Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon by Dr. William L. Davis

[Fair Dinkum 213]

Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?  How could an uneducated farm boy produce this book on his own without God's hand?  This new book provides an answer to that question.

Quoted liberally from his Amazon reviews: In a fascinating new book Dr. William L. Davis draws on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.

Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone.  Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true, that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.

If you approach this book without a preconceived axe to grind, you will find solid research explaining how the oral sermon culture of the 19th century either crept into the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated it (from a believer's perspective) or explains how Joseph could have constructed the narrative himself (from a skeptic's). Davis does not take sides and leaves room for both believing and skeptical perspectives.

Judging the truth of the books claims is not Davis's interest. Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.

In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis adroitly restores for the modern reader aspects of the now-forgotten sermon culture of Joseph Smith’s 19th-century, burnt over district, world and the well-established rhetorical performance techniques of its preachers. Davis then demonstrates that this oratorical praxis—in which Joseph Smith himself was a participant—illuminates not only Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as a dictated performance bearing the indicia of these sermon preparation and delivery techniques, but it also illuminates the very text of this LDS scripture itself, both its narrative events and sermon contents.

Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors (and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

 

Davis has identified tell-tale signs within the Book of Mormon that give hints of Smith processes.  He also offers historical reference to Smith's becoming a trained Methodist orator.

This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and would share your thoughts.

<-------- Not King Benjamin

Edited February 18 by Fair Dinkum

[Kenngo1969 7,567]

Would you hate me if I'm not convinced?

[Fair Dinkum 213]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Would you hate me if I'm not convinced?

I would be more surprised if it had.

[Calm 40,651]

Just offered as FYI as I have not read the book:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/oral-creation-and-the-dictation-of-the-book-of-mormon/
 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/theories-and-assumptions-a-review-of-william-l-daviss-visions-in-a-seer-stone/

[Hamba Tuhan 11,002]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?

I think there are solid reasons to believe that Joseph Smith concocted the Book of Mormon narrative, including textual ones. At the same time, my PhD-trained brain also sees textual clues that he may not have. That leaves me in a space of ambivalence using this approach, though the more likely conclusion is certainly that he wrote it.

Which makes my discovery that the book actually comes from God all the more miraculous.

[Stargazer 6,117]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think there are solid reasons to believe that Joseph Smith concocted the Book of Mormon narrative, including textual ones. At the same time, my PhD-trained brain also sees textual clues that he may not have. That leaves me in a space of ambivalence using this approach, though the more likely conclusion is certainly that he wrote it.

Nope. Not likely at all. But you knew that...

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Which makes my discovery that the book actually comes from God all the more miraculous.

That's my assessment, too.

I recommend reading the review written for The Interpter that @Calm references.  It concludes as follows:

"The limited number of well-developed ideas presented by William L. Davis in Visions in a Seer Stone are a very welcome addition to the body of Book of Mormon scholarship. Representing the most detailed secular explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon published to date, it breaks new ground on a field of study that is surprisingly barren.

"However, as a comprehensive explanation describing all cognitive processes Joseph Smith would necessarily have employed while dictating the Book of Mormon, the theory presented in VSS is rather anemic. Only the transfusion of a large number of major assumptions can resuscitate VSS’s theory to make it viable. Several of the assumptions are problematic like the idea that ancient historians would not use summary headings. Similarly, the claim that Joseph Smith possessed the intellectual gifts needed to produce the Book of Mormon naturally is contradicted by multiple reliable historical sources.

"It appears that secularists still await the identification of a plausible hypothesis that explains how such a long complex book could be dictated in a single draft in fewer than three months by a poorly educated, twenty- three-year-old individual."

[Hamba Tuhan 11,002]

32 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

"It appears that secularists still await the identification of a plausible hypothesis that explains how such a long complex book could be dictated in a single draft in fewer than three months by a poorly educated, twenty- three-year-old individual."

The problem is that highly unlikely things happen quite regularly. Joseph Smith as fabricator of the Book of Mormon is certainly problematic, but I personally find it less problematic than an explanation that involves angels, transoceanic voyages, buried records, etc. That is, until having my own experiences with highly unlikely things like angels. That changes everything!

Edited February 19 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97 18,801]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?  How could an uneducated farm boy produce this book on his own without God's hand?  This new book provides an answer to that question.

Sounds intriguing.

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Quoted liberally from his Amazon reviews: In a fascinating new book Dr. William L. Davis draws on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition.

