Foretelling in the Book of Mormon

[the narrator]

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You seem to be implying here that I am preemptively and arbitrarily excluding certain documents (such as Joseph Smith's letters) as reliable representations of his natural ability.

Did not mean to do that if I was coming across that way. Just highlighting the challenge of comparing the Book of Mormon to Joseph's other revelatory productions if they are being excluding on grounds of them also being revelatory productions.

But this also points to the bigger problem of the the apologetic maneuver of claiming that Joseph was not involved in the text of these revelatory productions. The clear and absolutely undeniable fact is that the Book of Mormon contains phrases and ideas from sermons and such from the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Whether one believes the BofM to be a translation or purely 19th century creative production, these have to be taken into account, and I cannot see any other explanation other than Joseph having a very real and active role in the language of phrasing of the text itself (outside of claims that someone else wrote it, which I completely reject). Furthermore, as Grant Underwood and others with the JSPP argue, Joseph was not God's fax machine and had an active role in the language and phrasing of his revelations (hence the ease he seemed to have with changing the language of them--which he also did with the BofM). All of this points to Joseph having a role in the text itself of the BofM, and the idea that Joseph was merely reading something given to him does not withstand the evidence.

(I won't get into it too much here, but the early modern english thesis is the worst apologetic argument of the 21st century and should be shot and put out of it's misery. It does not at all account for how dialects are regionally maintained--especially orally--and it does not explain why there is actually so little supposed EME in the BofM compared to the majority of it being in modern english with an imitation KJV flavor over the top.)

[Calm]

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

I concur with Gardner that Gilbert missed some of the book summary/intros when formatting the text. Following Gardner, the only books lacking them are Ether, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and Word--which makes sense given how those books and their placement different from most of the rest.

Can you add some detail to make the relevance clearer, please.

[webbles]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Okay, I was being (particularly) obnoxious yesterday, so sorry. The issue isn't your factual objections. I think it's fine to consider the fact that its possible the people Joseph dictated to polished up his dictation. That's not what you said. You said "that letter isn't evidence that Joseph could "dictate a coherent sentence" or that he couldn't."

Can I flip that for you? The eight witnesses testified that they saw physical plates. But have you considered that they were lying or decieved? Therefore that's not evidence either for or against the physicality of the plates. 

 

I have considered whether they were lying or deceived.  I don't care much for the 8 witness statement published with the Book of Mormon because it doesn't appear that they were involved in writing it.  Once their name became attached to it, it is hard for them to deny it because of how it would affect their standing in society.  So, it is very possible that it was coerced in some manner.

[ZealouslyStriving]

People use similar language when expounding on similar religious topics?!?

Stunning, unheard of... CONSPIRACY!!!

[T-Shirt]

On 6/25/2024 at 1:57 PM, 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. 

According to whom? Other sources say that Law's wife asked to be sealed to Joseph after Law was exposed as being an adulterer. Jane and William wanted to be sealed, but Joseph refused because of William's adultery. Subsequently, Jane asked to be sealed to Joseph, but Joseph refused.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

According to whom? Other sources say that Law's wife asked to be sealed to Joseph after Law was exposed as being an adulterer. Jane and William wanted to be sealed, but Joseph refused because of William's adultery. Subsequently, Jane asked to be sealed to Joseph, but Joseph refused.

According to most the history I have read.  Given Smith's behavior with plural marriage I don't buy your argument. 

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

According to most the history I have read.  Given Smith's behavior with plural marriage I don't buy your argument. 

It is not my argument. I don't know what "most history" means, but the only source for your story is William Law, who hated Joseph Smith and bears the primary responsibility for Joseph's death. William Law told a lot of confirmed lies in the Nauvoo Expositor. If you want to side with him, be my guest. I'm just pointing out that there are two sides to this story. Your side is not very consistent with much of the historical record, but there is no clear evidence either way.

Edited June 27, 2024 by T-Shirt

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

It is not my argument. I don't know what "most history" means, but the only source for your story is William Law, who hated Joseph Smith and bears the primary responsibility for Joseph's death. William Law told a lot of confirmed lies in the Nauvoo Expositor. If you want to side with him, be my guest. I'm just pointing out that there are two sides to this story. Your side is not very consistent with much of the historical record, but there is no clear evidence either way.

