Joseph Smith's intelligence

[alter idem]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

 

Is this from his writings where B.H. Roberts was playing 'Devil's Advocate', suggesting the things that critics would say to undermine and discredit the Book of Mormon?  If it is, then he was right on how the critics would try to exploit certain things in the book of Mormon to try to discredit it.  To me, it is an example of how the critics use two tactics.  Suggest that Joseph Smith jr. was a diabolical genius or he was a lazy, stupid huckster.

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

You're misrepresenting the argument. I don't believe anybody has ever claimed that it is impossible to write any sort of book in fewer than 65 days. 

 

Quote

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

I'm not sure why you are focusing on "acclaim." 

I readily admit that there are works of literature more popular than the Book of Mormon which have been written in a similarly short time frame. In fact, this time of year, A Christmas Carol comes to mind as one such example.

But whether or not a given work has received popular acclaim says nothing about it other than that the story has been well received by the literary world. 

 

Quote

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.

Well, now we're getting closer: is it humanly possible for Joseph Smith (or someone like  him) to have produced the Book of Mormon in that short of a time frame.

So now we have to start looking at the attributes of Joseph Smith - not Faulkner. To find someone analogous to Joseph Smith you're going to have to locate someone in their early 20's, with no more than 2-3 years worth of 1800's-level formal education, having spent most of their life in backwoods farming communities.

You're going to have to find someone like that and then have them write a religious history spanning over 500 pages and roughly 1,000 years which is similar to the Book of Mormon.

And to get something like the Book of Mormon you're going to have to create a text that includes multiple civilizations, including the world-building necessary to describe their various economic, political, religious, and social cultures. As has been pointed out, you're also going to need prophecies scattered throughout the text which need be accounted for by the end of the book without access to notes or previous re-reads (oh, and they need to reconcile with the Bible as well). Oh, and you're going to have to change voice - not perspective, actual voice (something that most accomplished authors struggle to break free of once) multiple times throughout the course of your writing as well. 

And that's just scratching the surface. As study of the Book of Mormon has gone on over time, it has only proven to be even more complex and impressive than it originally seemed.

So, could someone like Joseph Smith have created something like the Book of Mormon without divine intervention? I think the answer is pretty obviously "no."

 

 

 

 

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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.

Actually, asking a question in the negative is a rhetorical device to emphasize that the person asking the question assumes the answer will be or should be in the affirmative. Here is an example from the Bible:

Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Matthew 13:55:)

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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.

The manner of the book's dictation certainly does not make that impossible. 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 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.

Yes, that's one of the central points of the Book of Mormon, especially one that continues to prevail in LDS doctrine and practice. Yet, the concept of "knowing" something to be true because one has a certain feeling after praying about it seems like a fragile epistemology indeed. Many an ideology or religion has been "proved" with such a technique.

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Is this from his writings where B.H. Roberts was playing 'Devil's Advocate', suggesting the things that critics would say to undermine and discredit the Book of Mormon?  If it is, then he was right on how the critics would try to exploit certain things in the book of Mormon to try to discredit it.  To me, it is an example of how the critics use two tactics.  Suggest that Joseph Smith jr. was a diabolical genius or he was a lazy, stupid huckster.

Roberts also said:

Quote

But in addition to the striking parallelism in these incidents of Anti-Christs of the Book of Mormon, with the strong implication that they have their origin in one mind, I call attention again to the fact of "rawness" in dealing with this question of unbelief, the evidence of "amateurishness" increasingly evident in this story of Korihor. Does it not carry with it proof that it is the work of a pious youth dealing with the very commonplace stock arguments clumsily put together for the belief in the existence of God . . . rather than an adult appeal and argument on the great questions involved? .. . And is not the vindication of God and his truth by a vindictive miracle on the person of the ranting blasphemer, rather the dream of a pious boy of what might very well have happened, rather than a matter of actual experience? There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites,... but I shall hold that what is presented illustrates... that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator, it is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they came upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America.

Bolded added.

[alter idem]

On 12/6/2019 at 7:52 PM, Tacenda said:

You put quotes around something I didn't even say, just for the record. 

Also, on this website, http://lifeafter.org/book-mormon-view-hebrews-parallels/, it has the following paragraphs that tell me that Oliver could have helped Joseph Smith with a similar narrative for the Book of Mormon. The website also has a link to the View of the Hebrews, that I need to try to read before I keep spouting things. But the fact that Oliver went to Ethan Smith's church says something to me. Or makes me suspect. But my verdict isn't totally final on the matter. 