From this it sounds like Dr. Davis sidesteps the historica evidence in favor of "performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education."  Is that the case?

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.

Does Davis engage the historical evidence at hand?

Does he present any new or recently discovered historical evidence?

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone. 

Yes.

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true,

How is eyewitness testimony an "assumption?"  

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.

So Joseph memorized and recited "his plot and narrative" to his scribes?

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

If you approach this book without a preconceived axe to grind,

Did Dr. Davis approach the Book of Mormon "without a preconceived axe to grind?"

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

you will find solid research explaining how the oral sermon culture of the 19th century either crept into the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated it (from a believer's perspective) or explains how Joseph could have constructed the narrative himself (from a skeptic's). Davis does not take sides and leaves room for both believing and skeptical perspectives.

Okay.

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Judging the truth of the books claims is not Davis's interest.

Well, that can't be quite right.  The book claims to be a translation of an actual ancient record.  Davis posits that Joseph Smith fabricated the narrative.

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.

How so?

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

This actually sounds pretty interesting.  Brant Gardner calls this "{t}he heart of Davis's argument."  He goes on to note some of its weaknesses, namely, that there are multiple "disjunctions" between the purported "heads" relied upon by Davis and the actual text:

Quote

The difference between the historical outline and the actual text of 1 Nephi does not necessarily contradict Davis’s understanding of laying down heads. The variations away from the outline could be ascribed to the extemporaneous process, where the speech act itself can lead to elements that were not in the outline.

The problem with this difference between laying down heads and the actual content is that it becomes more divergent after 1 Nephi.  The book outline for 2 Nephi repeats the same kind of historical backbone that we see in the header for 1 Nephi. However, the 2 Nephi outline stops with the events of the current LDS version’s chapter 5. The remainder of the content of the book, comprising the modern chapters 6 through 33, are not represented in the book header. If the purpose of the explicit outline were to help Joseph Smith remember what he was to develop orally, the vast majority of 2 Nephi is set adrift from that possibility.
...
This should give us pause if the second book on the Book of Mormon raises issues for the usability of the explicit heads as an explanation. The complication is that the entire concept of the extemporaneous production was prior planning and mnemonic devices to help understand the text. So much of the book of 2 Nephi is not represented in the book outline, or head, that the hypothesis must come up with a different explanation for that content. Davis does not address the issue.

The disjunction between explicit heads and the text of the book continues in the outline for the book of Alma...

The "heads" theory seems to stop working after 1 Nephi.  And it only kind of sort works in 1 Nephi:

Quote

Davis begins with the strongest evidence that the book header is an example of laying down heads: the header for 1 Nephi. That header very clearly describes what is going to happen in the chapter. The header clearly lays out the historical bones of the story to be told. While Davis makes that point clear (and is correct in that reading), Davis does not spend any time on the contents of 1 Nephi that are not predicted by the outline. There are multiple places where there are some asides, and the ending to 1 Nephi is not only not predicted in the heading outline, but the contents of the last chapters appear to be an unintentional deviation from the outline.
...
The laying down of explicit heads cannot provide sufficient mnemonic help to generate the contents of each of the books of the Book of Mormon, although it could be argued sufficient for 1 Nephi. Any hypothesis that covers only one case of many is not that strong.
...
The support for Davis’s thesis is the careful selection of only the evidence that supports the hypothesis, while ignoring the vast majority of the Book of Mormon that cannot be explained by those “sketch outlines.”

Huh.

Gardner also goes on to note another way Davis's theory does not seem to work:

Quote

Davis is suggesting two different types of preparation, one that created the history and a second concealed method that generated the sermons. That is consistent with contemporary sermon practice. It is, however, difficult to place into the framework of an extemporaneous creation of the text of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon has explicit outlines which outline history, but they never mention sermons. Thus, right at the point where we would expect the greatest crossover in techniques from preaching culture, we find a major disconnect. The explicit heads completely ignore the sermons, and therefore do not provide the mnemonic structure that would allow Joseph Smith to create them in an appropriate context. Just as the majority of 2 Nephi cannot be explained by laying down heads, the presence of the sermons cannot be explained by laying down heads.

Furthermore, Davis suggests that Joseph allowed himself great latitude in his sermons without explicit heads, which was not “unsettling his reader by diverging too far from any explicitly stated heads” (115). I stopped that quotation intentionally, because while Davis applied it only to sermons, it must be applied to any use of the laid down heads. If it was unsettling to have a sermon that did not follow the explicit head, how can we explain the explicit heads that don’t describe major content? That is a contradiction in his hypothesis that Davis does not see, and therefore does not address.

