Joseph Smith's intelligence

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Aren't you doing the same thing?  It looks to me like your are applying your own personal present day notion of yourself and your abilities to Joseph Smith, and it seems you've got a high opinion of your own abilities.  If I'm not misunderstanding, you believe you could write a book just like the Book of Mormon, you don't think it's that hard because as you said it's 'not a book of above-average literary or historical merit'.  Personally, I doubt very much you could write a book that prompts investigators to feel the powerful witness of the spirit testify of it's truthfulness when they first read it.  I seriously doubt you could write a book that would prompt the spirit to witness, to testify that what the reader is reading is true and from God.  I assume that's never happened to you when you read it, but you ought to know, that happens to a lot of other people, when they read it, I can attest to it.  I don't think that's something that normal writer can do--even one as talented as you claim to be.  I assume that you haven't opened a book of Mormon for a while, but it's more than just a story of a family who sail in a boat to a place they call the promised land--- it's over 500 pages, chock full of doctrine and it's a lot more complex story, spanning hundreds of years.

No, I am not merely applying modern or personal notions to Joseph Smith. I'm applying knowledge about what we know is universally human (that humans have been very intelligent throughput history) combined with what we know about him and his own culture and informal education.

I think you should apologize btw for making assumptions about my beliefs during the course of my life or my experience with the Book of Mormon. That's unnecessary and verging on personal attack. 

 

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Prophecies are actually made throughout the text (not just at the beginning). See the appendix:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-does-prophecy-shape-the-book-of-mormons-content-and-structure

Editorial promises or commitments are also made throughout the text and then fulfilled. See appendix:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-should-readers-pay-attention-to-the-book-of-mormons-editorial-promises

And of course, the order of translation throws in some more complexity. See appendix:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-does-the-mosiah-first-translation-sequence-strengthen-faith

Thank you for pointing this out!  

I counted 124 prophecies (not counting editorial promises) throughout the Book of Mormon that were fulfilled in later books.   That is incredible!  How could one, without the use of notes and his head deep in a dark hat, remember to make or fulfill 124 distinct prophecies (depending on  the order of translation)?  I simply don't think Joseph exhibited that level of genius or photographic memory.   

Edited December 9, 2019 by pogi

[Ryan Dahle]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thank you for pointing this out!  

I counted 124 prophecies (not counting editorial promises) throughout the Book of Mormon that were fulfilled in later books.   That is incredible!  How could one, without the use of notes and his head deep in a dark hat, remember to make or fulfill 124 distinct prophecies?  I simply don't think Joseph exhibited that level of genius or photographic memory. 

That's what I kept thinking as I made that chart. 😉

I pretty much had to re-read the entire text and then search for the fulfillment of the prophecies one by one. In some cases, I knew they had been fulfillled at a certain time or place, but in most instances I wasn't sure and had to scour the text to discover where and how the fulfillments took place. I was blown away as time after time specific predictions or prophecies were fulfilled in the text. I had no idea, when I started, that this is what I would find. I expected to locate maybe a dozen or so. I made the charts for the editorial promises and Mosiah-first translation KnoWhys as well, and I've done other similar research. In each case, the Book of Mormon turns out to be more sophisticated than I expected. I suspect the text is far more complex and consistent than both believers and detractors generally realize.  

Edited December 9, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I am not merely applying modern or personal notions to Joseph Smith. I'm applying knowledge about what we know is universally human (that humans have been very intelligent throughput history) combined with what we know about him and his own culture and informal education.

I think you should apologize btw for making assumptions about my beliefs during the course of my life or my experience with the Book of Mormon. That's unnecessary and verging on personal attack. 