Ethan Smith pastored a church in Poultney, VT which was adjacent to the county where Joseph Smith lived in NY. Oliver Cowdery, one of the BoM Witnesses, just so happened to be a member of Ethan Smith’s church from1821-1825 or 1826 during which time Ethan Smith wrote and published his book.

Cowdery met Joseph Smith on or near April 5-7, 1829 and within days of meeting each other Cowdery becomes a scribe for Joseph Smith and his publication of the Book of Mormon.  In the Pearl of Great Price 1:67 Joseph Smith writes; “Two days after the arrival of Mr. Cowdery (being the 7th of April) I commenced to translate the Book of Mormon, and he began to write for me.”

The View of the Hebrews is a small book, as I recall (my dad has a copy).  It's a novel.  There are a handful of similarities, but the suggestion that since Oliver Cowdery's family attended the Author's church, he must have given a copy of the book to Joseph who then used it to create the Book of Mormon, was discredited once people were able to actually read and compare the two.  The suggestion of the View of the Hebrews as the basis for the Book of Mormon was never made during Joseph's lifetime, it was made in 1902--after the Critics' Solomon Spaulding 'Lost Manuscript' explanation for the Book of Mormon fell apart.  There's a lot of information on this and even the similiarities at Fair mormon--if you care to look;

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Authorship_theories/View_of_the_Hebrews

 

One other thing you need to ask.  Let's just say that Oliver Cowdery was in cahoots with Joseph and brought him a copy of 'view of the hebrews' and the two decided to pretend to write the book of Mormon.  How do you explain Oliver Cowdery never coming forward and exposing Joseph, when he left the church for several years?  How did Joseph hide this from the other scribes who helped him with the manuscript?  How did Joseph write the first 116 pages without Oliver's copy of View of the Hebrews?  How did he get the gist of the story right, when he didn't have access or know of the book?  And, as Meadowchik pointed out, Joseph's mother said that he had shared some stories about the Nephites and Lamanites before he began the translation of the plates, but he didn't have the book, View of the Hebrews, since he hadn't met Oliver yet? 

And then there's the fact that critics had tried this before.  The Solomon Spaulding  work 'Manuscript found' had been put forward as the basis for the Book of Mormon for many decades, and for that explanation,  Sidney was purported to be Joseph's partner in crime--that is until Spaulding's book manuscript was found and read, and it turned out to have nothing in similarity to the Book of Mormon.  This was in 1885 that it was found. 

The Book, View of the Hebrews came out in 1823, that was plenty of time for critics to make the comparison and accuse Joseph of plagiarism, but they didn't--one has to ask why???  If it was such an obvious rip off--(as suggested by Fawn Brodie), then why did it take so many years for anyone else to see it??  Critics didn't put this theory forward till 1902 and I think that's because after the Solomon Spaulding angle fell apart, they were looking for something else to discredit the Book of Mormon, and so they found 'The View of the Hebrews'.  This worked for a while, until the book was reprinted and people were able to actually read it and see that it couldn't have been the basis for the Book of Mormon. 

One other interesting thing that the Fairmormon article points out.  We do know Joseph was familiar with the book 'View of the Hebrews'.  If Joseph Smith DID plagiarize 'View of the Hebrews' to create the Book of Mormon--why would he point members of the church to Ethan Smith's book in an article he wrote?  Don't you think he'd want to hide it so that his fraud would not be exposed?  But then again, there's that suggestion that he's either an evil genius or a lazy, fool.  I guess some might point to either of those characterizations for an explanation.

[alter idem]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Roberts also said:

Bolded added.

And I ask once again, I know that parts of his book of Mormon studies were written in a 'Devil's advocate' way to show church leaders the kinds of ways the Book of Mormon could be attacked.  Could this be what he was doing?  I don't see any page numbers to the quotes you share.  If so, then it makes sense--he's got the critics down pat as to what they would say and do say.  The only other explanation(which critics like to promote) is that B.H. Roberts lost his testimony and believed the Church was based on a fraud, created by a fake.  But, is there any indication in the life of BH Roberts that he so turned against his faith that he came to believe the whole thing was a fraud?

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You're misrepresenting the argument. I don't believe anybody has ever claimed that it is impossible to write any sort of book in fewer than 65 days. 

 

I'm not sure why you are focusing on "acclaim." 

I am trying to acknowledge the points being made about the speed and manner of writing, and claims that it would be humanly impossible. So I narrow down the specific characteristics in question. 

