful prose and structure, universal themes, and so on.  Who ultimately wrote them doesn't really matter.

The Book of Mormon is a very, very different circumstance.  I think historicity has much to do with the value of The Book of Mormon as it does with the value of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added):

Quote

"There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)

See also Kent Jackson's remarks (same link) (emphasis added):

Quote

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."  A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon.

That is why the authorship and actual origins of The Book of Mormon matter.  That is why we "hold the BoM to a different standard by seeking to explain how Joseph could have produced it."

Quote

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?  

See above.

Here is an illustrative example: Jared Johnson, a business mogul, dies suddenly because of an undiagnosed illness.  The police inventory the contents of his apartment and find two interesting items: A) a list of bank accounts which prove to hold millions of dollars in them, and B) a document which appears to be Mr. Johson's extensive and beautifully written will. 

The will garners some broad public attention, owing to both its unusual and unclear origins, and also its actual content.  The story becomes so newsworthy that the will is published online for the public to consume.  Some people simply admire the witty and thoughtful prose of the document.  Others examine it for its interesting meditations on life and death and wealth and poverty.  Others read it and wonder at Jared Johnson's previously-unknown writing talents. 

However, for the heirs listed in the document, all of these are secondary concerns.  What they are really interested in is whether the will is what it purports to be.  Whether it actually is Mr. Johnson's valid and binding instructions for the distribution of the assets held in his estate.

Given these circumstances, you could understand why the heirs - who may stand to inherit the millions referenced in the will - would be singularly and particularlity interested in the will's provenance, and much more invested in determining that issue than the general public.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

On 3/1/2018 at 2:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

Yes, and I believe he had many years prior to have come up with it before relaying it to others. I believe when he had the blanket up he may have been using some texts, and when he wasn't and looking into a hat, he was going off his memory. ..............................................

The problem with that scenario is that Joseph had neither the education nor the opportunity to have come up with all that before he began dictating. 

Yep.  Additionally, that scenario also does not address Emma Smith's testimony, Royal Skousen's scholarship, and other witness testimony, as summarized recently by Daniel Peterson:

Quote

Was Joseph reading from a manuscript when he dictated the Book of Mormon?
 FEBRUARY 28, 2018 BY DAN PETERSON

...

First of all, the evidence strongly supports the traditional account in saying that the original manuscript was orally dictated. The kinds of errors that occur in the manuscript are clearly those that occur from a scribe mishearing, rather than from visually misreading while copying from another manuscript. (The printer’s manuscript, by contrast, shows precisely the types of anomalies that one would expect from a copyist’s errors.) Professor Skousen’s meticulous analysis even suggests that Joseph was working with up to twenty to thirty words at a time.[1]

It is apparent that Joseph could see the spelling of names on whatever it was that he was reading from.[2] When the scribe had written the text, he or she would evidently read it back to Joseph Smith for correction.[3] So the Prophet evidently had something with him from which he was dictating, and against which he could check what his scribes had written. But what was it? The witnesses are unanimous that he did not have any books or manuscripts or papers with him during the translation process, which involved lengthy periods of dictation. [4] In an interview with her son, Joseph Smith III, not long before she died, Emma Smith insisted that Joseph had no text with him during the work of translation:

Quote

 

Q.Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

A.He had neither manuscript or book to read from.

Q.Could he not have had, and you not know it?

A.If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

 

Emma Smith could speak authoritatively regarding the period during which she herself served as scribe. But what about the much longer period when Oliver Cowdery was taking the dictation? While they were in Harmony, Pennsylvania—where most of the Book of Mormon text was committed to writing—Emma says that Joseph and Oliver were not far away from her:

Quote

1. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?
2. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.[5]

 

Naturalistic explanations for the origins of the Book of Mormon seem to have a difficult time of staying within normative standards of historical scholarship.  Put another way, they necessarily require the setting aside of percipient witness testimony in favor of speculation and guesswork.  

Funny, that.

Quote

It would be relatively easy to show such a phony creation to be full of holes.  Yet, he couldn't possibly have come up with an Early Modern English text.  Someone else had to have done that centuries earlier.  Who might that have been?   In addition, the witnesses to the "translation" state that the only blanket ever used  was to shield Joseph and his scribes from people dropping by the house to say Hello.  Between Joseph and his scribes, and the other members of the household (Emma, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, and the other scribes), there was no blanket or other barrier.  All could see Joseph with his head in that large hat, dictating phrases to his scribes.  Memory simply couldn't account for his rapid and continuous dictation.  Even the best fiction writers have to go back and correct and edit.  Joseph never did.

