What books did Joseph Smith have access to?

[ave maria]

Personally I think that there is a big difference between the two, those who chase down, and those who share.

If they go to the non-LDS adherents' homes to do that, is that still okay in your view?

[juliann]

To redirect the thread back to its original intent; is there a naturalistic explanation for the BoM that believing members would grant some plausibility or possibility?

Now the the BOM itself is actually being looked at I do expect to find literary styles, etc. that we would not consider to be historically factual today. I don't think the question "do you believe the Bible to be historical" to be a very accurate one. The question shoudl be is it authentic.

Anyway, I see no possibility for any explanation that undercuts the authenticity of the BOM that would not cut out the heart of Mormon theology.

[lwyatt]

Personally I think that there is a big difference between the two, those who chase down, and those who share.

If they go to the non-LDS adherents' homes to do that, is that still okay in your view?

Why not? Isn't that what the Apostles did in their mission? Isn't that what Christ did? Didn't Christ and the Apostles "go to the people", and not wait for them to come to Him and them?

Is there a difference?

[ave maria]

Personally I think that there is a big difference between the two, those who chase down, and those who share.

If they go to the non-LDS adherents' homes to do that, is that still okay in your view?

Why not? Isn't that what the Apostles did in their mission? Isn't that what Christ did? Didn't Christ and the Apostles "go to the people", and not wait for them to come to Him and them?

Is there a difference?

Is there a difference between that and non-LDS coming to this board to do the same?

[1973betRP&Glendale]

Look at any modern-day charismatic religious leader (e.g., Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, et. al) I don't see how JS is any different. Having a band of devout followers does not equate to truth.

My response to this is simple. Where is David Koresh's church today? Is Warren Jeffs and his followers traveling throughout the world, or even the country, baptizing hundreds of people wherever they go?

After a century-and-a-half of facing every kind of opposition imaginable, the LDS Church is still here and going strong. Not only that, it is here to stay. None of the other "charismatic religious leaders" you can think of (Jim Jones, Charles Manson) can even come close to saying the same thing.

[Calm]

Is there a difference between that and non-LDS coming to this board to do the same?

That would depend on the intent, would it not and whether time was spent in attempting to destroy another's faith or create a new one.

[ave maria]

Is there a difference between that and non-LDS coming to this board to do the same?

That would depend on the intent, would it not and whether time was spent in attempting to destroy another's faith or create a new one.

Can LDS missionaries persuade others of the claims of their church without disputing the claims of the others?

[Calm]

Indeed they can.

All they have to do present what they believe are the truth claims of the LDS faith and let the Spirit witness to the truth or falseness of them.

The subject of other faith's beliefs never even have to come up and often doesn't.

[ave maria]

Indeed they can.

All they have to do present what they believe are the truth claims of the LDS faith and let the Spirit witness to the truth or falseness of them.

The subject of other faith's beliefs never even have to come up and often doesn't.

I'd be interested to hear from the former missionaries on this board how many didn't address complete and total apostasy of the early Christian church in teaching prospective converts, or address the reasons why the person's current faith was not correct.

[RichardMdBorn]

1973 wrote

My response to this is simple. Where is David Koresh's church today? Is Warren Jeffs and his followers traveling throughout the world, or even the country, baptizing hundreds of people wherever they go?

After a century-and-a-half of facing every kind of opposition imaginable, the LDS Church is still here and going strong. Not only that, it is here to stay. None of the other "charismatic religious leaders" you can think of (Jim Jones, Charles Manson) can even come close to saying the same thing.

The Seventh Day Adventists are still here. The JWs are here. The Bahais are here. Survival of a group does not mean that its tenents are correct. Otherwise, only one group would exist today.

[1973betRP&Glendale]

The Seventh Day Adventists are still here. The JWs are here. The Bahais are here. Survival of a group does not mean that its tenents are correct. Otherwise, only one group would exist today.

I couldn't agree more. But to simply dismiss Joseph Smith as another David Koresh or Jim Jones isn't going to stop the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from growing and expanding.

[Calm]

Indeed they can.

All they have to do present what they believe are the truth claims of the LDS faith and let the Spirit witness to the truth or falseness of them.

The subject of other faith's beliefs never even have to come up and often doesn't.

I'd be interested to hear from the former missionaries on this board how many didn't address complete and total apostasy of the early Christian church in teaching prospective converts, or address the reasons why the person's current faith was not correct.