"Acclaim" begins to acknowledge the difference between quantity and quality. 

 

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I readily admit that there are works of literature more popular than the Book of Mormon which have been written in a similarly short time frame. In fact, this time of year, A Christmas Carol comes to mind as one such example.

But whether or not a given work has received popular acclaim says nothing about it other than that the story has been well received by the literary world. 

Right, and by acclaim as a literary work, I mean the reception of it among critics of literature.  

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, now we're getting closer: is it humanly possible for Joseph Smith (or someone like  him) to have produced the Book of Mormon in that short of a time frame.

So now we have to start looking at the attributes of Joseph Smith - not Faulkner. To find someone analogous to Joseph Smith you're going to have to locate someone in their early 20's, with no more than 2-3 years worth of 1800's-level formal education, having spent most of their life in backwoods farming communities.

You're going to have to find someone like that and then have them write a religious history spanning over 500 pages and roughly 1,000 years which is similar to the Book of Mormon.

And to get something like the Book of Mormon you're going to have to create a text that includes multiple civilizations, including the world-building necessary to describe their various economic, political, religious, and social cultures. As has been pointed out, you're also going to need prophecies scattered throughout the text which need be accounted for by the end of the book without access to notes or previous re-reads (oh, and they need to reconcile with the Bible as well). Oh, and you're going to have to change voice - not perspective, actual voice (something that most accomplished authors struggle to break free of once) multiple times throughout the course of your writing as well. 

And that's just scratching the surface. As study of the Book of Mormon has gone on over time, it has only proven to be even more complex and impressive than it originally seemed.

So, could someone like Joseph Smith have created something like the Book of Mormon without divine intervention? I think the answer is pretty obviously "no."

I've been looking at works contemporary to Joseph Smith. There is amazing writing which is very bit as complex and sophisticated in style and literary device as modern works, frequently moreso. As a piece of literature, the Book of Mormon comes nowhere near the quality of regularly published books treating the subjects of religious history addressed to adult readers.

Now I would not expect Joseph Smith to be able to produce a literary work on par with more educated and experienced writers, but those writers do give perspective on the human capability. Christopher Paolini, for example, took a year to write the first draft of the novel Eragon at the age of 15. The novel is roughly 150K words. He's now known to admit the poor quality of his work, and yet it does give one another perspective of human capability.  Jane Austen wrote several novels, some of which were highly complex. Samuel Noble was an educated Swedenbourgian who wrote An Appeal, an apologetic work more than 250K in length in response to "anti-Swedenbourgianists." 

So people are known to write works of varying quality and speed. We concede that Joseph could recite the Book of Mormon within two months. So why cannot he have truly been recited something that had already been formed, even iof only within his own mind? We know he'd already dictated the 116 pages, which cover very similar ground. According to Lucy, we know he'd already become practiced at telling stories of the book of Mormon people. So, for all we know, those two months can literally represent the formalised recitation of already-created orations or works.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, alter idem said:

And I ask once again, I know that parts of his book of Mormon studies were written in a 'Devil's advocate' way to show church leaders the kinds of ways the Book of Mormon could be attacked.  Could this be what he was doing?  I don't see any page numbers to the quotes you share.  If so, then it makes sense--he's got the critics down pat as to what they would say and do say.  The only other explanation(which critics like to promote) is that B.H. Roberts lost his testimony and believed the Church was based on a fraud, created by a fake.  But, is there any indication in the life of BH Roberts that he so turned against his faith that he came to believe the whole thing was a fraud?

I thought that the second quote I provided answers your questions. Roberts very frankly says,

"but I shall hold that what is presented illustrates... that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator, it is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they came upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America." 

That does not sound like a rehearsal of the words of hypothetical critics.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, alter idem said:

The only other explanation(which critics like to promote) is that B.H. Roberts lost his testimony and believed the Church was based on a fraud, created by a fake.  But, is there any indication in the life of BH Roberts that he so turned against his faith that he came to believe the whole thing was a fraud?

Also, it should probably also be acknowledged that believing the Book of Mormon to not be historical does not preclude the belief in the gospel or having a testimony. There are people who have a testimony of the value of the church and Book of Mormon without believing the book was historical. So imo there is no need to frame BH Roberts into that dillemma.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Also, it should probably also be acknowledged that believing the Book of Mormon to not be historical does not preclude the belief in the gospel or having a testimony. There are people who have a testimony of the value of the church and Book of Mormon without believing the book was historical. So imo there is no need to frame BH Roberts into that dillemma.