Well put.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 5, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

 

On 3/1/2018 at 3:26 PM, hope_for_things said:

I would say most critics of the BoM think it is full of holes. 

I'm not particularly impressed with the aggregate assessment of critics (assessments, to be more precise, since there is no alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon that is plausible, or even particularly coherent).

"Critics" are a self-selected lot.  A very mixed bag.  Some (the majority, I think) actually know very little about the book.  They have not given much time or attention to it.  Some critics have given plenty of time and study over to it, but then they end up with conflicting and not-very-good counter-explanations for it.

There is a lot of lazy thinking among the critics.  Consider, for example,  Dr. John Sorenson's "Open Letter to Michael Coe."  Dr. Coe is, as you may know, one of the world's best-known experts on Mesoamerica (the most likely setting for the Book of Mormon).  Dr. Coe has occasionally weighed in on his views about the Book of Mormon.  And his views are . . . embarrassingly ignorant and ill-informed.  You don't have to take my word for it.  Listen to his interview with John Dehlin, then read Dr. Sorenson's letter.   

Quote

EModE hasn't moved any needles in the critical scholarship from what I've read. 

Eh, that's okay.  I'm content to let things play out.

Quote

The idea that Joseph couldn't have done it, yet he did do it, doesn't make sense to me. 

Same here.

Quote

Joseph dictated it, he did it, we have no evidence that is credible to suggest otherwise.  Trying to find complexities and then say Joseph couldn't possibly have created it because he wasn't smart enough, just don't make sense to me.  

I don't understand that.  First, I think you materially misrepresent things when you suggest that examination of the Book of Mormon is only "trying to find complexities."  The complexities are there.  Objectively speaking, the Book of Mormon is a very complex narrative.  The timeline.  The geography.  The characters.  The etymology of toponyms and personal names.  The relative locations of cities and persons and activities and events.  Detailed and accurate usage of relatively obscure ancient concepts, such as Chiasmus, use of olive culture in an extended allegory, ancient modes of warfare, etc.

The best evidence at hand indicates that the text of the Book of Mormon was produced in less than two months, that Joseph Smith didn't have any documents or other reference materials around during the translation process, that he dictated/translated both continuously (virtually no substantive edits in the OM) and rapdily (around 20-30 words a minute), and so on.

As Dr. Peterson notes: "the evidence strongly supports the traditional account in saying that the original manuscript was orally dictated."  

Moreover, there is ample evidence that Joseph Smith was reasonably intelligent, but not particulary well-educated.  For example, Emma Smith, who loved and revered her husband, stated that he "could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon."

Taken together, there is an incongruity between A) the objective fact that the Book of Mormon text is very complex and nuanced, B) the text was dictated with virtually no substantive revision in a very short period of time (less than two months), and C) Joseph Smith lacked the education and intellect (at the time) to produce the very-complex-and-nuanced-and-dictated-with-virtually-no-substantive-edits-in-a-very-short-period-of-time text that is the Book of Mormon.

So perhaps it not that "Joseph couldn't possibly have created it."  Perhaps you are right about that.  It is possible.  Just not probable.  Or anything close to probable.  So the possibility is a de minimis kind of thing.

Quote

Robert, many other writers have produced texts of similar complexity without training. 

I question that.  A lot.  I invite you to read Hugh Nibley's Book of Mormon Challenge.  I won't even both to issue a CFR for your "texts of similar complexity without training," since they don't exist (I will look into Van Wagoner's appendix, though, so thanks for that).  Nobody has ever come close to producing a text like the Book of Mormon under the same circumstances as Joseph Smith was in, and with comparable results.

I am open to correction, of course.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

On 3/1/2018 at 4:14 PM, hope_for_things said:

I can see how that chart is a powerful narrative around Mormon theology and claims of authority literally passed down from person to person.  Its a problematic theology from my vantage point as its very exclusive and tribalistic, and I've pointed out on other threads in the past the problems I have with the exclusive authority emphasis and why I think its more detrimental than productive.  

It's odd to complain that Mormonism is "exclusive and tribalistic" when we have tens of thousands of full-time missionaries spread throughout the world, with the objective to invite literally everyone on the planet to join the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 3/2/2018 at 7:53 AM, hope_for_things said:

You’ve got this all backwards.  Joseph Smith dictated the BoM.  

