What books did Joseph Smith have access to?

[charity]

To non-believers: If an examination of the text of the Book of Mormon demonstrates that it could not have been produced in the 1820's by a single writer, or even a group of writer's, what are other possible theories, leaving angelic visitation out of the realm of possibilities?

This is not a gotcha question. I am really asking what you think a plausible theory could be? I haven't been able to come up with any, but if you have, I would be interested to know.

Charity

[johnny]

charity  writes, 

I am really asking what you think a plausible theory could be? I haven't been able to come up with any, but if you have, I would be interested to know.

A plausible theory could also explain the Qur'an. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind, revealed to the Prophet Muhammad over a period of 23 years through the Angel Jibril (Gabriel).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an

[charity]

Johnny, are you asking for theories of the origin of the Koran (or however the title is translated into English) since it is supposed to have required an angelic visit also? I asked first I hope your question does not divert energies to positing theories about the Koran, before I get some to my question!

[johnny]

charity  writes, 

Johnny, are you asking for theories of the origin of the Koran (or however the title is translated into English) since it is supposed to have required an angelic visit also? 

I am simply suggesting that the same theory could explain both the Koran and the Book of Mormon since both were from prophets.

[charity]

If there was such a theory. So far, no takers.

[Calm]

charity

[Bertram]

Just curious?

The Bible has been prepared, translated, refined, interpreted, analysed, prayed over and digested for, give or take a year or two, some 2,000 years, and what have we got?

Over 4,000 "christian" churches who cannot agree it's message, and most "fundamentally' argue over it, and even form their own "churches"!!!

It does not surprise me in the slightest, if they dispute the Bible, which they claim to love and worship, among themselves and form so many cults and schisms; how on earth are they going to understand how God can raise up a Prophet in these latter days?

Why they even reject former Prophets and the Gospel Doctrine which they gave the world!!

[Bertram]

Evolution.

I wonder if Joseph would have had a book on Evolution?

Curiously my E-Mail from Time Magazine has just arrived to-day!

One article is:

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/a...1086114,00.html

Hope this is not more confusion and likely disagreement!

[Dale]

Hi,

Mighty Curelom the book you mentioned reminds me of James Strang's writings. He was of course a claimant to lead the Restored Church after he died. I think he wrote a Book of The Law of The Lord. The materials online for those who want to do comparisons. The material looked flat to me not much double checking or re-checking to produce it.

I am convinced the Doctrine & Covenants could have been Joseph Smith's easy work. A clever forger could produce a book like the D.& C. possibly. It would have to match Joseph Smith's style to be convincing.

With the Book of Mormon it's way to complex to just be flat boring auto-matic writing result. The Chiasmus poetical form from Alma 36 takes a lot of effort to write. It's possible that auto-matic writing could have been involved but it seems more likely to me it was worked out in a pre-existing manuscript. A bad poem can be written once, but to make a beautiful poem that's pleasing to the eye & complex order of elements within might take several looks & revisions to get it right. He did craze genius stuff like that all over the book. Plus he paused & was able to mimic Jesus wording in the New Testament in 3rd Nephi. Plus critics say he cited hundreds of Bible phrases which would be a magical feat of memory.

Etahns Smith's ten points of similarities can be set down as co-incidence, glancing at written notes, or a trick of memory.

Was the book produced from notes or from the mind alone? If from the mind alone either revelation was involved or it wasn't?

I know of a lady involved in outreach to Mormons who was presented with evidence of Bountiful & Nahom existence in the real world. She blamed it on demon possession. Perhaps the devil helped Joseph do it. But wouldn't it be cool if God via revelation of the Almighty revealed the Book of Mormon?

Sincerely,

Dale

[Matt Andrews]

To non-believers: If an examination of the text of the Book of Mormon demonstrates that it could not have been produced in the 1820's by a single writer, or even a group of writer's, what are other possible theories, leaving angelic visitation out of the realm of possibilities?

This is not a gotcha question. I am really asking what you think a plausible theory could be? I haven't been able to come up with any, but if you have, I would be interested to know.

Charity

Hello, Charity.

I doubt an examination of the text could ever demonstrate that the BoM could not have been produced in the 1820's. I'm not sure, even if it really was an ancient record, what such a demonstration would consist of. (The text of the Gold Plates themselves, perhaps?)

I personally think it likely that it was produced by Joseph, perhaps with some help from Oliver. None of the supposed 'hebraisms' or archeological 'hits' in the text seem unlikely from someone creating a pretend history/scripture from the ancient inhabitants of the Americas in the early 1800's. It doesn't require having any writings on had other than. perhaps, some text from the King James Bible. I think he (and whatever collaborators he might have had, though I lean toward few if any) took stories he (and many of his contemporaries) were familiar with and created a narrative he thought was compelling.