You presented it.  Thus my comment. I have read plenty of Nauvoo period history and Law does not seem to be the scoundrel you and  the LDS Church makes him out to be.  I don't side with Law or anyone. It is fairly clear the Joseph Smith had a lot of adherents who later turned away from him.  And that primarily due to things Smith did. So it is not just William Law.  It seems to me the historical record tilts heavily to Joseph being a fraud. Whether he was a pious fraud or a calculated con man I do not know. But that is not the topic of this thread. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

William Law told a lot of confirmed lies in the Nauvoo Expositor.

CFR 

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Can you add some detail to make the relevance clearer, please.

I'll take a few steps back.

While working through the raw Printer's Manuscript last year, I was really stuck by not only how much the text goes out of its way to ground itself in written records (which is really quite incredible), but also by how much the beginning of each book was dictated as if it were being read from a printed book of the bible rather than from an ancient manuscript--meaning Joseph dictated the title of the book, a book summary (or other descriptor), and then the actual text of the book. Since manuscripts of the Torah did not have separate titles (and most certainly did not have any summaries), and the prophets and writings did not have them in the way they are in the bible today (which were largely added with the Septuagint), it seems very unlikely that Nephi would have structured the opening of First Nephi in the way he did in 600 BCE. Instead, that structure seems to point more toward Joseph's KJV-based understanding of how books of the bible were formatted. For me, the best explanation for this was that as Joseph was dictating the text (whether as translator or creator), he "saw" the text as if it were a printed page of the bible, which he then read off.

Some months ago I asked my daughter (who is very good at visualizing things) to imagine that she found an ancient history book thousands of years old buried in a nearby field and to read it to me. She began: "[Book Title], by [Author Name], published by..." Obviously such a book would not begin this way, but she was working with her own understanding of how a book ought to begin.

So, anyways, my point is that most of the books of the BofM open in a way that mimic contemporary publications of the Bible rather than the ancient texts they are supposed to be mirroring. There are a few that I listed do not follow this patter, but each of those are also very different from both the rest of the books of the BofM and the books of the Bible.

None of this means that the BofM is not based on an ancient text, but to me at the minimum it points to the role that Joseph had in dictation of the text (and further points to the likelihood that Joseph was highly hyperphantasiac).

[CV75]

18 hours ago, the narrator said:

I guess that's one way to respond if you are in capable of seeing the differences.

Are you referring to these 4?

1. Mosiah. It's pretty well established that we are missing first chapters (and thus original dictated book title and summary). Don Bradley argues that it was originally titled the Book of Benjamin, but I disagree with him and concur with Gardner that the book would have been named after the Mosiah1, with each book being named after the first dynastic leader.

2. The Book of Nephi, the Son of Nephi (3 Ne.). Again, I concur with Gardner that the content between the book title and "Now it came to pass" acts similarly to the summaries. While it might not directly summarize the book, it nevertheless lines up with the point that I was making, that " 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.

3. The Book of Nephi, which is the Son of Nephi, One of the Disciples of Christ (4 Ne.) "An account of the people of Nephi, according to his record."

4. Moroni. I can go either way with this. Like Ether, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and Words, Moroni is very different than the rest of the books of the Book of Mormon, and it technically was not part of THE Book of Mormon. However, I do also see Moroni 1 playing the role that summaries play elsewhere in the book, and it also shares some similarities to the opening summary of First Nephi.

This also seems to support why the engraved material was translated the way it was. So,  "almost as if" is a great qualifier. 

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

People use similar language when expounding on similar religious topics?!?

Stunning, unheard of... CONSPIRACY!!!

Is this in response to me? If so, that is not what I am saying. I'm not talking about similar language; I'm referring to EXACT phrases, many of which refer to specific theological idea that came into fruition in the 18th and early 19th centuries--such as "the plan of salvation."