True, and what if it's been proven somewhat that the BoM, like the BoA is more a revelation? Is that going to be a slippery slope for believing members? 

[Amulek]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Right, and by acclaim as a literary work, I mean the reception of it among critics of literature.  

Which tells us what, exactly?

Is the Old Testament somehow not scripture just because literary critics aren't inspired by reading page after page of genealogies or chapter after chapter detailing the differences between sin offerings vs peace offerings, etc.?

I'm sorry, but this doesn't even make sense as a criticism. It's like a complete, category error, in fact. 

 

 

[alter idem]

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I thought that the second quote I provided answers your questions. Roberts very frankly says,

"but I shall hold that what is presented illustrates... that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator, it is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they came upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America." 

That does not sound like a rehearsal of the words of hypothetical critics.

I'm always skeptical of things read out of context.  I have no knowledge that anyone other than critics claiming Brigham H. Roberts lost his testimony of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.  And thankfully, Fairmormon has put an extensive article online which explains the purpose of these studies he wrote.  My suggestion is that you and anyone else who has questions about B.H. Roberts or believes the critic's claims that he lost his testimony, ought to read it.

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

A couple of excerpts from the article:

Quote

This difference in purpose from his earlier writings has led critics to proclaim that these catalogues of possible future lines of attack represent Roberts’ actual statements of belief. This claim willingly or ignorantly ignores what B.H. Roberts said about this study. In a letter to President Heber J. Grant dated March 15, 1922, Roberts recounted the January conference and explained:

My answer was, however, that it was my intention to go on with the consideration to the last analysis. Accordingly, since the matter was already so far under my hands, I continued my studies, and submit herewith the record of them. I do not say my conclusions, for they are undrawn. In writing out this my report to you of those studies, I have written it from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ‘study of Book of Mormon origins’ for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it. While searching for the answers to the questions of Mr. Couch submitted through Mr. William E. Riter, I came in contact with the material here used, and concluded that while the subject was fresh in my mind to make it of record for those who should be its students and know on what ground the Book of Mormon may be questioned, as well as that which supports its authenticity and its truth… I am very sure that you will find the material herewith submitted of intense interest, and it may be of very great importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of Mormon. [Emphasis added] ¹⁴

Roberts was primarily concerned with potential future attacks along these lines, and the Church’s response to them. The crux of the matter is his statement in the letter that he is “taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.” This is what made B.H. Roberts so effective in defending the Church and discomfiting its enemies: proceeding from an unshakable faith, he was able to engage attacks head-on, neither holding back nor avoiding potentially difficult issues. Yet, it is this frankness in acknowledging what could be said by an opponent that prompts critics to proclaim that his faith had been fatally shaken.

 

 

 

Quote

The claim that Roberts became disillusioned with the Book of Mormon is untenable in the face of B.H. Roberts’ actual writings and speeches, both private and public. This is especially true of the last decade of his life, the time period when Spencer insists that “he came to realize he had spent a lifetime defending something which he now knew was a fraud.” Sterling McMurrin, in his biographical essay in Studies of the Book of Mormon, concedes that:

Roberts’ ‘A Book of Mormon Study’ must speak for itself. But those interested in the author’s conclusions set forth in the manuscript should not neglect the statements affirming his belief in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon that appear in the letters that are a part of the controversy that resulted from a reading of the manuscript by Church officials. The contrast of his manuscript, composed as an attempt to come to grips with a basic problem that he apparently believed would yield to scholarly analysis, with his affirmation, in the heat of controversy, of his faith that the objective foundation of Mormonism is not to be doubted raises the interesting question of what Roberts did in fact believe about the Book of Mormon in his latest years. That he continued to profess his faith in the authenticity of the book seems to be without question, despite the strong arguments and statements in his study that would appear to explicitly express a conviction that it is not authentic. (emphasis added) ²³

 

[alter idem]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Also, it should probably also be acknowledged that believing the Book of Mormon to not be historical does not preclude the belief in the gospel or having a testimony. There are people who have a testimony of the value of the church and Book of Mormon without believing the book was historical. So imo there is no need to frame BH Roberts into that dillemma.

Agreed.  But there is also no need to frame B.H. Roberts as having lost his testimony in the Book of Mormon or in Joseph Smith jr. as a Prophet of God.  There might be people like that, but Roberts wasn't one of them and the article above shows this.