 

She is free to make any assumption she likes and all that is required is that she admit it is her assumption and not state it is a matter of fact.  She's simply sharing what she thinks and she is free to do that here.  Read again what she said with these highlights:

Aren't you doing the same thing? (notice she phrases it as a question) It looks to me like your are applying your own personal present day notion of yourself and your abilities to Joseph Smith, and it seems you've got a high opinion of your own abilities.  If I'm not misunderstanding, you believe you could write a book just like the Book of Mormon, you don't think it's that hard because as you said it's 'not a book of above-average literary or historical merit'.  Personally, I doubt very much you could write a book that prompts investigators to feel the powerful witness of the spirit testify of it's truthfulness when they first read it.  I seriously doubt you could write a book that would prompt the spirit to witness, to testify that what the reader is reading is true and from God.  I assume that's never happened to you when you read it, but you ought to know, that happens to a lot of other people, when they read it, I can attest to it.  I don't think that's something that normal writer can do--even one as talented as you claim to be.  I assume that you haven't opened a book of Mormon for a while, but it's more than just a story of a family who sail in a boat to a place they call the promised land--- it's over 500 pages, chock full of doctrine and it's a lot more complex story, spanning hundreds of years.

[alter idem]

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I am not merely applying modern or personal notions to Joseph Smith. I'm applying knowledge about what we know is universally human (that humans have been very intelligent throughput history) combined with what we know about him and his own culture and informal education.

I think you should apologize btw for making assumptions about my beliefs during the course of my life or my experience with the Book of Mormon. That's unnecessary and verging on personal attack. 

 

I gave my opinion Meadowchik, as Ahab kindly pointed out. I don't see a reason to apologize for my own observations, though I'm sorry you misconstrued them as 'verging on personal attack'.  If you perceived it that way, it certainly wasn't meant that way.  It was, once again, my opinion.  My opinion is that the Book of Mormon is really a lot more complex than many people think.  I've read it many times and have studied it, read commentaries on it, and so, from my own knowledge and familiarity with the Book of Mormon, I believe that those who characterize it as simplistic, I assume, must not be that familiar with it.  That is my opinion, based on my own experience. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Were any of those 10 best-selling books over 250,000 words and orally dictated by an author who didn't use any notes or reference materials? And, if so, do any of these books manifest a degree of complexity and consistency that is comparable to the Book of Mormon? If not, I think you may be comparing apples with orangutans.

Joseph Smith, according to his mother, also performed orations frequently for his family describing the peoples also described in the Book of Mormon. Reasonably, then, he'd already practiced telling the stories.

Furthermore, he'd already penned the translation of the Book of Lehi (known as the list 116 pages) which was considered redundant with the small plates of Nephi. In other words, Joseph Smith was covering largely familiar ground for a significant portion of the Book of Mormon.

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

The only hyperbole I used was "a million different characters", to compare it against most popular literature which have relatively few...  The rest is documented. 

Give me an example of a "more extraordinary" work done in less time. 

You also do make it sound like he did nothing but keep his head in a hat.

William Faulkner's "As I lay dying," is a highly-acclaimed novel written in six weeks, and according to him, without changing a word

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I gave my opinion Meadowchik, as Ahab kindly pointed out. I don't see a reason to apologize for my own observations, though I'm sorry you misconstrued them as 'verging on personal attack'.  If you perceived it that way, it certainly wasn't meant that way.  It was, once again, my opinion.  My opinion is that the Book of Mormon is really a lot more complex than many people think.  I've read it many times and have studied it, read commentaries on it, and so, from my own knowledge and familiarity with the Book of Mormon, I believe that those who characterize it as simplistic, I assume, must not be that familiar with it.  That is my opinion, based on my own experience. 

What I find close to an attack is your presumption about my own religious experiences. Please don't do that.

Anyways, saying that I could perhaps write it under similar circumstances was a response to a direct question from another poster. I would say the same about anyone with above-average intelligence who also had similar informal education and experience as Smith. 

 

 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You also do make it sound like he did nothing but keep his head in a hat.

As I understand it, that is how he translated most of the book, with his head in a dark hat, giving narration.

35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

William Faulkner's "As I lay dying," is a highly-acclaimed novel written in six weeks, and according to him, without changing a word

Dr. Seuss is highly acclaimed too!   As I lay dying, is an extremely simple plot and story.  The story centers around a single family.  It is about the 9 day journey and effort to carry out the father's promise to bury his dying wife in Jefferson, 40 miles away. 