But for a longer phrase, let's look at "deny yourselves of all ungodliness," which appears in Moroni's closing farewell words in the BofM. If you were to do a straight google books search for that phrase, the first 100+ results will all be more Mormon-related titles (or books quoting the BofM). However, if you change the search fields to the years 1800-1829, a very different story emerges. Especially interesting is the phrase's use in these farewell words here:

Quote

 Now dear brethren we affectionately exhort you by the purity of this doctrine; by the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the glorious hope of your calling; be careful to depart from iniquity. Deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and by crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts; demonstrate to the world that you "are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Remember, dear brethren! you are bound by the highest possible obligations, to "perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord." You are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation." Let therefore your watchful, exemplary, and pious deportment, evince the divine reality of your faith. The world will draw their conclusions respecting religion, more from our spirit and conduct, than from our creed; strive therefore, as in a miror, to display the virtues of Him, who, "hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." AMEN. 

Compare this usage with Moroni's farewell words in 10:32-33 (which is coincidentally my grandfather's favorite scripture and thus our greater extended family scripture):

Quote

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. . . . AMEN.

So here we have similar language around an exact phrase for a similar farewell referring to similar religious topics. No conspiracy or whatever hyperbolic response you have. IMO, it  (among many, many other examples) is clear evidence that Joseph had an active role in the English text of the BofM, whether as translator or creator.

Edited June 27, 2024 by the narrator

[the narrator]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This also seems to support why the engraved material was translated the way it was. So,  "almost as if" is a great qualifier. 

See my previous comment above about such book titles and summaries reflecting modern bible formatting and being anachronistic on the plates of gold--especially the opening of 1 Nephi in the 6th century BCE.

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR 

Are you claiming the Nauvoo Expositor was nothing but the pure, unvarnished truth? Have you read it?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Are you claiming the Nauvoo Expositor was nothing but the pure, unvarnished truth? Have you read it?

You stated: “William Law told a lot of confirmed lies in the Nauvoo Expositor.” 

My understanding of board rules is that you are required to back up statements of facts with references if asked. 
 

So again. CFR. For “a lot” of “confirmed lies”. I’m not sure how to quantify “a lot” but I’ll settle for your top 4 “confirmed lies”. Thanks. 

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

You presented it.  Thus my comment. I have read plenty of Nauvoo period history and Law does not seem to be the scoundrel you and  the LDS Church makes him out to be.  I don't side with Law or anyone. It is fairly clear the Joseph Smith had a lot of adherents who later turned away from him.  And that primarily due to things Smith did. So it is not just William Law.  It seems to me the historical record tilts heavily to Joseph being a fraud. Whether he was a pious fraud or a calculated con man I do not know. But that is not the topic of this thread. 

For the record, I think you are exactly right. The history makes the most sense if you see William Law as a committed member of the Nauvoo community who sincerely believed in the original teachings of the Church but rejected various new and secret doctrines (e.g. plural marriage, God once being a man, ordinances that guaranteed somebody’s salvation as long as they don’t deny the Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith being anointed king), and wanted the common membership of the Church to know that the secret doctrines Joseph Smith taught to his inner circle were the exact opposite of what he taught to the general membership and to investigators. 

The point of the Nauvoo Expositor was to inform the rank-and-file membership of the Church  by respected leaders of the Nauvoo community that the biggest anti-Mormon “lie” of them all really was true: that Joseph Smith and some of his closest friends really were teaching and practicing polygamy in direct violation of what they publicly said and the canonized laws of the Church. This wasn’t done to stir up hatred by the anti-Mormons in Warsaw; it was done to allow the Latter-day Saints themselves to have the dignity of knowing the truth about Joseph Smith. 

To understand why Latter-day Saints have always said the Nauvoo Expositor was filled with lies, you need to see it from the point of view of the early Saints who believed what Joseph Smith publicly taught. For example, on May 1, 1845, one E.M. Webb wrote an editorial that was published in The Times and Seasons in Nauvoo (John Taylor was the publisher, who himself had multiple “wives" at the time) Brother Webb said:

The Latter-day Saints are charged by their enemies, with the blackest crimes. Treason, murder, theft, polygamy, and adultery, are among the many crimes laid to their charge.-The press reiterates and gives publicity to these charges. Under these circumstances, it is but right, that they should be heard in their defence [defense]. I shall, therefore, in this communication, briefly examine and refute a few of the charges, for it would need a legion of writers to answer all the lies told about us.

Most of the stories against the Mormons have been propagated by apostates and traitors, (who have generally been cut off from the church for their crimes.) They publish their lies, and straightway they are believed, and hawked about as awful disclosures, and received by community with trembling and holy horror. Sidney Rigdon, I see by the papers, has made an exposition of Mormonism, charging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with polygamy, &c....