[alter idem]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

True, and what if it's been proven somewhat that the BoM, like the BoA is more a revelation? Is that going to be a slippery slope for believing members? 

I don't believe you need to worry about that.  The Book of Mormon is not a novel, it was not written for entertainment, it was written as a second witness/testimony of Jesus Christ, and anyone who reads it, can not claim otherwise, than that it fulfills that purpose.  It isn't supposed to be a literary masterpiece and shouldn't be compared to books of that sort, it wasn't written to compete against other books, only to uphold and act as a second witness, in support of the testimony of the Jews--which is the Bible;  it is actually written on a simple linguistic level so that it can be read and even retranslated into other languages--as was it's purpose--to proclaim Jesus Christ to the world.  Though they've tried, no ones been able to prove The Book of Mormon false in almost 200 years and IMO, It's not going to be proven false, so it just leaves it that if you want to know if it's true or not, you're going to have to read it with a sincere heart and pray to know if it is indeed true.

[Ryan Dahle]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, As I Lay Dying and other quickly-written acclaimed works, as far as I can see, tend to be shorter.

And far less complex. 

Quote

It's already granted that Joseph Smith was able to recite all the words in that period of time. 

Actually, that isn't conceded. Some scholars believe that some of the vocabulary in the Book of Mormon was likely above Joseph Smith's ability. Furthermore, linguistic research shows that the text's lexis, grammar, and syntax (its words and the ways they are arranged) is consistent with extrabiblical and biblical Early Modern English, and furthermore that this archaic English is absent in Joseph Smith's linguistic environment (or anywhere, else, for that matter) in the textual record in the early 19th century. I don't want to hash out the merits of the so-called Early Modern English theory, but it is backed up by lots of hard linguistic data researched by experts in that field. This is all simply to point out that your premise isn't conceded. The Book of Mormon isn't a typical of example of an early 19th century English text, and standard linguistic assumptions would preclude Joseph Smith from having the linguistic ability to have produced it. 

Here is much of the research to which I am referring:

Skousen and Carmack, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon; Stanford Carmack, “Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 177–232; Stanford Carmack, “Barlow on Book of Mormon Language: An Examination of Some Strained Grammar” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 185–196; Stanford Carmack, “How Joseph Smith’s Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 239–259; Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack, “Editing Out the ‘Bad Grammar’ in the Book of Mormon,” The Interpreter Foundation, 2016; Stanford Carmack, “The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 79–108; Stanford Carmack, “The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 109–137; Stanford Carmack, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 41–61; Stanford Carmack, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 33–40; Stanford Carmack, “Exploding the Myth of Unruly Book of Mormon Grammar: A Look at the Excellent Match with Early Modern English,” The Interpreter Foundation/BYU Studies, 2015; Royal Skousen, “‘A theory! A theory! We have already got a theory, and there cannot be any more theories!’” The Interpreter Foundation/BYU Studies, 2015; Stanford Carmack, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 65–77; Stanford Carmack, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 119–186; Stanford Carmack, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 175–217; Stanford Carmack, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11 (2014): 209–262. 

Edited December 10, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

But I think we all place limits on what we think human beings will reasonably be capable of doing. It is true, for example, that some humans can run a mile in under 4 minutes. It is also true that some humans can juggle more than 10 balls at a time. But is it plausible that some human can run a mile in under 4 minutes while juggling more than ten balls at a time?

By analogy, that is sort of like what you are proposing about the Book of Mormon. Some authors can write complex and consistent books. Some authors can write a lot of impressive words in a short amount of time, with few revisions. Some authors can write impressive works of literature with limited literary experience or education. Some people can produce fairly impressive (although not usually complex) stories through oral discourse. But all of these things on their own are fairly rare. And together they are, to my knowledge, completely unprecedented.

I think you are missing the point, which is that when you combine separate difficult tasks together, their compounded difficulty is amplified. No one can prove that it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon under the circumstances described by the witnesses. Yet, no one can prove that it is humanly impossible to run a mile in under 4 minutes while simultaneously juggling more than 10 balls. All one can do is make reasonable inferences about how difficult such feats would be and note that, so far, they are unprecedented. 

For me, when all of these relevant factors are accounted for, I find it highly implausible that Joseph Smith could have produced the text of the Book of Mormon, and in my mind that provides one good reason to believe that the text was produced by the gift and power of God. I don't think the argument can go much beyond that. If someone isn't inclined to accept the miraculous nature of the text, they will likely try to make the extrapolations (however unproven, unprecedented, and, imo, unlikely as they may be) that you seem to favor.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Ahab]

Just in case nobody has mentioned it in this thread yet, intelligence is something we associate with God, so anyone who does anything intelligent is somehow influenced by God even if people don't give God the credit.