1 family.

9 day period

40 miles covered.

Written in his primary and natural tongue/voice.  

It is the same very short story told 15 different times from 15 different perspectives.  

It doesn't get more simple than that.  Not that simple is bad, but it doesn't approach scripture in depth, character, voice, doctrine, prophecy, plot, complexity, and profoundly life-changing ability.

Ryan is right - "apples and orangutans".

Edited December 9, 2019 by pogi

[Ryan Dahle]

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Were any of those 10 best-selling books over 250,000 words and orally dictated by an author who didn't use any notes or reference materials? And, if so, do any of these books manifest a degree of complexity and consistency that is comparable to the Book of Mormon? If not, I think you may be comparing apples with orangutans.

Joseph Smith, according to his mother, also performed orations frequently for his family describing the peoples also described in the Book of Mormon. Reasonably, then, he'd already practiced telling the stories.

Furthermore, he'd already penned the translation of the Book of Lehi (known as the list 116 pages) which was considered redundant with the small plates of Nephi. In other words, Joseph Smith was covering largely familiar ground for a significant portion of the Book of Mormon.

I'm getting the feeling that you don't actually know of any texts that are truly comparable to the Book of Mormon. This is twice now that you have not addressed the substance of my point.

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

William Faulkner's "As I lay dying," is a highly-acclaimed novel written in six weeks, and according to him, without changing a word

As Pogi noted, this text isn't comparable. In addition to his novel's lack of complexity on many levels, Faulkner was about 10 years older than Joseph Smith, had more education, had someone mentor him in his writing, and had already published several works at this time. His book is more than 5 times shorter, and was written with pen and paper rather than dictated on the fly. Also, even though his novel had relatively few edits/revisions, Faulkner was apparently exaggerating about not changing a word:

http://faulkner.drupal.shanti.virginia.edu/content/asilaydyingmanuscripts

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 12/6/2019 at 12:49 AM, Duncan said:

I remember a comment made years ago by someone I knew and they said in the Church we hear two versions of Joseph Smith's intelligence, the first one being that he is super intelligent, spiritual, righteous, discerning, leadership qualities, we hear how good a man he was-emotional intelligence. The other version of his intelligence is how he couldn't have written the Book of Mormon, because he had limited education, didn't read much prior to the Book of Mormon and basically he wasn't smart enough to have written the book. So, the question was how do we reconcile the two, how can he be all these great qualities yet not be so smart enough to have written the Book of Mormon? Is it a matter of like on Seinfeld where someone can be smart enough to built a rocketship to send a man to the moon but yet they are lousy at parking?

He was at times referred to as Joseph the (or a ) sponge, meaning he could remember almost anything he read or viewed, and soaked it up like a sponge, and then was able to put in on paper. Kind of like an “Idiot Savant”, (hope I spelled it correctly). Emma said of Joseph, that “he could not write a well worded coherent sentence”. I think he was gifted, and a great conduit through which God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost”, could reveal great amounts of information, and teach him incredible things , and eternal principles.  

Edited December 10, 2019 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Servant

Savant...

[Gervin]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

As I understand it, that is how he translated most of the book, with his head in a dark hat, giving narration.

Dr. Seuss is highly acclaimed too!   As I lay dying, is an extremely simple plot and story.  The story centers around a single family.  It is about the 9 day journey and effort to carry out the father's promise to bury his dying wife in Jefferson, 40 miles away. 

1 family.

9 day period

40 miles covered.

Written in his primary and natural tongue/voice.  

It is the same very short story told 15 different times from 15 different perspectives.  

It doesn't get more simple than that.  Not that simple is bad, but it doesn't approach scripture in depth, character, voice, doctrine, prophecy, plot, complexity, and profoundly life-changing ability.

Ryan is right - "apples and orangutans".