Yes.

On 3/2/2018 at 7:53 AM, hope_for_things said:

Those making the claim that he couldn’t possibly be the author, have the burden of proving that fatastical claim.  

Agreed.

On 3/2/2018 at 7:53 AM, hope_for_things said:

Quoting a comment from Emma that he was too uneducated to produce the text is not evidence enough to support that claim.  

Agreed, but that's not the only evidence.

On 3/2/2018 at 7:53 AM, hope_for_things said:

The simple answer is Joseph is the author.  

Huh.  Now you are making a claim.  Now you have the burden of proving that claim.

On 3/2/2018 at 7:53 AM, hope_for_things said:

Any claims otherwise ought to be looked at with great skeptism.  

Again, you are making the claim that "Joseph is the author."  You now want to shift the burden to those who "claim otherwise."  

On 3/2/2018 at 7:53 AM, hope_for_things said:

Just making the statement that nobody else has ever produced a compribal work isn’t backed up by evidence.  

This is a second claim you are making.  That a comparable work has been produced.  

And yet . . . there hasn't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Physics Guy]

It makes no sense to 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Naturalistic explanations for the origins of the Book of Mormon seem to have a difficult time of staying without normative standards of historical scholarship.  ... [T]hey necessarily require the setting aside of percipient witness testimony in favor of speculation and guesswork.

Of course they do. Naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon suppose that it was produced by deliberate fraud. Fraud is a real phenomenon that often occurs. It routinely produces witness testimony that is totally false because it is the testimony of dupes or confederates.

Historical scholarship is not a magical procedure whose normative standards are guaranteed to identify truth. Historical standards of evidence are nothing but reason and common sense applied to whatever traces we can find from the distant past. In many cases we can be pretty confident that fraud was not involved. In many other cases, fraud of some kind is recognized as a possibility and historians acknowledge that their conclusions are therefore in doubt. 

In most cases, moreover, historians are not trying to determine whether something extremely unusual occurred, like an angel delivering gold plates. Historians are usually only trying to see which of many ordinary and common possibilities was the one that actually took place. Even a tenuous hint can be enough to make one ordinary possibility seem significantly more likely than another one. So a historian can publish such a deduction from a tenuous hint, and be commended for having contributed knowledge. It does not follow that deductions based on comparable evidence must be accepted for unprecedented miracles, just because deductions from comparable evidence are the usual stock in trade of historians.

To suppose that the normal standards of historical evidence should apply to a case like Joseph Smith's is to assume from the start that he was definitely not a fraud, and that he was roughly as likely as not to have exchanged material objects with angels. This is the fallacy known as begging the question.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Physics Guy

[Physics Guy]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Emma Smith, who loved and revered her husband, stated that he "could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon."

How much of a judge of writing was Emma Smith?

Joseph Smith wrote quite a lot,even if one doesn't count his inspired texts. His first account of his vision, for example, is extremely well written. It's simple, forceful, and clear. The man who could write that could write just about anything. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by Physics Guy

[longview]

2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

How much of a judge of writing was Emma Smith?

Joseph Smith wrote quite a lot,even if one doesn't count his inspired texts. His first account of his vision, for example, is extremely well written. It's simple, forceful, and clear. The man who could write that could write just about anything. 

It is very likely JS was not the sole author of the first account.  A trained teacher like Oliver Cowdery most probably was on the committee to help with writing that account.  The Book of Mormon was produced with the Gift and Power of God.   A marvelous work and a wonder!

[Gray]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Naturalistic explanations for the origins of the Book of Mormon seem to have a difficult time of staying without normative standards of historical scholarship.  Put another way, they necessarily require the setting aside of percipient witness testimony in favor of speculation and guesswork.  

 

This is self-contradictory. Historical scholarship deals exclusively with naturalistic explanations - it has no access to the supernatural.

And of course historians prefer witness testimony from witnesses who are neither strong partisans or enemies. In Mormon history, neutral observers are hard to find!

Edited March 4, 2018 by Gray

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/3/2018 at 2:34 PM, champatsch said:

There is Bunyanesque language in the Book of Mormon, but it's not an exclusive thing—that is, other authors exhibit usage similar to his.  In any event, deep knowledge of the Pilgrim's Progress is an insufficient corpus from which to base the Book of Mormon's Early Modern English (morpho)syntax.