And sometimes some people don't see the intelligence that is evident in something, like in writing the Book of Mormon.  Some people just give that book a casual inspection and then say they don't see any intelligence in it, while others will say that they do.

So who is right?  Who is more intelligent?  And if something is intelligent, how can we know it?

I don't think anyone in their right mind, thinking intelligently, can honestly say that some idiot wrote the Book of Mormon. that it didn't take any intelligence at all to write it.

I'd say if Joseph Smith wrote it, all by himself, with nobody to help him except for people to write down what he said, that Joseph Smith was a man who somehow exhibited a lot of intelligence as he wrote it.  And I would say that intelligence was a gift from God.

 

 

[Tacenda]

A few quotes with references below, appear to me that Joseph was intelligent.

This:

Herbert S. Salisbury, grandson of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s sister, Katherine Smith Salisbury, said the following about Joseph Smith:

The enemies of the Prophet Joseph Smith accuse him of being an ignorant young man at the time he received the first revelation. The defenders of the church have exaggerated his lack of learning. …

He was not as ignorant as his enemies would have us believe, anyhow. I have his New England Reader, used by him in school, and afterwards by his sister Catherine, who gave it to me, and it would take some of our college and university men to fully appreciate its lofty sentiment, expressed in the sesquipedal verbiage of the noted scholars and writers of the great Puritan age, from Milton up to the beginning of our Constitutional Period.

He, and many of the early church men, were the product of the best Puritan stock, with whom education was one of the first considerations. Joseph Smith, jr.'s, maternal grandmother, Lydia Gates Mack, was a school-teacher and taught his mother. Joseph Smith, sr., was a public-school teacher in Royalton, Vermont. His wife, Emma Hale, was also a school-teacher, a woman of liberal culture and insistent on education. Inasmuch as New England had enjoyed free public schools for nearly two centuries before Joseph Smith appeared upon the stage of action, and in light of the fact that his immediate ancestors were people of high rank in Massachusetts, and of the teaching profession, it is unreasonable to suppose that he had absolutely no common education.

H. S. Salisbury, "History of Education in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," Journal of History, Vol. XV, No. 3 (July, 1922), pp. 257-58.

And this:

Young Joseph was able to read and ponder scriptures. Joseph also attended Protestant church services and apparently studied the Bible in depth. According to Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, less than a year after first being visited by Moroni, Joseph said:

Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to [church], or any of the rest of the family; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods and learn more in two hours than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time.

Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool: S. W. Richards, 1853), p. 90.

And this:

William E. McLellin, a schoolteacher, said of Joseph as an adult learner:

He attended my High school during the winter of 1834. He attended my school and learned science all winter. I learned the strength of his mind as <to> the study and principles of science. Hence I think I knew him. And I here say that he had one of <the> strongest, well balanced, penetrating, and retentive minds of any <man> with which <whom> I ever formed an acquaintance, among the thousands of my observation. Although when I took him into my school, he was without scientific knowledge or attainments.

"Inside the lost McLellin notebook," Michael De Groote, Deseret News, 28 January 2009.

And this:

THE IMAGINATIVE MIND OF PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH: EVIDENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE-EXAMPLES OF ITS FORCE

One other subject remains to be considered in this division of the "study" here conducted, viz.-was Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the preceding chapters-from such common knowledge as was extant in the communities where he lived in his boyhood and young manhood; from the Bible, and more especially from the View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith? That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question.

The fact of it is first established by the testimony of the mother who bore him, Lucy Smith. Speaking of the days immediately following the revelation making known the existence of the Book of Mormon to her son-the ever memorable 23rd day of September, 1823-Lucy Smith in her History of the Prophet Joseph Smith, recounts how in the evening of that day, the young prophet sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel; until the elder brother, Alvin, noting how exhausted the youthful prophet was suggested an adjournment of the story being related until the following evening. And this was done. This seems to have been the inauguration of a long series of such evenings according to the History by "Mother Lucy Smith" for she writes:

"From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every night 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..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 traveling, 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 among them." (History of the Prophet Joseph, 1901 edition, Salt Lake City, Utah. Published under the sanction and direction of the late President Joseph F. Smith).