Right.  Compare the complexity of this:

• And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away.

with something as simple as this:

• “In a strange room you must empty yourself for sleep. And before you are emptied for sleep, what are you. And when you are emptied for sleep, you are not. And when you are filled with sleep, you never were. I don't know what I am. I don't know if I am or not. Jewel knows he is, because he does not know that he does not know whether he is or not. He cannot empty himself for sleep because he is not what he is and he is what he is not. Beyond the unlamped wall I can hear the rain shaping the wagon that is ours, the load that is no longer theirs that felled and sawed it nor yet theirs that bought it and which is not ours either, lie on our wagon though it does, since only the wind and the rain shape it only to Jewel and me, that are not asleep. And since sleep is is-not and rain and wind are was, it is not. Yet the wagon is, because when the wagon is was, Addie Bundren will not be. And Jewel is, so Addie Bundren must be. And then I must be, or I could not empty myself for sleep in a strange room. And so if I am not emptied yet, I am is.

        How often have I lain beneath rain on a strange roof, thinking of home.”
― William Faulkner, As I Lay Dying

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Right.

Ha, nice one!

I don’t know if you have read the Old Testament - large portions that absolutely put you to sleep with painfully mundane details, and other portions which open your soul and elevate you to higher spiritual plains of understanding.  With passages that one could meditate on for months and not fully tap into the depths of truth, meaning, and life-changing inspiration.  Yep, that is what it is like with the Book of Mormon too.  Yet another detail that Joseph nailed.  

The complexity of the two documents when viewed holistically is not really comparable.

Edited December 10, 2019 by pogi

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ha, nice one!

I don’t know if you have read the Old Testament - large portions that absolutely put you to sleep with painfully mundane details, and other portions which open your soul and elevate you to higher spiritual plains of understanding.  With passages that one could meditate on for months and not fully tap into the depths of truth, meaning, and life-changing inspiration.  Yep, that is what it is like with the Book of Mormon too.  Yet another detail that Joseph nailed.  

The complexity of the two documents when viewed holistically is not really comparable.

The BoM is so hard for me to get through. I can't quite get through the whole thing. My mind wanders and I've read a few pages without knowing what I've read. Any specific scripture reference/references you might share that would get me going again?

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The BoM is so hard for me to get through. I can't quite get through the whole thing. My mind wanders and I've read a few pages without knowing what I've read. Any specific scripture reference/references you might share that would get me going again?

You might benefit from a Book of Mormon made simple book.  My wife really enjoys the one by David J. Ridges, but I am sure there are other good ones too. 

A favorite feel good, easy to read, and not too doctrinally deep passage is Mosiah 2-5 (King Benjamin’s discourse).  That is a good place to start.

 

[InCognitus]

On 12/8/2019 at 3:14 AM, Meadowchik said:

That's just one interpretation of the storytelling. 

It’s only an “interpretation” if you choose to not believe what Lucy or Joseph said had happened.  The context of events in her account explains exactly where these “stories” came from, and it’s not from Joseph’s imagination.   Just previous to the quote I give below, Lucy gives a detailed description of Joseph Smith's visitation from the Father and the Son, and then the visit from the angel Moroni on September 21, 1823 and his visit, shortly thereafter, to the location where the plates were deposited (she uses the accounts of these events given in Joseph's own words as published in the Times and Seasons), and then she relates the following:

Quote

From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening, for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same.  I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-- all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons, and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.      

We were now confirmed in the opinion that God was about to bring to light something upon which we could stay our minds, or that would give us more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation and the redemption of the human family.  This caused us greatly to rejoice, the sweetest union and happiness pervaded our house, and tranquility reigned in our midst. 

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined.  He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship.  This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.

On the twenty-second of September, 1824, Joseph again visited the place where he found the plates the year previous...  (Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, by Lucy Mack Smith, Liverpool, England, 1853, pages 84-85.  See also the reprint of this book titled, History of Joseph Smith by his Mother, Lucy Mack Smith, Bookcraft Publishers, 1958, pages 82-83).