If his childhood literary and educational experience was steeped in the KJV and Pilgrim's Progress, that could be partial explanation for the EME. Do you know of any specific study on the possibility? Is it known that his family owned the book?

Edited March 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Kevin Christensen]

Hope says:

Quote

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.  

So there is the problem of testing and deciding, which explanation is best?  And how does a person decide to measure best?

Kuhn says that one of the most important ways of testing involves things like "puzzle definition and solution," and "accuracy of key predictions" and "comprehensiveness and coherence", "aesthetics and simplicity", "fruitfulness" and "future promise."

Fine, so, I read Taves closely and carefully (as everyone knew a few weeks ago when we had a discussion of my long review of Taves in Interpreter),

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events/

and her prediction regarding the Book of Mormon is that it is "large" and "complex", is "Biblical sounding" and displays some distinctive language in "chiasmus."  That is exactly the extent and depth of the problem as she defines it.   And she defends the validity of her interpretation by referring to other books that are "large" and "complex" mentioning Helen Shucman's A Course in Miracles, and alluding to Pearl Curran's The Sorry Tale.  And talks about The Big Book of AA without mentioning that the Book of Mormon also contains the 12 Steps of Addiction Recovery.

Now if I consider whether that is a better explanation of the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith's own explanation, that he got the plates from an angel, and translated them by revelation it happens that I measure "best" in different terms than "clear and straightforward."  There was a notably relevant Monty Python sketch featuring a game show about being able to provide a Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theory in the least amount of time.   After some incoherent attempts to discuss grassy knolls and other shooters and participants, someone came in and simply said, "A tiger got him." 

That explanation has the virtue of being clear and straight forward.  But, from my perspective, there is the problem of producing footage of the tiger from real history and film.  And, shifting back to the Book of Mormon, at this stage in my life, I want something testable, substantial, that not only explains the bulk of the Book of Mormon, and surface features of the style, but the actual substance and the wide range of scholarship produced by believers and skeptics.

For instance, while I am aware of that little blog essay that claims that 1 Nephi 1 is chock full of telling anachronisms, I have also read much else that claims otherwise that I personally find far more telling and persuasive. For instance, Barker's essay here:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol44/iss4/9/

After reading Barker's The Older Testament, and much else by a range if authors, I am convinced that 1 Nephi 1 is amazingly on-target in depicting conditions in Jerusalem 600 BCE.  For instance, the notion that Nephi was trained scribe who would know something of both the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians is not so unreasonable considering that for a decade of Lehi's life, Jerusalem was run by a King installed by the Egyptians (see 2 Kings 23:29-36).  

And there is Ben McGuire on Lehi and Egyptian here:

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/mcguire-did-lehi-use-egyptian.pdf

I'd also point to things like this:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/glimpses-of-lehi-s-jerusalem/

Now Pearl Curran was prolific and in the Sorry Tale she happens to describe a non-existent gate in Jerusalem which she says was called the Needle gate, and she has a camel inching through on its knees.  In the historical context in which she wrote, it was popular for preachers wanting to put their wealthier parishioners at ease by telling such a story.  But archeology has disproven the whole notion.  That is just one of the serious problems with her picture of Jerusalem at the time of Christ.  Joseph Smith according to the clear and straightforward explanation of the Book of Mormon just tried to be Biblical sounding and that is that, and don't clutter up the situation by taking him seriously.  Just read the Book of Mormon for spiritual inspiration.  Forget about angels and Jerusalem and Mesoamerica.  Just read the text as we have it to see what it means.

The unavoidable problem is that the way we contextualize the text determines what it means.  A good context will provide a good reading. A better context will provide a better reading.  The right context will provide the best reading.    That is the point of the Parable of the Sower, and demonstrated everywhere for those who care to look.  And just reading the text itself always involves uncritically defaulting to our unconscious cultural assumptions.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Meerkat]

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

To suppose that the normal standards of historical evidence should apply to a case like Joseph Smith's is to assume from the start that he was definitely not a fraud, and that he was roughly as likely as not to have exchanged material objects with angels. This is the fallacy known as begging the question.

The Book of Mormon was compiled for people who ARE looking for supernatural evidence of God speaking to man.  Who of us hasn't called out in our sorrow or confusion, "God, are you there?"  We aren't looking for a rational explanation of the empty tomb, as was given in Matt. 28:11-15.  We want God to speak to us, and He does. 