It must be remembered that the above took place before the young prophet had received the plates of the Book of Mormon: these were the evenings immediately following the first interviews with Moroni. Whence came his knowledge for these recitals of "the dress," "the mode of the ancient inhabitants of America of traveling," "the animals on which they rode," "their cities," "their buildings," "their mode of warfare," "their religious worship"? And all this given "with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them"? Whence indeed, since all this happened before even the second interview with Moroni had taken place, and between three and four years before the translation of the Book of Mormon began.

And yet it must be from that book that he would get his knowledge of the ancient inhabitants of America, unless he has caught suggestions from such common knowledge, or that which was taken for "knowledge," as existed in the community concerning ancient American civilization, and built by imagination from this and possible contact with Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews his description of the ancient inhabitants of the land, their life, religion and customs. A year later he will be helped by Josiah Priest's book, The Wonders of Nature and Providence, published only twenty miles away, and it will have much to say about the Hebrew origin of the American Indian, and his advanced culture and civilization. Whence comes the young prophet's ability to give these descriptions "with as much ease as if he had spent his whole life" with these ancient inhabitants of America? Not from the Book of Mormon, which is, as yet, a sealed book to him; and surely not from Moroni, since he had had but one day and night of interviews with him, during which there had be several interviews, it is true, but these had been occupied with other subject matter than the things enumerated by Lucy Smith. These evening recitals could come from no other source than the vivid, constructive imagination of Joseph Smith, a remarkable power which attended him through all his life. It was as strong and varied as Shakespeare's and no more to be accounted for than the English Bard's.

Chapter XIV, Studies of the Book of Mormon, B.H. Roberts, pp 243-244.

[MDalby]

Are knowledge and intelligence the same thing, or are they different? Some of you are nodding your heads in response to the question, "Are they different?" The answer is yes. One can accumulate knowledge in the form of facts, information, or data. Intelligence is the application of what we know for righteous purposes. That statement bears repeating. Intelligence is the application of what we know for righteous purposes. There is an element of action, an element of obedience, in true spiritual intelligence.  Look at the order in which knowledge and intelligence are presented--knowledge first, intelligence second. Follow along in the next line of the scripture and note the parallel between the terms knowledge and intelligence and the means by which they are acquired: "And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience."  Now link knowledge and intelligence with diligence and obedience. 
• How is knowledge obtained? Through diligence. And what is that? Hard work, perseverance, sticking with a task. 
• How is intelligence acquired? Through obedience. Intelligence is the application of what we know for righteous purposes.  
D&C 88:118 is a familiar verse. We have all read it many times, but I want to draw your attention to the sequence and pattern contained in it:  And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. The sequence parallels what we find in Section 130. In fact, if we look at those two verses side by side, this is what we learn: 
• Knowledge is obtained through diligent study. (Knowledge: Diligent + study.  Diligent - D&C 130:19; Study - D&C 88:118.) 
• How is intelligence developed? Through faithful obedience. (Intelligence: Faithful + Obedience.  Faithful - D&C 130:19; Obedience - D&C 88:118.)
Brother and sisters, if there is one point I would have each of us understand today, it is that you and I are here at Ricks College to increase in intelligence. I do not mean ACT scores. I do not mean IQ. I do not mean the mere accumulation of facts. I mean spiritual intelligence. The intelligence I am talking about is not an academic pursuit; it is a spiritual pursuit wherein we learn and apply what we know for righteous purposes.  Here are a few examples that highlight the distinction between knowledge and intelligence:  
• You and I may know the right things to do--that is knowledge. But if you and I are intelligent, we will consistently do the right things. It is one thing to know what to do, but intelligence is consistently doing the right thing.
• It is important and good and necessary to know that the gospel is true. Intelligence is consistently being true to the gospel.
(David A Bednar, Gain Spiritual Intelligence, Ricks College Devotional, September 9, 1997)
 

[Gervin]

10 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And far less complex. 

What does mean?  There's nothing in the Book of Mormon that, to me, comes across as complex.  What criteria or standard are you using?   That one dinky Faulkner passage I pasted is more complex than anything I've ever read in the Book of Mormon.  I don't get it.

[Tacenda]

Just need to mention something about the quote below...I remember a time of debating over if Joseph owned a Bible. Crazy, the extent some apologists will go to prevent doubt. Does anyone else remember discussing if they owned a Bible? Or am I losing it?

"Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to [church], or any of the rest of the family; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods and learn more in two hours than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool: S. W. Richards, 1853), p. 90.

ETA: Also, if Joseph uses another book to help him with the translation of the Bible, what say ye on him using books to help him write the BoM? 