Gardner concludes:

Quote

I do believe that initiating an interest in the oral aspects of the text will be very productive for understanding the text itself. I am not convinced that it can tell us anything useful about the creation of the text.

Hmm.

Brian Hales's assessment points out the "multiple assumptions" that are "built into" Davis's "primary theory":

Quote

1. Assuming ancient historians did not use summary headings in their historical compilations.
2. Assuming that the text of the Book of Mormon can be used as evidence of Smith’s natural intellectual abilities in 1829.
3. Assuming that between 1823 and 1829 as a first-time novelist, Smith composed and outlined the “story content” (165) for most of the Book of Mormon using his own creativity.
4. Assuming that by age twenty-three, Smith developed a memorization system that enabled him to encode the stories and outlines that he had composed into his memory.
5. Assuming that during the dictation, Smith remembered the outlines and story ideas and then wordsmithed a long series of first-draft oral sentences that was also a highly refined sequence of final-draft sentences.

The bulk of Hales's review examines these assumptions.  Definitely worth a read.

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

I wonder why Joseph, who was determined to position the Book of Mormon as a translation of an ancient text, would leave such an obvious clue, one that "would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon." 

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

Yes.  This is not unlike academic efforts to paint Jesus as a thoughtful rabbi, while simultaneously gutting the central message of his ministry: that He is the Son of God.  Such efforts seldom go over well with those who believe in Jesus because of that central message.

So it is, I think, with efforts to reconstruct the Book of Mormon as something other than what it claims to be, and what Joseph Smith declared it to be.  

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. 

Well, not really.  Davis's theory posits that these things ("headings, outlines and summaries") in the Book of Mormon are anachronistic.  Evidence that ancient writers used them would substantially detract from that argument.  From Hales's article:

Quote

A foundational observation for the general theory advanced in VSS is that the presence of headings in the Book of Mormon is anachronistic. That is, historians writing between 600 bce and 400 ce would not have used such techniques so their presence in the Book of Mormon comes from a much later century:

Quote

“Because this contemporary technique was ubiquitous in the early nineteenth century, and because Smith himself used this same technique to structure his other compositions, the presence of this common introductory and organizational method points to Smith as the most likely source.” (189)

 

Davis is saying these things are anachronistic, and hence evidence of "Samith as the most likely source."  That doesn't jibe with the countervailing argument, namely, that these items are not anachronistic because they were used by ancient writers.

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors

Book of Mormon Central points to a colophon in Isaiah:

Quote

The use of colophons to signal the beginning or end of a text is widely found in biblical, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian sources. The prophetic books of the Bible often begin with colophons which identify the prophet and briefly introduce the historical setting in which he was prophesying. For instance, the book of Isaiah begins: “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (Isaiah 1:1).4
...
Nephi said he wrote his record “in the language of [his] father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2). This being the case, it is reasonable to expect that his writings should bear the marks of an ancient Judeo-Egyptian literary culture. Nephi’s use of colophons fulfills this expectation remarkably well.
...
4. See also Jeremiah 1:1–3; Amos 1:1; Micah 1:1; Zephaniah 1:1.

Seems like colophons were being batted around during Lehi's day.  If they were anachronistic, why does BOMC rely on them in its apologetic materials?

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

(and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

Here Davis quotes John Tvedtnes as saying; "For lack of a better word, I call them colophons, though technically colophons are notes or guidelines after a text." 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969 7,567]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Would you hate me if I'm not convinced?

 

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I would be more surprised if it had.

I'm sure.

[strappinglad 3,581]

Once again we have Joseph as an absolute savant with photographic memory( if such exists ) and possibly hyperthymesia and access to all kinds of sermons and documents. He is capable of creating such a great narrative and yet it is called " chloroform in print "  and Joseph is, at the same time a dolt and a dunce and uneducated schemer .

[Nevo 2,863]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and would share your thoughts.

