Foretelling in the Book of Mormon

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wasn’t this recollected during the same time that Emma recollected none of Joseph’s other wives? Emma doesn’t have a ton of credibility here. 

Have you read any of his early diary entries? That's not a dude that dictated from memory the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps you should jump on Teancum's "Joseph-Sidney clandestinely planning the entire Restoration" bandwagon.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

One poster had already noted that Joseph may have had an eidetic memory and could have had notes.  Who knows what was in the hat when he dictated. If I recall the hat was a white hat so he may have ad light.  Is the book complex because you and other apologists claim it is?  I said I am not an expert on complex literature but I have read books I find complex and the Book of Mormon is not one of them. But you dismiss my opinion which is fine. I have not read anything the compels me to opine differently. Is this an expertise of yours?  If yes why and what makes you qualified to conclude that the book  is complex?

A manuscript in a hat has some fatal flaws. May I suggest you try an experiment? Get a black or white hat, sit in a poorly lit cabin day or night, put a manuscript in the hat, put your face in the hat, and see how well you can read it.  An alternative would be to do the same with your iPhone. It would be about the right size to fit in a hat, unless you were using John Wayne’s ten gallon Stetson. Put the screen on the dimmest setting. What can you see?

Oh…you will have to have some kind of magnifying lens, maybe a jewelers loupe, to focus on words that close to your eyes.  I suppose Joseph could have cut a hole in the hat so he could see through it to a manuscript on the floor, but then he would have to keep bending down under the table to turn the pages, unless he was barefoot and did it with his toes. None of those involved with the translation mentioned this. Can you suggest how and why he would pull off this ruse?

The alternative won’t work much better…that he memorized each day’s translation beforehand. He would have had to be gifted with a photographic memory. 
 

PS. This from the Temple Institute of Jerusalem…

Quote

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the Urim V'Tummim was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the kohen's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

A Meditative Experience and a Prophetic Revelation

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the kohen was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory. https://templeinstitute.org/priestly-garments-3/

Sound familiar?

Edited June 25, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A manuscript in a hat has some fatal flaws. May I suggest you try an experiment? Get a black or white hat, sit in a poorly lit cabin day or night, put a manuscript in the hat, put your face in the hat, and see how well you can read it.  An alternative would be to do the same with your iPhone. It would be about the right size to fit in a hat, unless you were using John Wayne’s ten gallon Stetson. Put the screen on the dimmest setting. What can you see?

 

Have you tried this? I have. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Have you read any of his early diary entries? That's not a dude that dictated from memory the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps you should jump on Teancum's "Joseph-Sidney clandestinely planning the entire Restoration" bandwagon.

The goal post just moved. You agree Emma is unreliable then?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm getting the impression that basically we are being asked to believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was the most scholastically connected, well-read, imaginative super-genius farm boy of the early 19th century. That is an impressive resume in and of itself.

or 

I want to know who the mysterious author was that decided to track down and hand a 20-something year New York hick a fully worked manuscript with the instructions to pretend like he received it through the ministry of angels, translated it by the power of God, and start a religion using it. What would be this mysterious author's whole point in doing that?

(Again, I just don't have the level of faith the the antiMos have.)

Your first paragraph is a total straw man and the second pretty close.  The third has nothing to do with faith. These are plausible theories that have some merit and some weak points. Have you explored any of them?

[Teancum]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

William law?  Is that the same fellow who set in motion the events that led to Joseph and Hyrum’s deaths? Oh. That William Law.

William Law was a pretty avid supporter of Joseph until Joseph tried to marry William's wife.  I would be pretty angry about that as well. 

[Teancum]

31 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Apparently, Joseph was an unparalleled literary genius, who in spite of being barely able to "dictate a coherent sentence" (according to Emma) would tell Oliver for hours and hours what to write without needing Oliver to repeat back what he said to make sure they were picking up where they left off.

Straw man again.  But apologists argue Joseph was a hick and uneducated farm boy that could not have produced the BoM on his own, and then later argue what a religious genius he was and on and on.  So apologists talk out of both sides of their mouths when it suits them.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The goal post just moved. You agree Emma is unreliable then?

His diary entries support Emma's assessment of his poor grammar.

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you want us to believe that Joseph (New York) and Sidney (Ohio) clandestinely got together years previously and hatched a plan whereby Joseph would pretend to translate something Sidney had already written, have Joseph start a church that would attract enough of a following that Joseph would be able to send missionaries west to where Sidney would be leading a church for the sole purpose of having his followers eventually convert to the new church that they secretly planned to set up?