I probably should clarify. when I say often, I mean that I've been in individual discussion where such hasn't come up. I wouldn't make the same claim for the entire series of discussions though.

I believe in the past the Apostasy was part of the discussions, after all when one speaks of the need for a Restoration one has to explain why.

But one can focus on the result of the Apostasy--the removal of priesthood authority, etc.-- and not on specifically where the beliefs went wrong (I think that is actually rather hard to do unless one has already established familiarity with LDS beliefs).

I don't know what type of discussions are given today with the direction being to follow the Spirit more in the discussion.

I still don't see missionaries spending all that much time pointing out what is wrong with the investigator's current rather than emphasizing what is good about the system they are presenting.

===

I don't wish it to appear that I am ignoring that the ultimate consequence of teaching someone that the LDS faith system is the most correct one currently on the earth today at the very least implies the other's faith is incomplete and more likely incorrect where it contradicts LDS doctrine. I still think there is a significant difference between causing rejection by accentuating the negative of one system instead of encouraging acceptance through presenting the positive of another. That there is some negative in the positive presentation is likely, just as it is likely--at least if it is going to seem reasonable--there is going to be some positive in the negative presentation. The ratio of positive to negative makes a difference (think of the difference between cake and bread when we are talking about the ratio of flour to sugar or even more obvious the difference between off-white and off-black where both tints are composed of the exact same pigments yet result in very different effect and you will get my point).

I also do not ignore that if the hope of the LDS Church that everyone would come to the same understanding of the truthfulness of the LDS understanding of the gospel and join with the community were realized, that would mean the ultimate cessation of other religious organization.

But there is a difference between shooting cannonballs at an inhabited fortress and letting it fall into ruins after everyone leaves. If the choice were for people to either leave their faith system without joining the LDS or staying within it, I believe most LDS would encourage them to stay as they see great benefit in faith even if incomplete (in terms of LDS understanding at least). I cannot say the same for many that come to the various message boards trying to persuade LDS to leave their faith.

[1dc]

Is there a difference between that and non-LDS coming to this board to do the same?

Were you invited in to share a message of your faith? Is that in the board charter?

[RichardMdBorn]

Hi 1973,

You asserted that

Now according to church critics, Joseph Smith fabricated all of these works after carefully studying, cover-to-cover, all of the following:

- The King James version of the Bible

- Ethan Smith's "Views of the Hebrews"

- Solomon Spaulding manuscript

- The Apocrypha

- The works of Flavius Josephus

- The complete works of Shakespeare

Repeating my question, please cite a critic who asserted this and where they wrote it. I don't understand how Shakespeare is relevant.

Richard

[Calm]

BTW, I don't have a problem with people coming here and offering critiques of the LDS faith. I just think it is ridiculous to equate it to missionary work for the vast majority of them. The board's mission is not an appropriate missionary setting (I don't think it is even for the LDS faith, though it does give directions to better places for this). The expecations of the participants pretty much defeat this purpose before it begins, though I don't really remember too many nonLDS that have stuck to actual witnessing of their own faith and have not descended into criticism of one form or the other so who knows, maybe it would work if someone sincere tried it. We had a few on ZLMB try, it was not very successful in the sense that there were skeptics (including LDS) that ridiculed their attempts, but it was very informative for those of us who were interested (I was one of them, the sharing of other religious viewpoints was the main reason I got into the boards; now that I know that it's not a real effective way of learning this and I need to find better avenues, I stick around because I want to learn more of how we are perceived by others.)

I do have a problem when criticism descends from constructive to destructive.

Many critics, such as Richard here who is one of my longtime favourite message board friends, generally keep the criticism on a level that encourages examination of doctrine. This type of criticism that actually deals with the ideas and understanding of doctrine, etc, actual discussion of theological issues is probably the only worthwhile criticism as far as I am personally concerned. I know too well the problems with personal/historical issues and they are pretty irrelevent to me when the Spirit speaks. OTOH, trying to reach a greater understanding of the nature of God and his relationship to myself as an individual and the community of man in general is a very worthwhile religious/theological endeavour. I think it is very important that LDS listen to criticism on this level if only for the purpose of learning how to better communicate, though I think there are many more purposes that can be served by this type of intelligent, constructive, refining criticism.

What it boils down to is that I think any missionary whose intent (primary or secondary) it to push someone away from a faith should be sent directly home. The intent of a Christian missionary should be to lead others toward God. One can't lead if one is behind pushing.