Again, I think someone can be inspired to write a religious book such as Joseph did, IMO. 

ETA again: Something caught my attention here. Is Joseph like many who now question their belief in the LDS religion like he questioned his belief in the Protestant religion? Seems to me, he was going through a faith crisis much like many of us have. So maybe a good thing? A thing that forces one to branch out, leave the faith of their parents and find their own??

Edited December 11, 2019 by Tacenda

[alter idem]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just need to mention something about the quote below...I remember a time of debating over if Joseph owned a Bible. Crazy, the extent some apologists will go to prevent doubt. Does anyone else remember discussing if they owned a Bible? Or am I losing it?

"Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to [church], or any of the rest of the family; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods and learn more in two hours than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time." Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool: S. W. Richards, 1853), p. 90.

ETA: Also, if Joseph uses another book to help him with the translation of the Bible, what say ye on him using books to help him write the BoM? 

Again, I think someone can be inspired to write a religious book such as Joseph did, IMO. 

ETA again: Something caught my attention here. Is Joseph like many who now question their belief in the LDS religion like he questioned his belief in the Protestant religion? Seems to me, he was going through a faith crisis much like many of us have. So maybe a good thing? A thing that forces one to branch out, leave the faith of their parents and find their own??

I don't think you can make a comparison to Joseph questioning the protestant religion--first, there isn't a 'protestant' religion, there are many protestant religions.   Joseph says 'my father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith and four of them joined that church...".  His Mother, two brothers and a sister joined, but Joseph went on to explain ' I kept myself aloof from all these parties though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit.  In process of time my mind because somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them;' (from Joseph Smith History)  Joseph Smith Sr. didn't affiliate with any church.  So, no, I'd say Joseph wasn't like children raised in devout LDS homes who end up questioning their faith.  He wasn't raised in a family which was devout toward a particular protestant faith, but were, like most early Americans, devout in their devotion to the Bible and Christianity as taught there.

 

Like most Early Americans, the Smith family owned a Bible.  It's likely in the Church Museum.  Did anyone seriously disagree with that?

 

I think the evidence points to Joseph not writing the Book of Mormon, but to his translating it, by the gift and power of God.

 

 

[alter idem]

11 hours ago, Gervin said:

What does mean?  There's nothing in the Book of Mormon that, to me, comes across as complex.  What criteria or standard are you using?   That one dinky Faulkner passage I pasted is more complex than anything I've ever read in the Book of Mormon.  I don't get it.

Faulkner was a writer, writing to entertain his readers--Joseph Smith was not a writer and never claimed to write the Book of Mormon, he claimed to have translated it.  The writing style should not be compared to the Book of Mormon, which was written not to entertain, but to teach and inform.  The writing style was meant to be straightforward, with a small vocabulary, IMO, it's actually simple and easy to understand.  What is complex about the Book of Mormon is the wealth of information found there that needed to not contradict what was said earlier--keeping track of maps, peoples, events, etc.  That is complex and considering it spans 100s of years and different cultures, it would've been a feat to be able to do that, IMO.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

Like most Early Americans, the Smith family owned a Bible.  It's likely in the Church Museum.  Did anyone seriously disagree with that?

There is the Senior family and Junior family. The question is I believe if the Junior family had one while the BoM was being translated. Iirc, there was an occasion those involved borrowed a bible to check something or had to buy one**** and that has led to speculation. A record of them needing to borrow a Bible would be the only reason imo to wonder if they had one all the time due to the importance of the Bible in the general community as well as it appearing to be important to Joseph himself, which leads me to assume it would be a high priority to have one available.  Iow, the default position is assume they owned a Bible unless something pretty solid suggests otherwise  

It seems probable that they had a family bible relatively early in their married life, but at times they were living in others’ homes iirc and I wonder if some of their possessions were stored or maybe sold to pay for expenses of moving.  If so, that might explain the absence of what was a typical family possession of the time as they might assume they could use the Bible of the family they stayed with.  Also Emma and Joseph eloped and therefore might have been missing some of the usual family basics for awhile.

****https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_own_a_Bible_at_the_time_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation%3F

Quote

 In fact, Oliver would later purchase a Bible for Joseph, who used it in producing his revision of the Bible (which became known as the Joseph Smith Translation). This purchase occurred on 8 October 1829, from the same printer that was then setting the type for the already-translated Book of Mormon.[3] Why would Joseph, poor as he was, get a Bible if he already owned one?

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Calm