Any historical evidence is frosting on the cake.  If the important thing was historical evidence, God could provide it in overwhelming abundance.  But that would negate the need for faith.

How often did God say "He who hath ears to hear, let him hear?" He said in Ezekial 12:2 " Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house."

And Jesus said in Matt. 13 "15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
            16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear."

God provides ample supernatural evidence for people who sincerely want to know enough that they will ask God, with sincerity and real intent.  Without that attitude, a person's life can be spent "kicking against the pricks."  Saul said "Who art thou, Lord?"  And the Lord said, "I am Jesus Christ whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Acts 9:4-6  Jesus was addressing the personal faith crises that was frustrating Saul as he sought to do God's will.

"42 Wherefore, if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope.
            43 And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart.
            44 If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart..."  Moroni 7:42-44

"47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
            48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen."  Moronin 7:47-48

The evidence is supernatural, and is apparently available only when we become meek, lowly of heart and set aside the natural man or woman long enough to respond to the supernatural answer.  The evidence is quite convincing.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Meerkat

[hope_for_things]

On 3/2/2018 at 2:35 PM, Maidservant said:

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.

Its a good question.  I've read some excerpts from great thinkers and artists where they personally believed they were inspired by a divine source or spark of sorts.  I know many individuals who view their work as divinely inspired.  But the specific and explicit claims at receiving text from deity is stronger with religious leaders like a Joseph Smith or Ellen G. White or Helen Schucman.  

What I'm saying here is that the base assumption for all of these figures, religious or artist or scientist, is that they produced the works that are attributed under their name.  That seems to be the common ground that everyone starts from.  Now, for those who believe that those works were inspired by the divine, thats fine, I'm just not sure how that claim could ever be objectively evaluated. 

I think much of these efforts on the BoM end up being an exercise in futility and potentially damaging to the community as they take the focus off practicing the gospel in a person to person service oriented sense, and put the focus on literalism and legalism and truth claims and proof texts.  Those elements of religion while compelling to some, I think are missing the mark and have become detrimental.  

[hope_for_things]

On 3/2/2018 at 2:54 PM, Gray said:

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

 

 

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.

This is a really good point, and it really is the most detailed description of the process from Joseph himself.  Certainly sounds like an effort of creative imagination.  

[hope_for_things]

On 3/3/2018 at 3:49 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The idea or notion that it came from Joseph Smith's mind is impossible in so many ways. Countless speech patterns, common quotes, and forgien descriptions and old world terms, were simply beyond someone either very cunning, intelligent, much less uneducated as he was, could not be done in the time given that he spent translating, if even over a lifetime of study. In fact many have made such claims  suggesting they could do the same, and trying to do so. When Joseph was dictating revelations he received, as many, many, have witnessed, as well as witnessed his visions, it simply cannot be dismissed. Despite (as I may have mentioned), the three witnesses who were all excommunicated, as well as others, never denied all that they have seen. Also all but one returned to the Church, except on, but he also never denied all that he had seen. In fact, I read other attempted writtings of Joseph, and you could barely recognize them, unless when he was acting as Prophet, Seer and Revelator. 

As for my observations found over almost four decades, I will just list many examples that I have noticed, but will only list two today. 

1. In the Book of Mormon during the translation, Joseph while translating one of Jacob's sermons. As record by his older brother; Nephi's book, used a phrase found in one of the greatest of sermons ever, and one of the most beautiful sermons and explnations, of the Atonement anywhere in all of Scripture. The term used that is quite powerful is founded in, 2 Nephi 9: 9, when he speaks of the fate of all mankind if there had been no Atonement. The term he used is, "and our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become Devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God..." 

Then 34 chapters later, and in Jacob's book of his own, Jacob 3: 11, he uses the term, "angels to the devil", now 37 chapters later. A description found nowhere else, of which I am aware. But only by Jacob, who's word prints match no other. Simply put Joseph was not that clever, nor that intelligent, at the time of the translation. Unless of course, you no longer believe in God, and view even the Bible as just "uplifting", if so this argument, and the next two are moot. 

2. Nephi's description of a "river of water", (1 Nephi 2: 6) as in Joseph's world, living in the East, all rivers are "rivers of water" of course. A comment found on once in maybe the shortest book in the Bible, final verse 1: 20, and then only making reference to them drying up. However, dry river beds are very normal in the world of the Old Testament, during the dry season. This would of course is the world in which Nephi speaks. 