I've read most of it and agree that it's an important, groundbreaking work. In addition to the Amazon reviews and the Interpreter reviews that Calm shared, I would also mention the four short reviews that appeared in Dialogue: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2020/05/dialogue-roundtable-william-l-davis-visions-in-a-seer-stone-joseph-smith-and-the-making-of-the-book-of-mormon/ 

And this one in the Juvenile Instructor: https://juvenileinstructor.org/review-visions-in-a-seer-stone-joseph-smith-and-the-making-of-the-book-of-mormon-unc-press-2020/

 

[mfbukowski 18,276]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think there are solid reasons to believe that Joseph Smith concocted the Book of Mormon narrative, including textual ones. At the same time, my PhD-trained brain also sees textual clues that he may not have. That leaves me in a space of ambivalence using this approach, though the more likely conclusion is certainly that he wrote it.

Which makes my discovery that the book actually comes from God all the more miraculous.

He constructs a rational approach to Christian theology and a convincing model for its reconstruction.

Besides that, God whopped me upside the head so hard, I can't deny it.

We cannot confuse the sheer brilliance of the book with the irrelevance of why, how, or who wrote it.

Take its advice.

Read it and decide if God wants to let you in on the most amazing phenomenon in Christanity: God speaks to us individually.

[AtlanticMike 212]

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?  How could an uneducated farm boy produce this book on his own without God's hand?  This new book provides an answer to that question.

Quoted liberally from his Amazon reviews: In a fascinating new book Dr. William L. Davis draws on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.

Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone.  Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true, that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.

If you approach this book without a preconceived axe to grind, you will find solid research explaining how the oral sermon culture of the 19th century either crept into the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated it (from a believer's perspective) or explains how Joseph could have constructed the narrative himself (from a skeptic's). Davis does not take sides and leaves room for both believing and skeptical perspectives.

Judging the truth of the books claims is not Davis's interest. Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.

In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis adroitly restores for the modern reader aspects of the now-forgotten sermon culture of Joseph Smith’s 19th-century, burnt over district, world and the well-established rhetorical performance techniques of its preachers. Davis then demonstrates that this oratorical praxis—in which Joseph Smith himself was a participant—illuminates not only Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as a dictated performance bearing the indicia of these sermon preparation and delivery techniques, but it also illuminates the very text of this LDS scripture itself, both its narrative events and sermon contents.

Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors (and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

 

Davis has identified tell-tale signs within the Book of Mormon that give hints of Smith processes.  He also offers historical reference to Smith's becoming a trained Methodist orator.

This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and would share your thoughts.

<-------- Not King Benjamin

 

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?  How could an uneducated farm boy produce this book on his own without God's hand?  This new book provides an answer to that question.

Quoted liberally from his Amazon reviews: In a fascinating new book Dr. William L. Davis draws on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.

Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone.  Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true, that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.

If you approach this book without a preconceived axe to grind, you will find solid research explaining how the oral sermon culture of the 19th century either crept into the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated it (from a believer's perspective) or explains how Joseph could have constructed the narrative himself (from a skeptic's). Davis does not take sides and leaves room for both believing and skeptical perspectives.

Judging the truth of the books claims is not Davis's interest. Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.

In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis adroitly restores for the modern reader aspects of the now-forgotten sermon culture of Joseph Smith’s 19th-century, burnt over district, world and the well-established rhetorical performance techniques of its preachers. Davis then demonstrates that this oratorical praxis—in which Joseph Smith himself was a participant—illuminates not only Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as a dictated performance bearing the indicia of these sermon preparation and delivery techniques, but it also illuminates the very text of this LDS scripture itself, both its narrative events and sermon contents.

Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors (and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

 

Davis has identified tell-tale signs within the Book of Mormon that give hints of Smith processes.  He also offers historical reference to Smith's becoming a trained Methodist orator.

This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and would share your thoughts.

<-------- Not King Benjamin

Hello Fair Dinkum. My brother in law wants to send me a book called, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. I was just wondering if you had any knowledge of that book, and do you think I would be better off starting with the one your recommending?

 

[Robert F. Smith 18,586]

21 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

................... Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.

The Nephite record is indeed about a millennium.  However, add the Jaredite period, and that brings the whole to a total of about 3,500 years.  One then has to explain how the chronology and archeology of that period just happens to fit the known civilizations of Mesoamerica (as demonstrated by J. L. Sorenson, Mormon's Codex).  Automatic writing or sermonizing cannot explain that correlation.

Quote

Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone.  Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true, that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.

Actually, one has a very compressed time period with almost no time at all to spare, unless this was planned long ahead of time, with the cooperation of colleagues (who never confessed).  If the manuscript had been prewritten over a period of many years, with careful thought, the internal consistency (geography, chronology, flashbacks, etc.) might have been accounted for.  Of course a number of scholars insist that it had to have been created in the 16th or 17th century to account for systematic EModE.  Joseph would then have to somehow obtain it and read it to his confederates (like any good magician).