Boy, they sure had some confidence in themselves!! The fact that it worked out exactly as they planned is a miracle in itself. Just for that I think I'll stay.

That is terrific distortion of one theory yes. I have drilled into this and the Spalding Manuscript theory. I find it plausible but not without faults.   But I find it more plausible then angels and golden plates.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That is terrific distortion of one theory yes.

Well, here's your chance to present it in a way that makes any logical sense:

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Well, here's your chance to present it in a way that makes any logical sense:

It is a topic for another thread really.  If you really are interested I can send you reference material.  I don't think you are.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

His diary entries support Emma's assessment of his poor grammar.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-22-october-1829/1
 

Is this an example of an incoherent letter?

[MiserereNobis]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But according to what your are saying here, Tolkien could not have written all the books he did without error upon error.

Non-Tolkien enthusiasts don’t realize how unbelievably complex and internally consistent his texts are. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-22-october-1829/1
 

Is this an example of an incoherent letter?

Is it an example of someone who could invent, or dictate from memory, the entirety of the Book of Mormon?

Additionally, letters always sound more formal than journal entries. Emma likely assisted him with the writing of his letters.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Is it an example of someone who could invent, or dictate from memory, the entirety of the Book of Mormon?

Additionally, letters always sound more formal than journal entries. Emma likely assisted him with the writing of his letters.

So much whiplash. 

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Would it be easier to remember the precise phrasing you used in your first telling, or to just reconvey the essential concept with whatever wording comes to mind? I would assume that most people would find it easier to just convey the concept without worrying about replicating the phrasing. 

I believe most would do best with a simple concept, but I have been studying autism on the spectrum lately (those who have autistic characteristics, but are not dysfunctional and have learned masking skills so are most often late diagnosed as my daughter is convinced she is and likely some other family members, possibly including me; 75% thinking she’s right about herself, 100% for my dad and maybe one or two siblings, keep wavering back and forth on myself) I am finding out there are characteristics that are often present in autism, but can be present without it too, including where word repetition is helpful or even words sounding a certain way catches the person’s attention better, so a phrase, maybe even more, is easier to remember. I don’t know memory enough in general though to know if this might be useful in someone with eidetic memory or otherwise has a heightened memory capability for relaying an extended text. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

23 hours ago, the narrator said:

And as I noted in a comment above, the Book of Mormon very much matches that of a complex paracosm, particularly in the way that it was developed over many years, with "Joseph . . . occasionally giv[ing] us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship." With a broad paracosm in place that spanned centuries and multiple people, Joseph could on the fly incorporate contemporary events (such as Mordecai Noah's plan to bring in Jews to New England to teach Native Americans about their lost Jewish heritage and religion) or personal experiences into the narrative.

I've considered this in the past, but rejected the theory because so little of what Lucy says that Joseph related actually made it into the Book of Mormon.

Their dress?  Nope.  Their mode of travel?  Nope.  The animals upon which they rode?  Nope.  Their cities?  The names of their cities show up in the Book of Mormon, but they are not described with any particularity, let alone "with every particular."  Their mode of warfare and their religious worship fare a bit better.

This theory requires me to believe that Joseph created this complex paracosm through years of practice and development, and then discarded the majority of it when it came time to write it all down. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Their dress?  Nope.  Their mode of travel?  Nope.  The animals upon which they rode?  Nope.  Their cities?  The names of their cities show up in the Book of Mormon, but they are not described with any particularity, let alone "with every particular."  Their mode of warfare and their religious worship fare a bit better.

This theory requires me to believe that Joseph created this complex paracosm through years of practice and development, and then discarded the majority of it when it came time to write it all down. 

This struck me too in the past. The stories he told according to Lucy sound more to me like he saw the people in a vision as it makes sense to me that would be the easiest and quickest way for Moroni to make Joseph familiar with the background of the text, to impress him it was real history, make him care about the story, etc.  It also makes sense to me as if he didn’t directly study the text until later, what was in the text wouldn’t be added to the stories he was sharing before he got married and was living elsewhere and story sharing time ended. 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

William Law was a pretty avid supporter of Joseph until Joseph tried to marry William's wife.  I would be pretty angry about that as well. 

Wasn't William Law still a believer of Mormonism?  He felt that Joseph had fallen, not that Joseph was never a prophet.  He even started up the "True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" to recover the true practice of Mormonism.  I don't think he is a good example to use for your use case.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-22-october-1829/1
 

Is this an example of an incoherent letter?