[Calm]

Hi 1973,

You asserted that

Now according to church critics, Joseph Smith fabricated all of these works after carefully studying, cover-to-cover, all of the following:

- The King James version of the Bible

- Ethan Smith's "Views of the Hebrews"

- Solomon Spaulding manuscript

- The Apocrypha

- The works of Flavius Josephus

- The complete works of Shakespeare

Repeating my question, please cite a critic who asserted this and where they wrote it. I don't understand how Shakespeare is relevant.

Richard

There are some claims that JS plagiarized Shakespeare in the BoM in a few spots. I believe the relevent passages are actually from the Bible though which Shakespeare himself, like many other authors have, borrowed from. Obviously making the claim that the complete works are required to be known is an overstatement. Only the relevent passages would be required to be accessible in one form or another.

As to the rest, this appears to me more of a grouping of several claims together into one mass. This grouping was probably done because generally critics don't address the entire BoM in their critique, but rather several or even many sections. If one assumes that JS did get material from other sources, then it makes sense to group all the criticisms of this type into one place to make one consistent criticism of the entire BoM production process.

Of course, it is also possible that some parts of the BoM were from these sources materials and others made up and that some of the source material criticisms are right and others wrong, but then by what standard do we judge when this happens? At what point is it necessary to require reliable evidence that he had source material available as opposed to being able to pass something off with just 'this was a lucky guess'?

To be consistent, it makes sense to group all the same type of criticism together, but it can begin to look like a cariacuture (sp?) of the actual arguments. But it is also a problem when the arguments contradict each other. Then someone examining these criticism is placed in the situation of judging why they should accept the criticism for this section of the BoM but prefer this criticism that ultimately contradicits the first one for another section.

Can criticisms that appear to work on a microlevel but contradict each other on a macrolevel to some extent coexist logically?

add-on: I agree with Juliann:

At some point they are going to have to get together and work something out.

If critics want to effectively use this type of criticism (effectively as opposed to creating doubts in people who don't take more than 15 min to examine a particular issue), they need to approach it in a more unified and systematic manner.

[ave maria]

BTW, I don't have a problem with people coming here and offering critiques of the LDS faith. I just think it is ridiculous to equate it to missionary work for the vast majority of them.

Just so there's no mistake, calmoriah, we're only discussing this because juliann made the following assertion:

We are not the ones chasing down other religions and making demands of their adherents.

To assert that LDS do not "chase down other religions" in any fashion or "make demands of their adherents" I believe to be indefensible, particularly in light of LDS missionary work.

[Pace Nielsen]

ave,

Juliann is making her comments (in context) with regards to those who seek out specific religions. LDS missionaries seek out any and all who will listen.

[1973betRP&Glendale]

Repeating my question, please cite a critic who asserted this and where they wrote it. I don't understand how Shakespeare is relevant.

In their book "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?" Jerald and Sandra Tanner cite examples of lines, words and sentence patterns from Shakesphere which resemble verses in the Book of Mormon. Ed Decker on his "Saints Alive" website makes the same accusation.

On top of this, many other critics, such as Bob Larson, **** Baer and Fawn Brodie (her book I believe was called, No Man Knows My History) point out similarites between LDS scripture and books such as Views of the Hebrews, the Soloman Spaulding manuscirpt and the works of Flavius Josephus. The best reference for all of this would either be Jerald and Sandra Tanners "Utah Lighthouse" website, or the Mormon Research Ministry website.

My point in writing this thread is simply to ask this question. If Joseph Smith, a 19th century farmer, fabricated the Book of Mormon, as well as all other Mormon scripture, using books and ideas from his time (as claimed by another popular critic, Grant Palmer) then why hasn't any 21st Century historian or writer, or group of historians and writers, been able to duplicate it?

[Calm]

BTW, I don't have a problem with people coming here and offering critiques of the LDS faith.

[ave maria]

ave,

Juliann is making her comments (in context) with regards to those who seek out specific religions. LDS missionaries seek out any and all who will listen.

Regardless, it is amusing to hear anyone assert that LDS don't frequent other message boards to do the same thing they criticize non-LDS of doing here.

[rameumptom]

You might be interested in this list of books of Joseph Smith's which were apparently donated to the Nauvoo Library, found at the following link:

http://www.xmission.com/~research/about/books.htm

That's all and well, except most of the writings occurred before the Nauvoo period.