As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly enforced. Article Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have BUT ONE WIFE, and one woman but one husband except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again." Sec. 13, par. 7. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shall cleave unto her and NONE ELSE." In ancient days the church was troubled with traitors, and always will be till God cleanses the earth, and restores the government of his Son...

Those are the “lies” that were in the Nauvoo Expositor. But we now know that Joseph Smith is the one who was lying, William Law was telling the truth, and common members like E.M. Webb who believed and defended Joseph Smith were the dupes.

The only people who are historically consistent in their accusations that the Nauvoo Expositor is full of lies are the ones who continue to believe that Joseph Smith was telling the truth. A fascinating look into this paradigm is the 3-volume book Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy by Richard and Pamela Price. If somebody is committed to the view that the Nauvoo Expositor was full of lies, then you should embrace that RLDS perspective Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy and instead is the victim of a conspiracy to justify Brigham Young’s polygamy with the made-up story that polygamy secretly started with Joseph himself.

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For the record, I think you are exactly right. The history makes the most sense if you see William Law as a committed member of the Nauvoo community who sincerely believed in the original teachings of the Church but rejected various new and secret doctrines (e.g. plural marriage, God once being a man, ordinances that guaranteed somebody’s salvation as long as they don’t deny the Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith being anointed king), and wanted the common membership of the Church to know that the secret doctrines Joseph Smith taught to his inner circle were the exact opposite of what he taught to the general membership and to investigators. 

The point of the Nauvoo Expositor was to inform the rank-and-file membership of the Church  by respected leaders of the Nauvoo community that the biggest anti-Mormon “lie” of them all really was true: that Joseph Smith and some of his closest friends really were teaching and practicing polygamy in direct violation of what they publicly said and the canonized laws of the Church. This wasn’t done to stir up hatred by the anti-Mormons in Warsaw; it was done to allow the Latter-day Saints themselves to have the dignity of knowing the truth about Joseph Smith. 

To understand why Latter-day Saints have always said the Nauvoo Expositor was filled with lies, you need to see it from the point of view of the early Saints who believed what Joseph Smith publicly taught. For example, on May 1, 1845, one E.M. Webb wrote an editorial that was published in The Times and Seasons in Nauvoo (John Taylor was the publisher, who himself had multiple “wives" at the time) Brother Webb said:

The Latter-day Saints are charged by their enemies, with the blackest crimes. Treason, murder, theft, polygamy, and adultery, are among the many crimes laid to their charge.-The press reiterates and gives publicity to these charges. Under these circumstances, it is but right, that they should be heard in their defence [defense]. I shall, therefore, in this communication, briefly examine and refute a few of the charges, for it would need a legion of writers to answer all the lies told about us.

Most of the stories against the Mormons have been propagated by apostates and traitors, (who have generally been cut off from the church for their crimes.) They publish their lies, and straightway they are believed, and hawked about as awful disclosures, and received by community with trembling and holy horror. Sidney Rigdon, I see by the papers, has made an exposition of Mormonism, charging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with polygamy, &c....

As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly enforced. Article Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have BUT ONE WIFE, and one woman but one husband except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again." Sec. 13, par. 7. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shall cleave unto her and NONE ELSE." In ancient days the church was troubled with traitors, and always will be till God cleanses the earth, and restores the government of his Son...

Those are the “lies” that were in the Nauvoo Expositor. But we now know that Joseph Smith is the one who was lying, William Law was telling the truth, and common members like E.M. Webb who believed and defended Joseph Smith were the dupes.

The only people who are historically consistent in their accusations that the Nauvoo Expositor is full of lies are the ones who continue to believe that Joseph Smith was telling the truth. A fascinating look into this paradigm is the 3-volume book Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy by Richard and Pamela Price. If somebody is committed to the view that the Nauvoo Expositor was full of lies, then you should embrace that RLDS perspective Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy and instead is the victim of a conspiracy to justify Brigham Young’s polygamy with the made-up story that polygamy secretly started with Joseph himself.