Quote

.................. he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.

In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis adroitly restores for the modern reader aspects of the now-forgotten sermon culture of Joseph Smith’s 19th-century, burnt over district, world and the well-established rhetorical performance techniques of its preachers. Davis then demonstrates that this oratorical praxis—in which Joseph Smith himself was a participant—illuminates not only Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as a dictated performance bearing the indicia of these sermon preparation and delivery techniques, but it also illuminates the very text of this LDS scripture itself, both its narrative events and sermon contents.

One can indeed find sermonizing in the Book of Mormon, just as one can find it in the Bible, so that is not really diagnostic.  What is diagnostic is the realia, which can be analyzed from a forensic/ scientific perspective.  I have long since provided just such a scientific assessment of the BofM, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  Book of Mormon Central has a plethora of detailed assessments on particular issues from the Book of Mormon.  The BofM is a long book and contains  much more than just sermons and battles.  Davis is unable to deal with the realia.

Quote

Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors (and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

Davis' claim is false.  He clearly knows nothing of the ancient world.  Such heads, headings, or header-outlines were known and used anciently.  Indeed, since the BofM was engraved in Egyptian, it is worth pointing out that a heading and autobiographical text similar to that in I Nephi 1 are known in the Autobiography of Ahmose, son of Abana (New Kingdom), on his tomb walls.  Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, II:12.  See also the reviews cited by calm.

Quote

Davis has identified tell-tale signs within the Book of Mormon that give hints of Smith processes.  ...........

There is nothing new in Davis' claims.  Dan Vogel and others have been over this ground before.  Like Davis, they fail to deal with the nitty gritty.

Edited February 19 by Robert F. Smith

[Nevo 2,863]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Davis is unable to deal with the realia....

Davis' claim is false.  He clearly knows nothing of the ancient world....  

There is nothing new in Davis' claims....

Clearly, like the Book of Mormon, Davis's book is not "universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it." Your criticisms here are worthless.

[Nevo 2,863]

5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Hello Fair Dinkum. My brother in law wants to send me a book called, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. I was just wondering if you had any knowledge of that book, and do you think I would be better off starting with the one your recommending?

You didn't ask me, but I'd recommend starting with Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. Davis's book is excellent and well worth reading but is more academic, dealing with a narrower set of questions (I believe it's a revision of his Ph.D. dissertation).

[Stargazer 6,117]

Here's a Saints Unscripted video that seems to bear on the topic:

 

[AtlanticMike 212]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

You didn't ask me, but I'd recommend starting with Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. Davis's book is excellent and well worth reading but is more academic, dealing with a narrower set of questions (I believe it's a revision of his Ph.D. dissertation).

Thank you

[Fair Dinkum 213]

7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

 

Hello Fair Dinkum. My brother in law wants to send me a book called, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. I was just wondering if you had any knowledge of that book, and do you think I would be better off starting with the one your recommending?

 

Yes I've read it, it completely rocked my world.  It's not light reading and it completely changed my ability to see Mormonism through a traditional narrative lens ever again.  Who knew that Jesus was so busy making house calls to Joseph Smith's neighbor's.  His visits seems to be all the rage. With that said I do feel this book is an important book and would certainly recommend it to anyone wanting to move from milk to meat

Edited February 19 by Fair Dinkum

[InCognitus 1,233]

6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

My brother in law wants to send me a book called, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. I was just wondering if you had any knowledge of that book, and do you think I would be better off starting with the one your recommending?

I have two editions of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn, but I can't comment on the book being discussed in this thread since I haven't read it.  But I'm curious about why you are interested in these books.

The reason I have two editions of Quinn's book is because I wanted to see how much he changed between the two.  His 1987 edition came out shortly after Mark Hofmann was exposed as a forger of early church history documents, and apparently Quinn had relied on some of Hofmann's forged documents and salamander letter as primary support for the arguments put forth in his book.  Fortunately Quinn's book wasn't published until after the documents were deemed to be forgeries and he had some time to revise his book before publication, but it ripped the guts out of his case.  Without those documents his case is very weak in my opinion.  His treatment of the Jupiter Talisman is a perfect example of how a whole case can be manufactured out of one suspicious second hand claim.   And he didn't add anything in his second edition to really help that case.   I think it's totally fair and helpful to understand the culture and mindset of the people who lived in the early 1800's and I know Joseph Smith wouldn't be excluded from participating in that environment.  But I don't think it's helpful when modern writers make assertions about specific items and practices and impose them on a historical person with little or misconstrued evidence. 