Also, we must accept the idea that for the Book of Mormon alone, Joseph would have had to have had: extensive training in kaballah, an Egyptian primer on names, the Bar Kokhba letters (discovered in 1940s, so he would know the name Alma is okay to use), understanding of the documentary hypothesis (not developed until late 1800s), in depth understanding of Semitic and Egyptian rituals (Year Rite, for example), The Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered 1947) so he could know that the "Land of Jerusalem" was an appropriate term for Jesus' birthplace, The DSS also for a psalm that correlates directly with Nephi's psalm (how did Joseph plagiarize that???), in depth understanding of Wisdom literature, Origen and Tertullian's writings (as well as many of the other ante-Nicene fathers, etc.

I must say, the library in Palmyra must have really outdone the Library of Congress at the time, which was based on Thomas Jefferson's personal library that he sold to the LoC.

Of course, that's just for the Book of Mormon. We'd have to add lots more for Joseph's reading list prior to his writing the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham. It would include more DSS scrolls, to include the ancient fragments of Enoch, so Joseph would know that Enoch answered questions from a guy named Mahijah/Mahujah.

But then, this kind of thing happens all the time. I remember when H G Wells included some obscure things in his novel War of the Worlds. It really blew my mind when I found I could correlate it Von Daniken. I mean, how could Wells KNOW that crop circles were caused by ancient spacemen???

I am amazed that Joseph had a better local library than others of his time had access to. I don't recall Thoreau or Emerson going in depth into obscure ancient events. I don't recall Abraham Lincoln quoting some ancient discourse of Solon in his Gettysburg Address. I don't remember reading anywhere of the scholars of the early colleges having much luck in obtaining such documents in their libraries, either.

So, it would be one thing if Joseph had become a scriptorian of the Bible and Apocrypha. It would be even possible to think he had learned some kabbalah along the way. But how do we explain aaaaaalllllll of the obscure or hidden documents he must have learned about in order to accomplish such an amazing "scam"????

[Dale]

I have a list from a critic of ten items Joseph Smith got from Ethans Smith's View of the Hebrews. Now I am not sure that was his source but he had to have picked of ten themes from the book & remembered it enough to use it later.

An unusual aspect of the Book of Mormon is it was based on either a pre-existing manuscript or plates. But there is no evidence of a pre-existing manuscript. The text was carefully written having many complexities in it. So point to complex poetical forms in the Book of Mormon as possible indications of ancient origins. To me that he could have dictated a manuscript he composed only in his head is tough to believe. Perhaps he was just a genius. Does an inexperienced artist always create a sculpture successfully on the first try?

Were crib notes used to create the book?

Was a photo-graphic memory involved?

How many people can even if gifted with writing ability & perhaps a perfect photo-graphic memory write such a book?

Does anybody know of a historical example of a book similar to the Book of Mormon being composed by any other single genius?

I am not suggesting Joseph Smith was stupid. I am not arguing he had not been the gifted. I am just trying to see him as so gifted he was beyond other geniuses. If he wasn't that gifted then it's possible their were plates as he said. If he was that gifted then show me through logic how he was able to do it being only a man without inspiration from above, or below if you prefer.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Calm]

ave,

Juliann is making her comments (in context) with regards to those who seek out specific religions.

[Pace Nielsen]

ave,

Juliann is making her comments (in context) with regards to those who seek out specific religions.  LDS missionaries seek out any and all who will listen.

Regardless, it is amusing to hear anyone assert that LDS don't frequent other message boards to do the same thing they criticize non-LDS of doing here.

I agree that it is a ridiculous assertion. Clearly there are examples of Latter-day Saints who frequent other religions' message boards and are rude, annoying, make demands, and whatever else.

But I'm not sure Juliann is saying that. I don't think she is trying to say that it never happens as much as saying that it shouldn't happen, or that it doesn't fit our doctrines and standards. On the other hand, other religions PROMOTE such behavior (i.e. singling out another religion for mockery and/or what-have-you). Or, they high-five their members when they hear stories of how one of the fold taught those Mormons a thing or two about the Bible by lying to them about who they were.

Anyway, I'm not trying to defend Juliann's remarks, or say that she paints an accurate picture, or any of those things (although I would hope we don't single out religions to bash). I'm just trying to help communication.

Cheers and goodnight,

Pace