Foretelling in the Book of Mormon

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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. 

And was there any description outside dictating the Book of Mormon or other scripture of Joseph doing those kinds of things, behaviours that if one described those behaviors or collection of behaviors alone, no name attached, to someone not familiar with Joseph Smith that would lead to them concluding ‘sounds like that guy had an eidetic memory’?

Something that is not of the logic sequence “we have the Book of Mormon, it was dictated as far as we know to others without easily accessible notes; therefore, Joseph Smith has to have had a fantastic memory”, but is instead like “I heard of this guy that could…..” and the response from someone specializing in memory psychology is ‘sounds like he is eidetic to me’.  Or something similar.

This is a serious question.  I don’t secretly know there are no records of anything that could be taken for such evidence and just want to rub critics’ faces in that reality as fun as that might be.  😛 

Edited June 25, 2024 by Calm

[the narrator]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMO for the first two decades o& his life he was just some ordinary dude. Something marvelous happened that made him quite extraordinary.

That's a wonderful opinion for you to have. Thanks for sharing it with me.

 

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are significant differences between the Nelson boys and Joseph.

And there are significant differences between the Mona Lisa and Girl Before a Mirror. Not sure what the point is.

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So I can understand, are you saying that while dictating the BoM without notes, Joseph recalled and placed several detailed prophecies throughout the BoM of the events accompanying Christ’s visit to America and that this was because of his ability to tell stories….along with all the other details he had to remember to fill the book?

Imagine sitting down and spending several days telling your life story to someone else. I hope that your brain is sufficiently powerful enough to remember and hint at something that happened later during your 30s while discussing your childhood, or to hint at how a childhood experience that you are currently telling would connect to an experience in your life 30 years later. If you were to do that, I hope you wouldn't be offended that I didn't find that too incredible to believe.

 

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When did Joseph have time and means for extensive reading?

Probably during the day.

 

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I wonder if any of the Revivalist  preachers could match that in their sermons?

Well, they were preserved and shared and quoted from enough for phrases and ideas from them to appear in the Book of Mormon. As I noted in a comment above, it's fascinating to see many phrases in the Book of Mormon that seem to now be uniquely Mormon phrases (so much so that google searches of the phrases almost exclusively result in Mormon websites, books, and talks)--such as "plan of salvation," "when they are learned," "think they are wise," "steadfastness in Christ," "natural man is an enemy to God," and "Deny yourselves of all ungodliness"--all appearing in sermons published in the decades before the Book of Mormon. This fact alone seems to pretty conclusively prove that these phrases were in Joseph's brain as he was dictating the text (as either originator or translator/revelator). Now whether they were in his head because he read the sermons or heard them is up to debate, but I find it far more likely that he heard them repeatedly as they were themselves quoted in the likely hundreds of sermons he attended as he sought to figure out which church he should join.

 

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Jeff Lindsay, among others, addressed the Lucy Mack Smith issue here…

I've read that and found it, like most of Lindsay's writings, to be a bit wanting.

[the narrator]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I do find it interesting, however, when people view this as basically meaningless evidence, making all sorts of false analogies or flawed comparisons to dismiss it. 

I do find it interesting, however, when people view this as incredible evidence, making all sorts of false analogies or flawed comparisons to elevate it. 

[the narrator]

4 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.

Well then you are getting the wrong impression. I would say it is fair to claim that he was more imaginative, creative, and intelligent than your average 19th century farm boy though. Had he lived in the 21st century, he may have instead just created an elaborate Minecraft world.

[the narrator]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

The white hat was made of beaver skin, so it would have blocked out light as reported. As I've mentioned before, I think it is VERY likely that Joseph had hyperphantasia--hence, he was a seer because he could see things. I visualize things quite a bit. If you ask me to spell something, I can see the word floating in front of me and read off the letters one by one. I also do the same with math. It's easier to do if there isn't anything in my field of vision clashing with my letter and number envisioning.

On the subreddit for persons with hyperphantasia, there are a number of posts discussing being able to see and read text with their "mind's eye," some of which sound very much like accounts of the BofM translation.

One thing that really struck me some months ago was how much Joseph's dictation of the opening of a book seemed like he was reading a printed page from the bible--by beginning with the book title, followed by a summary, and then onto the first passages of the book. It's almost as if he was seeing the text of the Book of Mormon as it would appear on a printed page, formatted just as the opening pages of the books of his family Bible.

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Many who rebelled against Joseph never denied the Restoration of the Gospel or the Book of Mormon, they just had an issue with Joseph- believing he was a "fallen prophet"- not a "never prophet".

Any many more just moved on and joined up with another faith and thought not much more of it.