Thank you for the fine summary. For most my life I viewed William Law as the most despicable of humans, the betrayer of the prophet.  Part the the press that eventually led to The Prophet's murder. As I delved into the history further, rather than simply relying on the faithful narrative that portrayed Law and really any other "apostate" I was rather shocked and your summary was what I eventually concluded.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

To understand why Latter-day Saints have always said the Nauvoo Expositor was filled with lies, you need to see it from the point of view of the early Saints who believed what Joseph Smith publicly taught. For example, on May 1, 1845, one E.M. Webb wrote an editorial that was published in The Times and Seasons in Nauvoo (John Taylor was the publisher, who himself had multiple “wives" at the time) Brother Webb said:

It is interesting that there is an Edward Milo Webb who would marry his second wife in the Nauvoo Temple on January 29, 1846.  If the E.M. Webb who wrote the article in the The Times and Seasons is the same person, then he is shortly about to be taught polygamy or already accepts polygamy by the time he wrote this article.

[Kevin Christensen]

Labels are far easier to fling about than demonstrations.  Easier to say "Joseph Smith was a con man!" than to demonstrate it.  However, for those for whom tossing labels around is not enough, Brant Gardner has compared and contrasted 19th century village seers and traveling con-men.  Joseph fits the pattern of a sincere village seer, rather than a traveling con man.  (See Translating the Book of Mormon, Gardner, 79-90.)  For a lifetime pattern of behavior, rather than insinuation based on the notion that "given that angels and plates do not exist, Joseph must have been a con man, because the alternative is unthinkable," the volume on Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, the three editors make several notable observations that are inconsistent with the picture of a con man.  "As far as one can tell, Joseph eventually paid his debts virtually in full, even when they were enormous..."  (xiii) and "Though he suffered legal wrongs, he usually chose not to take them to court.  For example, he was tarred and feathered in Ohio, and subjected to libel and slander in Illinois, but did not seek  judicial vindication. When he sued or petitioned for redress he typically was concerned more with justice and protection for his people, rather than himself."  (xviii)   

Plus there is the problem of "What's in it for Joseph?"  For those who still look to the Spaulding Theory, which, it happens, arose because the "Joseph just made it up" theory was very quickly collapsing under it's own weight (Alexander Campbell, who wrote "Delusions" arguing that Joseph made it up himself, soon adopted the Spaulding theory, which suffered a severe blow with the later discovery of the Spaulding manuscript), I imagine the con men conspirators stewing for months in Liberty Jail, and one turns to the to other and says, "Tell me again how much money we are going to make."  You can go back a bit earlier when Joseph is tarred and feathered, and loses the twin babies, and consider how the same question would fly then.  I notice that Don Bradley left the faith, based on the notion that Joseph Smith was obviously a con man, he eventually found that intensive research into Joseph Smith's life continually undermined that picture.  In asking "What's in it for Joseph?" he found a life of actions and words did not make sense unless he acknowledged that Joseph was sincere.

And as to the Book of Mormon not being complex, to being nothing that young Joseph could not have served up on his own, drawing on no more than exposure to 19th century oral culture and a few books, I have yet to see a demonstration that accounts for the complexity that literally hundreds of scholars with a wide range of specialties have demonstrated.  Hugh Nibley, for instance, in Since Cumorah,  compared the depiction of warfare to his own years going through WW2.  Later he wrote an essay for Warfare in the Book of Mormon comparing events in the wars to the theories in Clausewitz On War.  In the same volume, Daniel Peterson compared the depiction of the Gadianton Robbers with books on Guerrilla warfare by Mao Tse Tung, Che Guevara. and Vo Nguyen Giap.  John Sorenson looked at the seasonality of warfare.  In comparison, I noticed that Ann Taves, in explaining Joseph Smith as just another spirit writer, unblushingly ignored that kind of thing, and instead offered comparisons to prolific children's book writer, Enid Blyton, who produced things like "Noddy in Toyland," not exactly a rival to the complexity and testability of Mosiah or 3 Nephi.   Taves can do that because she reduces the problem of the Book of Mormon to essentially bulk and some matters of style.

Criticism ought to demonstrate discernment, not just knee-jerk skepticism and ideologically defined observations.