It has been years (yikes, even decades) since I thought about these things, but those were interesting times.

[Kevin Christensen 5,645]

The notion that an engraving picturing of a 19th century revival is enough to account for the King Benjamin's discourse only works if you only compare King Benjamin's discourse to 19th century sermons.  While there may be much to learn from such comparisons, there are other important comparisons available.  Personally, I find them telling.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/

As Kuhn says, 

Quote

Science does not deal in all possible laboratory manipulations. Instead, it selects those relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm with the immediate experience that that paradigm has partially determined. As a result, scientists with different paradigms engage indifferent concrete laboratory manipulations. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 126.

 While I haven't read Davis, I have read the linked reviews and much else, including a wide range of attempts to explain the production of the Book of Mormon as work of Joseph's imagination.  Indeed, as far as oral culture goes, I am very fond of an essay called "Orality and Literacy in the Book of Mormon," a preliminary paper that used to be on the Maxwell Institute Website.  One thing that is obvious from the reviews favorable to Davis's project is that none of them share my concerns about aspects of the Book of Mormon text that simply do not exist in their approaches.  Taves, for instance, defined the problem like this:

Quote

Based on this reconstruction, a naturalistic account would need to explain (1) the rapid flow of words that were “known” but seemed like they were not their own; (2) their ability to control the process, specifically to stop and start and shift modalities; and (3) their execution of a complex overall plan without evident planning. (Taves, 250)

Davis is, based on these reviews, is another go at this approach.  What makes him worth extra attention?  It's a paradigm choice, and it turns out that paradigm choice involves deciding which paradigm is better and, importantly, we cannot be self critical unless we are aware of the ideological implications of how we define better, and "Which problems are more significant to have solved?"

Quote

One of the best-established disciplines in the world is the critical examination of written texts to detect what in them is spurious and what is genuine. … [T]he rules given by Blass are all obvious enough on experience and reflection, but every one of them is a stumbling block to the superficial critic, and they have all been scrupulously avoided by those attacking the Book of Mormon.

To begin with, says Blass, “We have the document, and the name of its author; we must begin our examination by assuming the author indicated really wrote it.” You always begin by assuming the text is genuine. What critic of the Book of Mormon has ever done that?

…Thus while we can never prove absolutely that the Book is what it claims to be, we are justified at the outset in assuming that is it what it claims to be. If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable. (Nibley, New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study in The Prophetic Book of Mormon, 55-56.)

Kuhn observes that one of the most essential, non-ideological and non-self-referential values involved in paradigm testing involves "puzzle definition and solution."   Davis, like Taves and others, does not include the test that Blass offered.  Given a 19th century contextual horizon, the sort of things that I personally find most convincing simply do not show up.  Ever.  None of the favorable reviews of Davis's book even mentions them.  Rather, Davis becomes the shiny new toy, approved in that playground as safe and non-threatening to the controlling ideology.  The puzzle of the Book of Mormon is reduced to the problem of bulk and structure, rather than testable details of the claimed time and place and relevance.   One obvious difference between 19th century revival preachers in the Burnt-Over district of New York is that they were not ancient kings.  Does that make a difference, or not, in reading Mosiah 1-6?  Is there a testable difference, or not?  Do people like Taves and Davis and their defenders consider such available tests and well-known results and ongoing inquiries, and confront the problem of not just coming up with a way of explaining Joseph Smith, but explaining the details that I think leaves them short in comparison?  Much of the applause given to Taves and Davis and those like them is that they provide a way to discuss the Book of Mormon in a naturalistic manner that completely defuses any threat that it makes a secular world view.  But just because they do not seek or test for other aspects of the Book of Mormon, that does not mean I can't see what a difference that makes or that I can ignore the implications.

Quote

… In practice the scientist works in the framework of accepted assumptions and throws all the doubt on one hypothesis at a time; but it might be the accepted assumptions that should be questioned.  Barbour, 99, 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited Monday at 04:54 PM by Kevin Christensen

[AtlanticMike 212]

36 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Yes I've read it, it completely rocked my world.  It's not light reading and it completely changed my ability to see Mormonism through a traditional narrative lens ever again.  Who knew that Jesus was so busy making house calls to Joseph Smith's neighbor's.  His visits seems to be all the rage. With that said I do feel this book is an important book and would certainly recommend it to anyone wanting to move from milk to meat

Thank you. 