I dare not list more, as remembering what I m writing and seeking to keep track of is getting more difficult every passing day. So forgive any errors, or ramblings. 

  

What I see happening with respect to people making these kinds of arguments is a selective bias towards the positives and ignoring the negatives.  You can certainly find many examples of continuity and complexity if you search for them.  You can also find many examples where things are mixed up and inconsistent.  It is human nature to bias towards the positive results if they confirm your view of something.  

[hope_for_things]

On 3/3/2018 at 7:19 PM, smac97 said:

Because Joseph Smith denied creating the text.  Because that denial is integral to many of the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church.  We rely on a Joseph-Smith-as-prophet/translator-inspired-by-God-to-discover-and-translate-an-ancient-record sort of narrative, rather than a Joseph-Smith-as-an-uneducated-fellow-with-amazing-but-unknown-to-everyone-around-him-authorial-gifts-pertaining-to-theology-philosophy-ancient-warfare-and-culture kind of narrative.

Did Joseph Smith ever "deny creating the text".  I'm trying to think where he did this, and can't remember a specific denial.  I know he stated it came about by the give and power of God, but that's not a statement of explicit denial.  Can you maybe jog my memory about what denial you're referring to? 

On 3/3/2018 at 7:19 PM, smac97 said:

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."  A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon.

I understand what you're saying.  You're definitely approaching a relationship to the BoM very differently than how I currently relate to it.  My only problem with the approach you articulate and the quotes from others who share this approach, is that you are trying to say that other approaches not only don't work for you.  That would be perfectly acceptable to acknowledge.  But when people start to make sweeping universal claims that condemn the approach of others as illegitimate for them.  That is when I think a perspective goes to far in my book.  

On 3/3/2018 at 7:44 PM, smac97 said:

Naturalistic explanations for the origins of the Book of Mormon seem to have a difficult time of staying without normative standards of historical scholarship.  Put another way, they necessarily require the setting aside of percipient witness testimony in favor of speculation and guesswork.  

The most important testimony of witnesses that supports my thesis in this thread is the testimony that Joseph dictated the text.  If there were any testimony to suggest that Joseph had a pre-written text that he brought to a scribe to ask them to transcribe, then that would really change the evaluation, and we'd have to wonder if Joseph wrote that pre-written text.  But because all the witnesses support this idea that Joseph was the voice of the BoM, that is the strongest supporting information that supports that Joseph was the author of the text.  

 

[hope_for_things]

21 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Now Pearl Curran was prolific and in the Sorry Tale she happens to describe a non-existent gate in Jerusalem which she says was called the Needle gate, and she has a camel inching through on its knees.  In the historical context in which she wrote, it was popular for preachers wanting to put their wealthier parishioners at ease by telling such a story.  But archeology has disproven the whole notion.  That is just one of the serious problems with her picture of Jerusalem at the time of Christ.  Joseph Smith according to the clear and straightforward explanation of the Book of Mormon just tried to be Biblical sounding and that is that, and don't clutter up the situation by taking him seriously.  Just read the Book of Mormon for spiritual inspiration.  Forget about angels and Jerusalem and Mesoamerica.  Just read the text as we have it to see what it means.

Kevin,

Humans have a very strong proficiency with respect to finding patterns in the noise.  Think of all the time spent on the BoM, all the time spent on the Book of Revelation and end times predictions, all the time spent looking for parallels and patterns, and finding them.  We are good at making connections whether or not the original author actually intended on any of these parallels, or purposefully crafted these complexities.   I know this sounds dismissive, and it probably is.  

My starting assumption is that Joseph didn't have any supernatural abilities.  That whatever he was doing, however he was creating, was all based on natural abilities.  So, I'll admit that I don't personally believe its possible for Joseph to translate an ancient language that he couldn't read.  I also don't believe some unseen force communicated to Joseph's brain a detailed and accurate account of another civilization.  I believe it was all a function of creative imagination.   These beliefs come from the observations I've made about religion and nature and the world, and while my beliefs will likely change with time, I feel fairly comfortable with these ideas at present.  

But I want to take the contents of the BoM seriously, in spite of these basic assumptions on my part.  Lest I be accused of prejudice, these basic assumptions I just listed apply to other books of scripture as well.  I want to take the BoM seriously as a book that my faith community finds valuable because it contains principles that about life, and morality and faith that we can learn from and that as we wrestle with together we can be enriched on our journey.  This is what I find valuable about scripture for me personally.  