Granted, it was easy for Brent Metcalfe and later Grant Palmer (without attribution), to describe King Benjamin's “the apex of the narrative … depends … fundamentally on a nonbiblical pattern contemporary with Smith” 15  He sees the four-step pattern as “(1) Revival Gathering (Mosiah 2); (2) Guilt-Ridden Falling Exercise (4:1-2a); (3) Petition for Spiritual Emancipation (v. 2b); and (4) Christological Absolution and Emotional Ecstasy (v. 3).” 16

Notice that in developing labels for this four-step pattern, he uses language designed to invoke a 19th century setting and which do not appear in Mosiah, and neglects the vocabulary of Book of Mormon text.  For example, the gathering in Mosiah in centered around Benjamin’s declaration that Mosiah is to succeed him as King (Mosiah 1:10).  Finding a Burnt-Over District revival that met at a temple for the purpose of announcing the succession of the next king would be difficult, to say the least. 

Metcalfe did at least footnote Nibley and Welch, but did not even attempt to account for how much more complexity Nibley and Welch and others had discerned there and much more discerned since.  In An Approach to the Book of Mormon, Hugh Nibley demonstrated that King Benjamin’s discourse was a coronation rite, following a thirty-six element pattern.

Quote

Nibley demonstrated that King Benjamin’s discourse was a coronation rite, following a thirty-six element pattern. Professor Welch summarizes these as:

… the proclamation, transfer of kingship, assembly around the temple, taking a census, bringing firstlings and offerings, giving thanks for deliverance, dwelling in tents around the temple, the king speaking from a tower, the call or silentium and teaching of the mysteries, hailing the king, homage by the people to the king (which Benjamin rejects), cleansing from sin, acclaiming the king, recounting the story of creation, the king’s ritual farewell and descent into the underworld (which Benjamin refers to as a literal event soon to occur), choirs, ensuring succession to the throne, promises of peace and prosperity, the preservation of records, God preserving his people, promises of never-ending happiness, divination of the future, a day of judgment, falling to the ground before the king, seeing all men as equals, the closing acclamation, making of a covenant, receipt of a new name, begetting of the human race, concern about standing in the proper place, having a seal, recording names in a register, appointing priests to remind people of their covenant, and dismissal.”

I have long noticed that none of the people who easily explain King Benjamin's discourse as reflecting a 19th Century revival, ever bother to mention or account for this, and much, much more that has emerged since Nibley.  That particular observation by Nibley became paradigmatic for me.  It has remained fruitful to this day.

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

As to 19th century vocabulary appearing in the Book of Mormon, the 1829 Webster's Dictionary has this for the sixth and seventh definitions of translate:

Quote

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

The easiest, and indeed, the only way for Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon into a language that was both "after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" and which was also completely different from that language, so as not to raise suspicion, would be to not translate it at all, which would mean we could not come to understanding.   Translating in one's own language (the root term means something on the tongue) involves drawing on what is one people's tongues.  Tvedtnes gives the example of Lincoln who drew on many Biblical phrases on composing the Gettysburg Address.  It's in table form in his essay, and would not easily paste here in full, but he goes all the way through the address, showing a wide range of Biblical phrases employed.

Quote

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth    King James Bible fourscore and seven ( I Chr. 7:5) their fathers, which brought forth (2 Chr. 7:22)

Tvedtnes argues that "There are two obvious factors: ( 1) Both Lincoln and the King James translators spoke English. (2) 
Lincoln, as a Bible-reading man, would have these expressions as part of his vocabulary. What is important here is that the Bible 
words were used to describe entirely different circumstances , and yet were appropriate to those circumstances. I suggest that the 
same can be said of Book of Mormon passages that resemble the Bible."

Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book "Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon, vol. 1 (byu.edu)

And as to the Joseph as story teller passage from Lucy's History.  Not only are the exemplary details of every day life that Lucy mentions without detailing them, (such as details about animals on which they rode, for instance) conspicuously absent from the Book of Mormon (in the Nephite account of 1000 years and 100 distinct wars, no one rides an animal), but no one bothers to explain, why, if Joseph could provide this kind of informal family discourse full of the details of everyday Nephite life and circumstance, why do we have no record of him ever doing anything like it again?  And his spellbound brothers and sisters could have also provided accounts of such reports, could they not?  Not just Lucy.  And if they supposed, like his critics, that his sort of thing provides clear foundational evidence that Joseph could just make stuff up, why believe him, at such personal cost?  What would Hyrum follow Joseph to Carthage, and why read the book for inspiration and comfort while waiting to die?  And if Joseph was doing that sort of thing before the publication of the Book of Mormon, why would they not have filtered out and influenced the picture in the satirical Book of Puki, which gives a contemporary snapshot of what his neighbors expected him to produce.  The most noteworthy thing about the Book of Puki is that it is nothing like the Book of Mormon.   I find it particularly noteworthy that recent study into sources for the Lucy "quote" reveals that 