When I see the 'street magician' David Blaine appear to 'levitate', I don't know exactly how he does it. but I do recognize it is a trick. (I have some ideas about how he does it, but my lack of certainty on that point doesn't mean I decide Blaine really has magic powers. )

I don't know exactly how Smith produced the BoM, but I do recognize it as a trick, and not a particularly impressive one at that.

--------------

I don't know that you will get many other theories suggested, as your question eliminated the theories most non-believers subscribe to. (It was written by man or men in the early 1800's.)

Cheers.

[charity]

Matt, there are two parts to this:

1. There are descriptions, geographical places, terms, literary expressions, names, etc. that were not commonly available to anyone in the time preceding the production of the Book of Mormon.

The explanation for the appearance of these in the Book of Mormon is usually that Joseph had access to the material, even given his circumstance on the western frontier. Or that other people had access and other people, either with or without his active participation, used these materials to produce the Book of Mormon and then gave it to him to make up a story about.

2. There are descriptions, geogrpahical places, etc. that seemed anachronistic, or simply wrong. These have been the subject of anti-Mormon histrionics for years.

As to #1. The lengths to which people have to go to make this explanation fit stretches the imagination. As has been suggested on this post, the different published materials, even those that were extant, becomes too long, and too improbably within anyone, or even several anyone's reach.

As to #2. The list of "wrong" things in the Book of Mormon has become incredibly short as more and more discoveries are confirming what is in the Book of Mormon. Anti's are not longer laughing themselves silly.

I would like to respectfully suggest, that if you believe that the text of the Book of Mormon consists only of information and material that was available, even if not commonly available in the early 1800's, you should take a look at the text critically and then check it out with recent discoveries. I would suggest that you go to the FAIR topic board and read every piece that appears there. Then go to the FARMS website and go through their Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. I think, except for the latest Journal issue, these are available for free. It is a lot of reading, but you sound like a thoughtful person, and you wouldn't want to make any argument out of ignorance.

I think you will even enjoy such a project. Let me know how it goes.

[1973betRP&Glendale]

What about the Seventh-Day Adventists (Ellen White), the Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell), the Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy), the Scientologists (L. Ron Hubbard), and Pentacostalism (Charles Fox Parham, with over 200,000,000 members!)?

These are all new religious movements founded in the last 150 years that have had success equal to or greater than the CoJCoLdS.

I would have to agree with that this is true. My question would be, do the critics of the above churches continually write books, put up websites and hand out flyers portraying people like Ellen White and Mary Baker Eddy as savages and blood thirsty tyrants, much in the way Joseph Smith is often portrayed by Mormon Church critics like Ed Decker, Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Fawn Frodie?

[RichardMdBorn]

1973 wrote

I would have to agree with that this is true. My question would be, do the critics of the above churches continually write books, put up websites and hand out flyers portraying people like Ellen White and Mary Baker Eddy as savages and blood thirsty tyrants, much in the way Joseph Smith is often portrayed by Mormon Church critics like Ed Decker, Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Fawn Frodie?

I don't think that they strove for both political and religious power tha way both JS and BY did. Nor did they have the questionable conduct with women that JS's teachings about polygamy brought forth. William Miller was a contemporary of JS and developed a large following. He faced a large amount of opposition, including having rocks thrown at him. However, he did not seek political power and didn't teach polygamy privately while publically teaching against it.

Richard

[1973betRP&Glendale]

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

This does not support your intitial assertion that JS "fabricated all of these works after carefully studying, cover-to-cover, all of the following". One's works can reflect Shakespeare's rhythm WITHOUT having studied closely all of Shakespeare's works. You haven't supported your initial sweeping statement.

Perhaps a better way to state my original argument is to point out that one Mormon critic will say Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon using the Bible and Views of the Hebrews, while another one will say he used the Solomon Spaulding mauscript and specific works of Shakesphere. But then another critic, and I wish I had a reference for this, will claim that Smith used the works of Flavius Josephus to fabricate the Book of Mormon, along with sections of the D&C and Pearl of Great Price.

Perhaps my original statement was a little to "sweeping" which I regret, especially since I've now lowered myself to level of many critics would routinely make sweeping and unsubstansiated claims about the Mormon Church all the time. (Recovery from Mormonism website; Saints Alive website; Mormon Research Ministry website, just to name a few).

The only other argument you could possibly make about the origin of Mormon scripture, besides that it comes from God or was fabricated by Joseph Smith, is that it was inspired by the devil. I can assure you that this is the least possible of the three since I have never felt fear or darkness while reading any Mormon scripture. And believe me, I have felt fear and darkness in my life, but never from anything related to the Mormon Church.