If this is the source for your idea that Joseph was a good story teller, then you have left out the part that says where he got the stories:  from continued “instructions from the Lord”.  How can you possibly interpret this any differently unless you either take it out of context or choose to believe that she’s lying about what happened?  Joseph received revelations beginning with the first vision and then Moroni’s visit to show him the plates.  And “from this time forth” (she says) he continued to receive revelations.  And every evening he gave his family a “relation of the same”. If Lucy is telling us the truth then she explicitly says that Joseph was recounting the revelations he had received, not that they came from Joseph’s own mind.   

On 12/8/2019 at 3:14 AM, Meadowchik said:

It seems to be that just about every element of the Book of Mormon can be attributed to 19th-century influences in his direct experiences. 

Every element?  So which 19th-century influence told Joseph that the name “Alma” would turn out to be a male name found in an ancient Hebrew document over a century after the book was published, contrary to the 19th-century idea that the name Alma was only a woman’s name?  Which 19th-century influence told Joseph to write that Jesus would be born of Mary “at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers”, something that was ridiculed by Alexander Campbell in 1832 (Delusions, p 13), but the Dead Sea Scrolls now inform us that the phrase “land of Jerusalem” was a common way to describe the area around Jerusalem at the time that Jeremiah was a prophet?  And the early 19th-century view of the Native Americans and their civilizations was extremely primitive.  In 1832, Alexander Campbell also mocked the Book of Mormon for the Nephite worship and their “wigwam temple, in the wilderness of America” (Delusions, p. 12).   Even if Joseph Smith was extremely intelligent, it would take research and foresight and discoveries beyond his means to pull off the things that have proven to be true from the Book of Mormon.

On 12/8/2019 at 3:14 AM, Meadowchik said:

There was his own father's dreams and visions, his own family's story of struggle, and the Bible itself. There were contemporary tales about the origins of what was believed to be the Lost Tribes in North America, there were the popularly derided "secret combinations" of the Masons, there was well-known knowledge of the recent wars on American soil. 

His father’s dreams, the family’s struggle, and the Bible all prepared Joseph for the restoration, but they aren’t the source material for the Book of Mormon.  Your comment about “recent wars on American soil” works against you, because it’s fairly well known now that there aren’t any archaeological evidences of any kind of large scale war in and around the New York area and the hill we call Cumorah.  The early Mormons believed the Book of Mormon lands stretched throughout all of North and South America, but this is clearly at odds with the book itself.  This also demonstrates that Joseph wasn’t as familiar with the book as one would need to be to keep all the land distances and place locations straight in his mind in writing the book, and the book is very precise and consistent in its geographical descriptions.  If Joseph made up the book based on his 19th-century ideas and was so specific in his construction of the geography described within the book, then why didn't he seem to know what the book itself says?

[InCognitus]

On 12/8/2019 at 8:22 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right. That’s why all members agree with this amazing evidence and there are no competing geographic theories. Certainly church leadership has endorsed the findings as legitimate right? 

What does what you said here have anything to do with the things I was talking about in my post?  But even so, I’m sure you know that evidence and proof is not the same thing.  Evidence can be interpreted in different ways, proof maybe not so much. 

On 12/8/2019 at 8:22 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There are faithful Non-critical members on this board (say churchistrue) that don’t believe in a historical Book of Mormon. Other faithful members here propose the Malay peninsula as the setting. A significant portion of the church are Meldrum followers.  If you can’t convince the faithful, in what way can you say it’s historicity is strengthened?

You are confusing historicity with geography; it’s not the same thing.  A book can contain authentic historical markers without having a shred of geographical information contained within it.  Take the book of Job in the Bible for example.  Can you tell me where it took place?  Probably not.  And many people identify the genre of the book to be a parable of sorts.  But even so, there are indications within the text as to the period of time it was likely written, showing that it is of ancient origin.  

Edited December 10, 2019 by InCognitus

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

As I understand it, that is how he translated most of the book, with his head in a dark hat, giving narration.

Dr. Seuss is highly acclaimed too!   As I lay dying, is an extremely simple plot and story.  The story centers around a single family.  It is about the 9 day journey and effort to carry out the father's promise to bury his dying wife in Jefferson, 40 miles away. 