Quote

Sharalynn D. Howcroft (an editor of Oxford University Press’ forthcoming Foundational Texts of Mormonism) stated “For example, Lucy Mack Smith reportedly dictated her history to Martha Jane Coray; however, the extant manuscript doesn’t show evidence of dictation and there are other clues in the manuscript that suggest what we have is a few generations removed from a dictated text. Additionally, scholars have presumed the fair copy was a contiguous history, but physical clues indicate it was two separate copies of the history that were combined. This kind of analysis and discovery extends our understanding beyond what the content of a historical source divulges.” See https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/01/10/qa-with-foundational-texts-of-mormonism-editors/.

As evidence that Joseph Smith had a longstanding ability to make up stories, I see problems with the sources, the content relative to the Book of Mormon content, the lack of supporting witness from the rest of the supposedly impressed and spellbound family, and that Joseph Smith never again demonstrating to his followers the same pattern of behavior. 

  Now it is true that Ann Taves can publish her approach as an explanation of the Book of Mormon, Brodie can do hers, and bloggers can offer theirs, but the real test and real issue is whether that explanation is the best explanation, that is testable, that accounts for the most detail of the Book of Mormon, that has the most depth and range, that is fruitful, leading investigators to details and understanding that they never would have imagined otherwise, is both beautiful and simple, and has the most future promise.  It is far easier to dismiss the complexity and richness of the Book of Mormon than to directly acknowledge, address and account for it.

Quote

”In short, consciously or not, the decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.”

Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 59.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 1, 2024 by Kevin Christensen
typo, grammar

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/25/2024 at 2:45 AM, The Nehor said:

The Lord of the Rings, the Wheel of Time, and many other fictional franchises (Star Trek, Star Wars, etc) are MUCH MUCH more complex than the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon rarely has more than half a dozen characters of importance on the ‘stage’ at any given point. You can take the Lord of the Rings and sketch out actual military campaigns and see the decision calculus. You can break down Saruman’s campaign against Rohan or the Witch-King’s campaign against Gondor in pretty good detail and see what the decision makers are doing. The Book of Mormon has no map and even in the most covered military campaign against Amalickiah and Ammoron you generally have no idea what the terrain is and what the objectives are and what cities are critical or much of anything. In most of the war they just throw you the names of cities and maybe some casualty figures and call it a day.

 

Quote

1 Nephi 6:6 Wherefore, I shall give commandment unto my seed, that they shall not occupy these plates with things which are not of worth unto the children of men.

1 Nephi:9 3 Nevertheless, I have received a commandment of the Lord that I should make these plates, for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the ministry of my people. 4 Upon the other plates should be engraven an account of the reign of the kings, and the wars and contentions of my people; wherefore these plates are for the more part of the ministry; and the other plates are for the more part of the reign of the kings and the wars and contentions of my people. 5 Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

Jacob 1:2 And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I considered to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi.

 

On 6/25/2024 at 2:45 AM, The Nehor said:

I had an elaborate fictional fantasy world as a child and teenager and I could write a consistent chronology of it if I had to even though I haven’t thought much about it in decades. I spent that much time on it. It covers several centuries and ends with a whole galaxy being ripped apart. I was a weirdo. So was Tolkien. C.S. Lewis talks about the imaginary world he and his brother created filled with animal people. Some groups of people create collaborative worlds. Some just create their own. In the past some of these people were the shamans and druids and bards and the like.

And all this was accomplished in a frontier cabin while you and they were doing the back-breaking work required for their survival...as teen-agers and without education. Joseph the bard. I like it!

On 6/25/2024 at 2:45 AM, The Nehor said:

Keeping a created story like this straight is not as hard as some people suggest if you have been building it and refining it in your brain for years. I am more impressed by the doctrinal teaching than I am with one person keeping the Book of Mormon’s pretty limited cast of characters and chronology straight. The dangerous part is claiming it is true so it has to interlock with history. The problem is the connection is tenuous.