[AtlanticMike 212]

36 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

.  But I'm curious about why you are interested in these books.

I'm not really that interested, but he was going to lend it to me, he thought it would be a good read. My wife told him I was posting on here and apparently he's now reading what I'm writing.  Lovely 😁 Hi 

[Robert F. Smith 18,586]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

Clearly, like the Book of Mormon, Davis's book is not "universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it." Your criticisms here are worthless.

Of course they are.  What other conclusion could anyone reach?  Davis did not bother to read the research of serious scholars, and is unable to deal with actual historical and literary analysis, so it just seems to him that any off the wall claim is just fine.  As the two Protestant scholars, Mosser & Owen, pointed out decades ago, anti-Mormons just haven't bothered to read the research results and have blithely assumed that all aspects of Mormonism are automatically false.  No need to deal with that in any serious way.  Certainly no substantive conversation can be tolerated.

See Paul L. Owen and Carl Mosser, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998): 179-205, online at https://www.academia.edu/185247/_Mormon_Scholarship_Apologetics_and_Evangelical_Neglect_Losing_the_Battle_and_Not_Knowing_It_ .

[Nevo 2,863]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Davis did not bother to read the research of serious scholars

How would you know? You've never even looked at his work. You're just making wild assertions.

Here's something to get you started, from the book's preface:

Quote

Regardless of what one believes about the origin of the work, the Book of Mormon contains an enormous amount of nineteenth-century material that permeates both the content and structure of the work. These contemporary influences, however, do not (or should not) pose a problem for believers. . . .

For those who believe that the translation appeared on the surface of the seer stone or in a vision of the text, without Smith’s input, the nineteenth-century anachronisms in the Book of Mormon can  . . . be framed as God’s alterations to the ancient record, which He transmitted to Smith via the seer stone or as a seer-stone-inspired vision in order to make the final text more accessible to Smith’s nineteenth-century audience. Alternatively, some believing scholars argue that Smith did, in fact, actually translate a text. In other words, through some process of visionary imagery, mental impressions, and divine inspiration, Smith produced the Book of Mormon by making use of his own vocabulary, frames of reference, training, and life experiences to articulate the work. Thus, for those who believe that Smith actively participated in a literal translation, the nineteenth-century elements can be understood as Smith’s personal contributions to the translation project (a theory often described as “loose control”). How much or how little Smith contributed to the construction of the Book of Mormon is therefore left to the reader’s personal determinations. Without commenting on the merits or failings of these competing theories, I invite those who believe in the historicity of the text to consider the ways in which their own religious and perceptual frameworks already provide a means to incorporate academic studies such as this one into their faith-based and faith-seeking paradigms.

Moreover, I would also encourage believing scholars and readers to recognize that this study addresses a readership that extends beyond the religious boundaries of the various denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement to include those who do not embrace the Book of Mormon as an inspired or authentic ancient text. This study represents an academic project, governed by evidence-based explorations of the connections between the Book of Mormon and the nineteenth-century environment in which it emerged. As such, I will be speaking about some of those specific nineteenth-century elements in the work as the product of Smith’s compositional skill and creative imagination. Likewise, in order to avoid bogging down the work with constant clarifications of the differences between nineteenth-century textual elements attributable to Smith and elements that believing scholars attribute to ancient Book of Mormon authors, I will often streamline the discussion by referring to the work as the result of Smith’s individual creative efforts.

This positioning, however, does not represent a tacit commentary on the validity of Smith’s assertions about the divine origin of the text, nor does it aim to engage in polemical discourse regarding faith claims. Rather, this approach seeks to avoid the laborious repetition of disputed claims, while acknowledging a readership that extends well beyond the communities of faith. In any case, the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the validity of Smith’s claims are not the focus of this study. Rather, I will be exploring how the textual phenomena and internal evidence within the pages of the Book of Mormon reach outside the text to engage with the pervasive oratorical training, practices, and concerns of Smith’s environment in early nineteenth-century America.

I believe that this information, for believers and nonbelievers alike, reveals valuable insights about the life of Joseph Smith, his background and religious experiences, as well as the cultural context in which he grew up.

 

Edited February 19 by Nevo