1 family.

9 day period

40 miles covered.

Written in his primary and natural tongue/voice.  

It is the same very short story told 15 different times from 15 different perspectives.  

It doesn't get more simple than that.  Not that simple is bad, but it doesn't approach scripture in depth, character, voice, doctrine, prophecy, plot, complexity, and profoundly life-changing ability.

Ryan is right - "apples and orangutans".

Yes, it is not the same. What it is is an example of an acclaimed work of literature which is said to have been written in a period shorter than 65 days. 

There are others, too, of high acclaim which were written quickly. 

The question is whether it is humanly possible for Joseph Smith to produce the Book of Mormon, pen to paper, through dictation with a scribe, within 65 days. You say it is humanly "impossible" for a person to do that without some supernatural source giving him the words.

10 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm getting the feeling that you don't actually know of any texts that are truly comparable to the Book of Mormon. This is twice now that you have not addressed the substance of my point.

As Pogi noted, this text isn't comparable. In addition to his novel's lack of complexity on many levels, Faulkner was about 10 years older than Joseph Smith, had more education, had someone mentor him in his writing, and had already published several works at this time. His book is more than 5 times shorter, and was written with pen and paper rather than dictated on the fly. Also, even though his novel had relatively few edits/revisions, Faulkner was apparently exaggerating about not changing a word:

http://faulkner.drupal.shanti.virginia.edu/content/asilaydyingmanuscripts

 

Yes, As I Lay Dying and other quickly-written acclaimed works, as far as I can see, tend to be shorter.  Yet from what we know about human beings, and what is already conceded, there isn't reason to lay the production of the Book of Mormon outside of human capability.  It's already granted that Joseph Smith was able to recite all the words in that period of time. The question, then, is could he have done so without divine help such as God putting words on a seer stone in a hat for him to read aloud to his scribes. 

We know that people can do extraordinary things and some of the most important discoveries or works of art have been made by young people. I think it is possible that Joseph Smith, with general ideas already established, and stories already told with famliiarity, might have been able to concentrate enough with his face in a hat to pull it off. Mind you, this is conceding that the actual scene of transcription visible to the observers is accurate.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You are confusing historicity with geography; it’s not the same thing.  A book can contain authentic historical markers without having a shred of geographical information contained within it.  Take the book of Job in the Bible for example.  Can you tell me where it took place?  Probably not.  And many people identify the genre of the book to be a parable of sorts.  But even so, there are indications within the text as to the period of time it was likely written, showing that it is of ancient origin.  

According to church historian BH Roberts, there were markers that the Book of Mormon was written by an immature mind, that it

Quote

 

"...points quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency…

Is this all sober history…or is it a wonder-tale of an immature mind, unconscious of what a test he is laying on human credulity when asking men to accept his narrative as solemn history.

B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon

 

 

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It’s only an “interpretation” if you choose to not believe what Lucy or Joseph said had happened.  The context of events in her account explains exactly where these “stories” came from, and it’s not from Joseph’s imagination.   Just previous to the quote I give below, Lucy gives a detailed description of Joseph Smith's visitation from the Father and the Son, and then the visit from the angel Moroni on September 21, 1823 and his visit, shortly thereafter, to the location where the plates were deposited (she uses the accounts of these events given in Joseph's own words as published in the Times and Seasons), and then she relates the following:

It's always interpretation, especially in narratives like this, even if you believe the testimonies.

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

If this is the source for your idea that Joseph was a good story teller, then you have left out the part that says where he got the stories:  from continued “instructions from the Lord”.  How can you possibly interpret this any differently unless you either take it out of context or choose to believe that she’s lying about what happened?  Joseph received revelations beginning with the first vision and then Moroni’s visit to show him the plates.  And “from this time forth” (she says) he continued to receive revelations.  And every evening he gave his family a “relation of the same”. If Lucy is telling us the truth then she explicitly says that Joseph was recounting the revelations he had received, not that they came from Joseph’s own mind.   