Even if you accept the accounts that Joseph Smith dictated it all straight out memorizing something the length of the Book of Mormon is not that difficult a task. People have done it. Children have reportedly memorized longer books.

Please provide a source for this statement. That would make Joseph a savant or a genius with a phenomenal memory. 

In my experience in music, child prodigies do not just appear. A parent or a teacher and hours and hours and hours of training have to precede playing difficult music.

When and how did Joseph accomplish this amazing memorization....over 500 pages?

Edited June 29, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

On 6/28/2024 at 4:01 PM, Bernard Gui said:

And all this was accomplished in a frontier cabin while you and they were doing the back-breaking work required for their survival...as teen-agers and without education. Joseph the bard. I like it!

Time to think is pretty readily available when doing farmwork. Even though it is physically difficult.

On 6/28/2024 at 4:01 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Please provide a source for this statement. That would make Joseph a savant or a genius with a phenomenal memory.

A source for the statement that people have memorized books longer than the Book of Mormon? A Google search will show that.

I also didn’t say Joseph Smith memorized it. I am suggesting that keeping the story straight and dictating it would be doable without complete memorization and showing that people have memorized more difficult texts so Joseph could do something comparatively easy (though not objectively easy, just doable). Those recitations Joseph gave the family could easily be Joseph working out the story.

On 6/28/2024 at 4:01 PM, Bernard Gui said:

In my experience in music, child prodigies do not just appear. A parent or a teacher and hours and hours and hours of training have to precede playing difficult music.

I taught myself to speed read as a child and can still dictate favorite portions of many of the books I have read. No one instructed me.

On 6/28/2024 at 4:01 PM, Bernard Gui said:

When and how did Joseph accomplish this amazing memorization....over 500 pages?

I am not convinced he did. Memorizing the outline and winging it could work. Then again it is also possible the whole thing was divine. I am just not convinced from the evidence that it had to be divine.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Time to think is pretty readily available when doing farmwork. Even though it is physically difficult.

A source for the statement that people have memorized books longer than the Book of Mormon? A Google search will show that.

I also didn’t say Joseph Smith memorized it. I am suggesting that keeping the story straight and dictating it would be doable without complete memorization and showing that people have memorized more difficult texts so Joseph could do something comparatively easy (though not objectively easy, just doable). Those recitations Joseph gave the family could easily be Joseph working out the story.

I taught myself to speed read as a child and can still dictate favorite portions of many of the books I have read. No one instructed me.

I am not convinced he did. Memorizing the outline and winging it could work. Then again it is also possible the whole thing was divine. I am just not convinced from the evidence that it had to be divine.

They did many things other than farm work, most of them extremely physically demanding. I Googled kids doing incredible memorization feats. I Googled it, but couldn't come up with something similar. So, I ask you for a CFR.

Keeping a story straight and then later filling it out in dictation with details, consistent referrals to previous events and people, dates, prophecies fulfilled later in the book, etc.....doable? Not a chance. 

The stories Joseph told his family are not found in the BoM.  According to the writers, the plates were to be filled with their ministry and prophecy. Other plates held more of their history. Speed reading is not an act of a prodigy.

Musical prodigies do not teach themselves. In order to do what he did, Joseph would have to be a savant. I'm not aware that he was a savant. For me, this indicates he did what he said he did....translate and dictate from another book.

Memorizing the outline and winging it for over 500 pages with interruptions and daily work? Nope. Not a chance.

[the narrator]

On 6/26/2024 at 5:42 PM, Bernard Gui said:

You’re right. He had plenty of spare time to do other things, too.

Just came across this from Joseph's 1826 trial:

Quote

Prisoner examined, says, that he came from town of Palmyra and, had been at the house of Josiah Stowel[l]s in Bainbridge most of time since, had small part of times been employed in looking for mines,—but the major par[t] had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school.

Joseph was 20 at the time.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

Just came across this from Joseph's 1826 trial:

Joseph was 20 at the time.

Which school?

[the narrator]

On 7/26/2024 at 7:56 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Which school?

Seeing that he was 20 at the time, this would have likely referred to his own study--whatever that may be. Whatever he was doing at the time, he wasn't farming.