That isn't the original letter that Joseph wrote.  We don't know if the original was actually written by Joseph or dictated to someone (such as Emma).  It reads more like dictation to me.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It is a topic for another thread really.  If you really are interested I can send you reference material.  I don't think you are.

I'm interested.

[Ryan Dahle]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe most would do best with a simple concept, but I have been studying autism on the spectrum lately (those who have autistic characteristics, but are not dysfunctional and have learned masking skills so are most often late diagnosed as my daughter is convinced she is and likely some other family members, possibly including me; 75% thinking she’s right about herself, 100% for my dad and maybe one or two siblings, keep wavering back and forth on myself) I am finding out there are characteristics that are often present in autism, but can be present without it too, including where word repetition is helpful or even words sounding a certain way catches the person’s attention better, so a phrase, maybe even more, is easier to remember. I don’t know memory enough in general though to know if this might be useful in someone with eidetic memory or otherwise has a heightened memory capability for relaying an extended text. 

I think a lot of factors may cause variations in memory recall abilities. I knew someone who didn't have total recall, but was definitely high up there on that spectrum. But his remarkable memory didn't apply to everything. There were certain types of categories (like dates and events) that he could remember unusually well, but others seemed to be about average (for instance, he certainly wasn't a master "scriptorian" or anything). 

But, yes, if there were solid evidence (outside of Joseph's formal revelations and other quasi-revelatory documents) that he had something like an eidetic memory, or if he was some type of so-called "idiot-savant," that would certainly help the naturalistic explanations on this front. In my personal experience, however, no one I know or have heard would be able to do something like what Joseph Smith pulled off. And I work with a lot of Book of Mormon scholars and other very well educated and intelligent people. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

ho in the world would write it and then think to himself, "Self, I should find a 20 year-old hick farm boy from upstate New York, give him this here book I wrote, and tell him to start a church with it! Yeah, that sounds like a super-logical thing to do!" ??

Maybe Joseph was very charismatic.  The scholar might have chosen someone so young as easily controlled/influenced.

Seems highly unlikely to me unless the guy had no family and he upped and died before it got going much and people started paying attention to who Joseph was hanging with.  Maybe Joseph or one of his family members happened to come across it, bought an old trunk or was helping friends clean out an attic…still seems unlikely.  Family might keep quiet about the con even if alienated at times.  I don’t see friends who later got defriended or otherwise distance was created between them keeping their mouths shut about the scam.

Joseph creating it on his own somehow or both the reception and translation being ‘supernatural’ events (delivery by angel can be described as supernatural in my view even if the text was mundane in creation) seems the most reasonable explanation to me, whatever motivation the angel has.  For me an angel (postmortality living being) that appears like a human is most likely for a post death appearance.  I assume there is life after death (and I understand for many that is a massive assumption)and it is reasonable to me our form post death mimics our form in mortality because why wouldn’t our immortal minds/souls think of ourselves as how we appear in this life?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, webbles said:

That isn't the original letter that Joseph wrote.  We don't know if the original was actually written by Joseph or dictated to someone (such as Emma).  It reads more like dictation to me.

The claim was Emma said he couldn’t  “dictate a coherent sentence”. So I’m confused by what you are claiming here. 

[the narrator]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think what can be said with confidence is that what he accomplished seems exceedingly unlikely.

Meh, I think what can be said with confidence is that given the breadth and beauty of human accomplishments, the BofM or something similar to it was ultimately inevitable. The production of the BofM isn't the story alone though; equally importantant to this discussion is the timing and circumstances that made it possible for the BofM to become as well known as it is. Who knows how many similar manuscripts never made it to publication or were soon forgotten after never reaching a broader and devout audience.

The reliance on complexity for evidence of extra-human origins begs the question of how much or little complexity or quantity in general is required for it to be such evidence. If the Book of Mormon was only half the length, would you still see it as impossibly complex to originate from a mere mortal human? A quarter of the length? What if it was the same length but took an entire year to dictate? What if Joseph had more education? Are individual books within the Book of Mormon alone, such as Ether or Alma, too complex to have come from a lowly human?

What if Joseph explicitly said that he was the source of the text? Would you reject his claim?

What if Tolkien later claimed that his Middle Earth epics were revealed to him and that the various notes and drafts were created post-hoc to hide it? Would you see that complexity as evidence to his claim?