I think it is rational to believe that Joseph probably told the family stories about a given subject matter if Lucy said he did. Yet the other claims she repeats are not things she witnessed herself but only second-hand at most, and those claims are far more extraordinary than a child telling stories. They do, consequently, require more evidence to be reasonably believable.

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Every element?  So which 19th-century influence told Joseph that the name “Alma” would turn out to be a male name found in an ancient Hebrew document over a century after the book was published, contrary to the 19th-century idea that the name Alma was only a woman’s name?  Which 19th-century influence told Joseph to write that Jesus would be born of Mary “at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers”, something that was ridiculed by Alexander Campbell in 1832 (Delusions, p 13), but the Dead Sea Scrolls now inform us that the phrase “land of Jerusalem” was a common way to describe the area around Jerusalem at the time that Jeremiah was a prophet?  And the early 19th-century view of the Native Americans and their civilizations was extremely primitive.  In 1832, Alexander Campbell also mocked the Book of Mormon for the Nephite worship and their “wigwam temple, in the wilderness of America” (Delusions, p. 12).   Even if Joseph Smith was extremely intelligent, it would take research and foresight and discoveries beyond his means to pull off the things that have proven to be true from the Book of Mormon.

I did say "just about every element." 

Anyway, the name Alma and the phrase "land of Jerusalem" don't seem very unlikely, the first being a name that already existed then, whatever the gendered use of it at the time or previous times. The "land of Jerusalem" seems an obviously generic way to denote a geographical area. 

And, regardless of what Alexander Campbell thought, many among the early colonists believed that there were more advanced societies there previously. There was much speculation and many writings at the time about the "New Jerusalem," and about the location of the lost tribes of Israel. And so Joseph Smith would not have been the only one to believe that there were advanced people living in the Americas previously. That wouldn't have required research, just an adoption of ideas common to his culture.

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

His father’s dreams, the family’s struggle, and the Bible all prepared Joseph for the restoration, but they aren’t the source material for the Book of Mormon.  Your comment about “recent wars on American soil” works against you, because it’s fairly well known now that there aren’t any archaeological evidences of any kind of large scale war in and around the New York area and the hill we call Cumorah.  

Again, that's your interpretation. The dreams and the biographies of the Smith family serve as possible content that is relevant to the question of how the Book of Mormon was written, if not through a divine source.

I'm not sure what you mean pointing out there's no evidece of a large scale war around the hill Cumorah. I said that Joseph Smith being familiar with recent wars, implying that would have helped him write the Book of Mormon. Such familiarity with the War of 1812 and others could have served as content helping to write about the Book of Mormon wars.

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The early Mormons believed the Book of Mormon lands stretched throughout all of North and South America, but this is clearly at odds with the book itself.  This also demonstrates that Joseph wasn’t as familiar with the book as one would need to be to keep all the land distances and place locations straight in his mind in writing the book, and the book is very precise and consistent in its geographical descriptions.  If Joseph made up the book based on his 19th-century ideas and was so specific in his construction of the geography described within the book, then why didn't he seem to know what the book itself says?

Sure, you can use the inconsistency between what Joseph dictated and what he said to try to validate the claim that it was only a dictation. That would not, however, make it divinely dictated.

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Savant...

Thank you, I was sure I got it wrong. I will repair it now, so any who see it in the future, don’t see me just an idiot. 😜

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's always interpretation, especially in narratives like this, even if you believe the testimonies.

I think it is rational to believe that Joseph probably told the family stories about a given subject matter if Lucy said he did. Yet the other claims she repeats are not things she witnessed herself but only second-hand at most, and those claims are far more extraordinary than a child telling stories. They do, consequently, require more evidence to be reasonably believable.

I did say "just about every element." 

Anyway, the name Alma and the phrase "land of Jerusalem" don't seem very unlikely, the first being a name that already existed then, whatever the gendered use of it at the time or previous times. The "land of Jerusalem" seems an obviously generic way to denote a geographical area. 