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Here is an example of a cluster of elements that are mostly conceptual in nature. We get similar topics, but the phrasing isn't remarkably similar for most elements: 

We can see similar examples in Joseph's revelations and personal writings, where it is very clear that Joseph is able to quote and recite dozens of seemingly random and disconnected biblical passages and other phrases with ease. Repetition of phrases is incredibly common in writing and speaking for a lot of people. I struggle with it in my own writing and am constantly having to rewrite and rephrase to avoid it (and have to do so for many authors that I edit as well).

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Have you read any of his early diary entries?

I have. Have you read Nicholas Frederick's work showing how Joseph was able to interweave biblical passages into his personal writings and revelations similar to how they appear in the Book of Mormon? His book is lengthy, so for a taste I suggest his article on Joseph's Colesville letters.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

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.

Meh

[Ryan Dahle]

13 minutes ago, the narrator said:

We can see similar examples in Joseph's revelations and personal writings, where it is very clear that Joseph is able to quote and recite dozens of seemingly random and disconnected biblical passages and other phrases with ease. Repetition of phrases is incredibly common in writing and speaking for a lot of people. I struggle with it in my own writing and am constantly having to rewrite and rephrase to avoid it (and have to do so for many authors that I edit as well).

The problem is that many of Joseph's writings were at least quasi-revelatory in nature, even his letters. So it is hard to find a sizeable control group of unambiguously "naturalistic" writings to compare to his "revelatory" writings. I just don't put much stock in that line of reasoning. 

As for the "repetition" you are talking about, I suspect it is very different from what we are talking about when it comes to the Book of Mormon's impressive instances of intertextuality (which involves exclusive or rare combinations of elements that are packaged in similar or verbatim phrases, often separated by large amounts of text). 

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, the narrator said:

The white hat was made of beaver skin, so it would have blocked out light as reported. As I've mentioned before, I think it is VERY likely that Joseph had hyperphantasia--hence, he was a seer because he could see things. I visualize things quite a bit. If you ask me to spell something, I can see the word floating in front of me and read off the letters one by one. I also do the same with math. It's easier to do if there isn't anything in my field of vision clashing with my letter and number envisioning.

On the subreddit for persons with hyperphantasia, there are a number of posts discussing being able to see and read text with their "mind's eye," some of which sound very much like accounts of the BofM translation.

One thing that really struck me some months ago was how much Joseph's dictation of the opening of a book seemed like he was reading a printed page from the bible--by beginning with the book title, followed by a summary, and then onto the first passages of the book. It's almost as if he was seeing the text of the Book of Mormon as it would appear on a printed page, formatted just as the opening pages of the books of his family Bible.

Re: 3rd paragraph, 1. Take a look at all the books to note the interestingly low level of frequency had this been the case, and especially in light of the role the writer was representing  (abridger/editor, original author, inserting additional documents); 2. Provide a side by side comparison, between the 1st edition of the Book of Mormon and the family Bible.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

We don't know if the letter is actually Joseph's words at the time.  If we had it in his handwriting, then that would be solid evidence.  But what we have is several years after the fact.  If he did dictate it, then Emma would be the best witness to say that he couldn't dictate a coherent sentence.  If Joseph really couldn't dictate a coherent sentence, then Emma would have reworded/rephrased things to make it make sense.

So I'm just saying that letter isn't evidence that Joseph could "dictate a coherent sentence" or that he couldn't.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And was there any description outside dictating the Book of Mormon or other scripture of Joseph doing those kinds of things, behaviours that if one described those behaviors or collection of behaviors alone, no name attached, to someone not familiar with Joseph Smith that would lead to them concluding ‘sounds like that guy had an eidetic memory’?

Something that is not of the logic sequence “we have the Book of Mormon, it was dictated as far as we know to others without easily accessible notes; therefore, Joseph Smith has to have had a fantastic memory”, but is instead like “I heard of this guy that could…..” and the response from someone specializing in memory psychology is ‘sounds like he is eidetic to me’.  Or something similar.

This is a serious question.  I don’t secretly know there are no records of anything that could be taken for such evidence and just want to rub critics’ faces in that reality as fun as that might be.  😛 

Brian Hales has a very good article that looks into the historical record on this and related issues: 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smiths-education-and-intellect-as-described-in-documentary-sources/

You have some people remark that Joseph had a decent memory, but it is a mixed bag. I think in the end, the historical record firmly places Joseph in the realm of "intelligent but not remarkably so" and of "poorly educated but not incompetent." He was probably more capable in 1829 than some of the early believers and critics sometimes made him seem, but still far less so than modern critics tend to assume (since they need him to be truly extraordinary to have produced the Book of Mormon).

Edited June 26, 2024 by Ryan Dahle

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

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. 