[Tchild2]

Perhaps a better way to state my original argument is to point out that one Mormon critic will say Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon using the Bible and Views of the Hebrews, while another one will say he used the Solomon Spaulding mauscript and specific works of Shakesphere. But then another critic, and I wish I had a reference for this, will claim that Smith used the works of Flavius Josephus to fabricate the Book of Mormon, along with sections of the D&C and Pearl of Great Price.

If Joseph Smith synthensized many ideas from books, from the popular thought of his day, and with his own creative musings, there may not be a singular book, but rather a collection of ideas and concepts of which similarities may exist in any number of works available to Joseph Smith or to the larger community of which he was a part of.

The only other argument you could possibly make about the origin of Mormon scripture, besides that it comes from God or was fabricated by Joseph Smith, is that it was inspired by the devil. I can assure you that this is the least possible of the three since I have never felt fear or darkness while reading any Mormon scripture. And believe me, I have felt fear and darkness in my life, but never from anything related to the Mormon Church.

I don't subscribe to the devil theory either.

[Laban the Younger]

IMO, there are only two possible explanations for the book of mormon:

1) A ghost appeared to Joseph Smith, showed him where to dig up some gold plates, and Joseph translated the plates using magic rocks, and then he gave the gold plates back to the ghost before any third party could examine them.

2) Anything else.

I vote for number 2.

[Calm]

There is another theory (in essence similar to the Spaulding one) that JS ripped off someone else's work who compiled all this material and then Joseph presented it as his own. How he managed to do so without anyone protesting and with no sign of what the original material actually was for has not been dealt with by those critics that I've seen present this idea. The one in particular (sr1030) who uses this appears to feel that simply presenting the possibility is all that is necessary, demonstrating the likelihood of it is not.

[1973betRP&Glendale]

I don't think that they strove for both political and religious power tha way both JS and BY did.

So you're saying it was wrong for the early Mormon Church to ask the federal government for redress of grievances? You're saying it was wrong for early Mormons to attempt any means of securing peace from their enemies, even if it meant running JS for President? No other presidential candidates were interested in helping Mormons at the time. Was it wrong for Brigham Young to establish a society in the Rocky Mountains? Was it wrong for BY to accept the office of Territorial Governor when appointed by the federal government?

Nor did they have the questionable conduct with women that JS's teachings about polygamy brought forth.

Clever statement. Perhaps you would be wise to study the lives of early Mormon women such as Eliza R. Snow, Bethsheba W. Smith and Zina Hunington and find out what they thought about polygamy, as well as their feelings about JS and BY. You might be surprised.

William Miller was a contemporary of JS and developed a large following. He faced a large amount of opposition, including having rocks thrown at him.

I wonder if William Miller, like JS, was ever thrown in jail on trumped up charges; pulled out of his bed at night and beaten, while one of his children lay dying from exposure. Was Miller ever tarred and feathered? Was Miller ever poisoned while spending time in a dark and cold jail with no toilet, all because of a simple speech made by someone else? Finally, did Miller suffer death at the hands of his enemies who were later aquitted of all charges?

However, he did not seek political power and didn't teach polygamy privately while publically teaching against it.

Okay, you've asked me to find sources for my statements, where is the source for this statement? I've heard the claim before that JS taught both for and against polygamy at the same time, but no one can name the source.

[cinepro]

To non-believers: If an examination of the text of the Book of Mormon demonstrates that it could not have been produced in the 1820's by a single writer, or even a group of writer's, what are other possible theories, leaving angelic visitation out of the realm of possibilities?

This is not a gotcha question. I am really asking what you think a plausible theory could be? I haven't been able to come up with any, but if you have, I would be interested to know.

Charity

Well, since you put it that way, I totally agree that the "angelic visitation theory" is the absolute best theory that explains the Book of Mormon.

Incredibly, you have just proven that the LDS theory of Book of Mormon origins is the best theory. If you ignore all the better ones.

With your permission, I will now include the "forget all the other better theories" method of argumentation in my quiver of debate techniques. Innovative and compelling, to the last.

I would have to agree with that this is true. My question would be, do the critics of the above churches continually write books, put up websites and hand out flyers portraying people like Ellen White and Mary Baker Eddy as savages and blood thirsty tyrants, much in the way Joseph Smith is often portrayed by Mormon Church critics like Ed Decker, Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Fawn Frodie?

No. Those other Churches are beloved by all, and find nearly universal acclaim for their doctrines and practices. Their original leaders are acknowledged by both believers and non, layperson and scholar, as being inspired oracles of God, doing His will in the last days. They get along harmoniously with all other Churches, usually engaging in pot-luck suppers and regularly holding intra-churchal bingo tourneys.