 

[Tacenda]

23 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If his childhood literary and educational experience was steeped in the KJV and Pilgrim's Progress, that could be partial explanation for

the EME. Do you know of any specific study on the possibility? Is it known that his family owned the book?

bold mine:  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/07/joseph-smiths-home-environment?lang=eng ETA: maybe you meant the book Pilgrim's Progress, sorry if that's the case. Knowing you, you probably know the family had a bible growing up.

The Prophet’s mother actively led her children to study the Bible and seriously investigate the major Protestant faiths. Her son William remembered generally her teaching of the family when Joseph was in his later teens:

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

On 3/3/2018 at 10:52 PM, smac97 said:

Yes.

Agreed.

Agreed, but that's not the only evidence.

Huh.  Now you are making a claim.  Now you have the burden of proving that claim.

Again, you are making the claim that "Joseph is the author."  You now want to shift the burden to those who "claim otherwise."  

This is a second claim you are making.  That a comparable work has been produced.  

And yet . . . there hasn't.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know this is petty, but he is listed as the author on Amazon. Okay, that is really reaching.

Also, Joseph did attempt to sell the copyright of the book in Canada once. I wonder if he had, what would have happened, no CoJCoLDS?

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Attempt_to_sell_copyright

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know this is petty, but he is listed as the author on Amazon. Okay, that is really reaching.

Also, Joseph did attempt to sell the copyright of the book in Canada once. I wonder if he had, what would have happened, no CoJCoLDS?

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Attempt_to_sell_copyright

If they'd have sold the copyright is an interesting question.  Wouldn't that just mean that the proceeds from the sales of the book would go to the copyright holder.  I'm not sure that would have derailed the church movement.  Probably just given them some more cash early on.  It might have changed Joseph's relationship with Martin Harris though, because they went to Canada without his knowledge.  

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What I see happening with respect to people making these kinds of arguments is a selective bias towards the positives and ignoring the negatives.  You can certainly find many examples of continuity and complexity if you search for them.  You can also find many examples where things are mixed up and inconsistent.  It is human nature to bias towards the positive results if they confirm your view of something.  

I am not searching for anything, just listing my own observations. Also I did list (what you call negatives) and pointing out the "Seer Stone" in one post, which you called me to task (I hope "task" is the right word) for not mentioning it. This fact easy to see in your reply, right above your reply. So be it, if this is all you see, or wish to see only with blinders onl, then there is nothing listed that you will take note of, unless it by those who have your opinion, and those who want to discredit this and any other LDS Scripture or opinion. Even when I pointed out the error, that I did not mention the "Seer Stone", a stone  even mentioned, pictured and written about in the Ensign. Not to mention the many General Conference talks that mention Joseph's many weaknesses and issues with Church History. In short, there is nothing anyone can say that will matter, except on anti-Mormon websites, where to them it is nothing but cannon fodder, and "grape shot" (you will need to look of "grape shot" on Google to get that meaning, as it is a long forgotten term). It is clear that any testimony will not matter either, and will just invoke feelings of pity, by those who no longer believe. If it is just "irrefutable truth" for all Scripture, and you believe that all Scripture are nothing more that "motivational sermons", then Tony Robbins, might be the Prophet you seek. 

I am not trying, nor seeking to be unkind, but inferring that Iand others are blind to the truth, or seeking to deceive, by only pointing out only the positive aspects of Scripture, and ignoring all else. Is a polite way of suggesting that we (to quote Scripture), "...lie and wait to deceive...". And even worse we lie to our children, and send them out to lie and deceive the world. Also, we do so, and our own expense, as we wish others to believe our error. Either way, this debate is pointless, if everything we say is instantly dismissed. Just as spelled out in Lehi's vision, it is where many who once believed, find their way to the upper floors, of the "...Large and Spacious building...", and there point their finger at those who still believe. "Laughing us to scorn". So, I will make further attempts to testify or show the truth in this thread, as they are clearly unwelcome. My God bless you and keep you safe in whatever path you choose. I will miss you. and enjoyed you when a member.     

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I know this is petty, but he is listed as the author on Amazon. Okay, that is really reaching.

Yep.  Petty and "really reaching."  And nonresponsive.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Also, Joseph did attempt to sell the copyright of the book in Canada once. I wonder if he had, what would have happened, no CoJCoLDS?

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Attempt_to_sell_copyright

Again, nonresponsive.

Thanks,

-Smac