A paracosm isn't a narrative; it's a world from which the narrative is based in. Middle Earth, Narnia, and Pandora are all paracosms; The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Avatar are narratives based in and derived from those paracosms. I guarantee you there is A LOT of ideas in Tolkein's, Lewis's, and Cameron's paracosms that never made it to print or film.

When I was a more devout believer in the ancient historicity of the BofM, I was amazed by all the subtext that was implied by the BofM but never made explicit. For example, Lamoni's offer of his daughter to Ammon made much more sense with the context of Ammon being a Nephite prince. Hence, the marriage would have been a uniting of the two nations though a union of a Lamanite princess and Nephite prince. The saw the lack of this explicit context as evidence of a real history underlying Mormon's own narrative. While a believer could make that case, it seems just as likely that it was a simply some context that was accidently omitted or just never brought up.

Imagine sitting down and narrating your life story. How many details of the real world are you going to include? Will you ever forget or simply not mention certain context or points?

What I find especially interesting is that if you look at the accounts surrounding Joseph finding and receiving the plates, along with the small bits here and there of history of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent given before the production of the BofM text, the older they get the more they fit with the Jaredite account (such as descriptions of the breastplate accompanying the plates). It's almost as if Ether reflects an earlier patagonian-like and esoteric narrative history that was later replaced by a more Israelite-focused narrative, which was then later brought back as Ether.

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you tried this? I have. 

Yes. Just now with my Redhead outback hat. Pretty dark in there. I put my iPhone inside with a book page. Even with my glasses I could not read any words. 

 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

That is not an accurate description neither of the historical Joseph nor his depiction by “apologists.” He clearly experienced a prodigious learning curve in the time between his teens and his mid-twenties and then onward to his death.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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 than angels and golden plates.

The Spalding theory is bogus as a Californian in Kentucky trying to speak Kentuckian. For starters, just compare the proper nouns in both works.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

 

So I'm just saying that letter isn't evidence that Joseph could "dictate a coherent sentence" or that he couldn't.

Wow. Never argue with an apologist! A dated letter on the church website transcribed by Joseph’s scribe? Nope! Not evidence. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. Just now with my Redhead outback hat. Pretty dark in there. I put my iPhone inside with a book page. Even with my glasses I could not read any words. 

 

How old are you? And how old were Joseph’s eyes. And if you were trying to block all the light you are doing it wrong. I could easy type size font very easily. In a room with no windows and the lights off. 

Edited June 26, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

Translated by the gift and power of God vs. produced by a beautiful mind: what's the big deal when we are talking apples and oranges?

Evidence for one cannot be expected to either provide or refute convincing evidence for the other.

[the narrator]

1 hour 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.

This is going to blow your mind, but Joseph did not write a single word of the Book of Mormon. The entire text was dictated to someone (such as Emma). Dictation and oral storytelling use very different parts and functions of the brain. For example, speaking a stream of thought is very different than writing, as the former involves the continued and growing presence of the words just written. Seeing what you had just written affects how you construct phrases, sentences, and entire passages. It also affects how you correct the text. With writing you can strikethrough or erase text and rewrite. Can't do that with oral storytelling, where the errors and corrections both exist in the text. (Brant Gardner notes multiple instances of this happening in the Book of Mormon, which he largely attributes to oral origins.) For this reason, I used to often first dictate my school papers to a voice recorder, as I could speak and frame my thoughts more quickly than I could in writing. I know I'm not alone in this practice.

Also, oral dictation explains many of the supposed poetic parallelism and even chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, as there is growing scholarship on how those are a result of the way in which the brain retrieves information through cognitive symmetry. (In short, the explanation for why chiasmus and poetic parallelism seems universally present in ancient oral cultures but largely disappears with writing is not because those were constructed to help with memorization, but instead reflected how oral storytelling and dictation retrieved and presented content--something that writing in prose does not require.)

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

if there were solid evidence (outside of Joseph's formal revelations and other quasi-revelatory documents)

Hard to point to evidence if you preemptively exclude it all.

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My testimony is all I need to know to SHOW me that Joseph was a prophet.      

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

It's just plainly a bad argument and doesn't help your/ our views that Joseph was indeed a prophet.

Yes, testimony is sine qua non.
But there are both spiritual and temporal things within the text that merit close study , and the closer the study, the more things there are to find. And it’s fun!

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

An Oxford professor…it took him many years to write his complex books.

[Ryan Dahle]

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

if there were solid evidence (outside of Joseph's formal revelations and other quasi-revelatory documents)

Hard to point to evidence if you preemptively exclude it all.

It's easy to point to evidence if you preemptively and arbitrarily confine Joseph Smith's miraculously inspired words to his formal revelations, as if the gospel itself somehow warrants such a limiting assumption. I'm guessing you know that isn't how revelation works within the LDS theological system, seeing that several of Joseph's letters have been canonized and much of the New Testament fits the same genre.