There have been aspiring critics, but in the end, without Satan's power and guidance, these critics fell flat on their faces, and weren't able to find anything to complain about. It turns out the LDS Church is the only religion on the face of the Earth that Satan has chosen to fight against, and the members of the other faith groups find little in the way of adversity or controversy to bother them. [/sarcasm]

[juliann]

There have been aspiring critics, but in the end, without Satan's power and guidance, these critics fell flat on their faces, and weren't able to find anything to complain about. It turns out the LDS Church is the only religion on the face of the Earth that Satan has chosen to fight against, and the members of the other faith groups find little in the way of adversity or controversy to bother them.

In other words, no. These figures do not have ministries devoted to trashing them. But you are supposed to be mesmerized by the dripping disdain and not notice the avoidance.

[cinepro]

***Note from Cinepro***

It has recently been brought to my attention that certain humor-impaired members of the FAIR forum have been unable to understand the meaning behind some of my posts. As a public service, I will now provide an alternate, humor-free clarification of my last post.

From now on, you may access this obvious, humor-free version of each and every one of my posts by highlighting the text, and right clicking. You should then select the menu option "I am humor-impaired, and need to have things spelled out for me in clear and direct language. I am also apparently gullible as well."

This option is only available with Internet Explorer 6.

Thank you for your cooperation. Humor free rendition of post follows ***

I would have to agree with that this is true. My question would be, do the critics of the above churches continually write books, put up websites and hand out flyers portraying people like Ellen White and Mary Baker Eddy as savages and blood thirsty tyrants, much in the way Joseph Smith is often portrayed by Mormon Church critics like Ed Decker, Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Fawn Frodie?

Cinepro think comment has not meaning.

Cinepro think different religions make different people upset.

Cinepro not think Fawn Brodie care about other Church people. She care about Thomas Jefferson. Maybe him prophet too.

Cinepro find other sites where people say hurt-words towards un-Mormon churches. Google make Cinepro very happy.

http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/

http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/adrianbi...ts/russell.html

http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.d...tegory=HISTORY1

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Boo...CN&item_code=WW

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Boo...CF&item_code=WW

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Boo...=05351&event=CF

http://www.ellen-white.com/

http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/white.html

http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/seventhday.htm

http://www.xenu.net/

http://www.scientology-lies.com/

Cinepro searched for not many seconds. It easy.

Cinepro think maybe Mormon Church make people angry for different reasons. Maybe it is God and Satan. Maybe it not.

Cinepro still think it interesting that other Churches grow fast or faster than Mormon Church. More than Cinepro can count on one hand, and type werds with other hand.

"Werds" had "e" because Cinepro only type with left hand while counting.

That all for what Cinepro think about that.

Cinepro hope moderator not be angry. It only an explanation.

Happy yellow man picture. Happy yellow man picture.

***Edit: Why not happy yellow man picture appearing? Cinepro happy to be making message clear.

[juliann]

In other words, no. These figures do not have ministries devoted to trashing them. But you are supposed to be mesmerized by the dripping disdain and not notice the avoidance.

*verb: set aside or apart for a specific purpose or use (Example: "This land was devoted to mining")

verb: dedicate

verb: give entirely to a specific person, activity, or cause

[johnny]

Laban the Younger writes,

IMO, there are only two possible explanations for the book of mormon:

2) Anything else.

What is your opinion on angels?

Do you think angels could have provided the information to Joseph Smith, just like angels provided information for the Qur'an to Muhammad?

(see the following thread for more discussion)

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=245057

[Matt Andrews]

Charity,

I have read many arguments for items that BoM believers think fit in your first category. I don't think there are any that would convince any thoughtful person who wasn't already a believer.

(If you have one argument in this category that you think is particularly convincing, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, and perhaps you will see why a thoughtful non-believer might find it unconvincing, or perhaps I will see why it is actually a good point.)

As for the second argument, what 'Anti-mormon histrionics' have allegedly been saying for years seems an odd concern. There are lots of ways to critique Roe Vs. Wade, for example, but the fact that some critiques are wrong doesn't imply in the least that the others are also wrong.

if you believe that the text of the Book of Mormon consists only of information and material that was available, even if not commonly available in the early 1800's

I believe it consists only information and material that was available, with some embellishments from a mildly imaginative mind. Again, if you have one in particular you find convincing, I'd be happy to take a look.

[Magyar]

And yet, no critic has yet explained Pahoran, Paanchi, Pacumeni, Korihor, Alma ... They dance in circles til they are dizzy ... but they never answer the question. Did the devil teach JS ancient Egyptian/Hebrew?