And, regardless of what Alexander Campbell thought, many among the early colonists believed that there were more advanced societies there previously. There was much speculation and many writings at the time about the "New Jerusalem," and about the location of the lost tribes of Israel. And so Joseph Smith would not have been the only one to believe that there were advanced people living in the Americas previously. That wouldn't have required research, just an adoption of ideas common to his culture.

Again, that's your interpretation. The dreams and the biographies of the Smith family serve as possible content that is relevant to the question of how the Book of Mormon was written, if not through a divine source.

I'm not sure what you mean pointing out there's no evidece of a large scale war around the hill Cumorah. I said that Joseph Smith being familiar with recent wars, implying that would have helped him write the Book of Mormon. Such familiarity with the War of 1812 and others could have served as content helping to write about the Book of Mormon wars.

Sure, you can use the inconsistency between what Joseph dictated and what he said to try to validate the claim that it was only a dictation. That would not, however, make it divinely dictated.

 

What if Joseph wrote the BoM long before he sat down with Oliver Cowdery and the others. And made a rough draft long before, and Oliver helped make it happen? And added to it? I know that many even bring Sidney Rigdon in on it, although JS doesn't appear to have known him beforehand. But these are the questions that are constantly nagging at me. Is that JS started this book long before the scribes. That he had all of the stories surrounding him, and that he read or was read to the books that have the same phrases etc. And the thousands of changes, many including grammar. And that's how this book makes sense now.These are always riddling my mind. But I guess to many it narrows down to my reading it fully and getting a testimony or an assurance from my heavenly parents that it is indeed true. But Moroni 10:4 asks that we pray to know if it is not true, which is an interesting way to put it, isn't it? Maybe that silly to even think though.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ^aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not ^btrue; and if ye shall ask with a ^csincere heart, with ^dreal intent, having ^efaith in Christ, he will ^fmanifest the ^gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[theplains]

On 12/7/2019 at 1:35 PM, InCognitus said:

This is ridiculous.  He obviously knew or had faith that the Bible was true, but his whole question was about which church he should join.  As your quote shows, everyone interprets the Bible differently and therefore he was unable to trust any of the "teachers of religion" to help him settle "the question" by an appeal to the Bible.

And because he had faith that the Bible was true, he followed the advice given in the Bible to get the answer to his question:  

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."  (James 1:5–6)

Clearly he trusted in the Bible so much so that he had faith to act upon what it said and as a result he received the answer to his question. 

Both the Bible and Book of Mormon are silent on some topics so we cannot really say one way or 
the other if something happened or not, whether something is a sin or not, or whether something
is true or false.  You even have different interpretations on certain passages in the Book of
Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. I can give you some examples if you request them of me.  Maybe
a new thread would suffice for that.

I don't believe that either the Bible or the Book of Mormon were written so that we could appeal
to them by asking the questions "Which church should I join? or Are all churches wrong?"
I also don't believe that our confidence should be destroyed by appealing to either Books
if something is not explicitly mentioned and thus we cannot discover answers to our questions.

I have a different opinion about James 1:5-6. I believe it is not about asking God for knowledge
about which church to join but it is about wisdom and patience in dealing with trials and
temptations.

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The BoM is so hard for me to get through. I can't quite get through the whole thing. My mind wanders and I've read a few pages without knowing what I've read. Any specific scripture reference/references you might share that would get me going again?

The "2 Hour Book of Mormon: A Book of Mormon Primer Paperback" by Larry Anderson is 
pretty good.

[theplains]

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The early Mormons believed the Book of Mormon lands stretched throughout all of North and South America, but this is clearly at odds with the book itself.  This also demonstrates that Joseph wasn’t as familiar with the book as one would need to be to keep all the land distances and place locations straight in his mind in writing the book, and the book is very precise and consistent in its geographical descriptions.

Early church leaders, one being President Heber J. Grant in General Conference, taught that the Hill
Cumorah (where the great battle took place) was located in New York State (April 1928 GC, pages 8,
10, 13, 15, 22, 96, 100, and 107.

Do you believe this?

Thanks,
Jim