Please Explain how Joseph Smith could have possibly authored the Book of Mormon.

[Scott1]

The thinking is that Christ's legacy was preserved in an oral tradition until someone finally wrote it down somewhere around then. I find it interesting that few Christians know this.

We know this! ... the oral Gospel preserved by the Apostles and their successors precede the written Gospel.... non-Catholics have to turn a blind eye to this or concede the early church had structure and communion (hmmm sounds like a church) before the NT was close to completion.

 

[madhatter85]

We know this! ... the oral Gospel preserved by the Apostles and their successors precede the written Gospel.... non-Catholics have to turn a blind eye to this or concede the early church had structure and communion (hmmm sounds like a church) before the NT was close to completion.

LDS doctrine teaches that the early church had structure and that Christ set the pattern as to how he wanted it set up (namely Apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth.) with Apostles as the governing body of the church.

 

[Scott1]

LDS doctrine teaches that the early church had structure and that Christ set the pattern as to how he wanted it set up (namely Apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth.) with Apostles as the governing body of the church.

Did Christ's "pattern" fall completely to shambles the moment the last Apostle died... or did it take a week or two?

 

[Katzpur]

How can I? None exists.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

It seems a fairly logical suggestion to me, given Lucy Mack Smith's accounts of Joseph Smith Jr. recounting tales of the Nephites as a child...

What on earth? Seriously, I don't know what you're getting at here.

This would also explain why none of the men ever renounced their belief in the BoM, because to do so would expose themselves alongside Smith.

That hardly seems likely. If you disliked Joseph as much as some of these men did at various points in their life, it would have been a small price to pay to bring him down.

What other logical conclusion could you expect a non-believer to come to?

I guess that's as good as any I've heard.

 

[madhatter85]

Did Christ's "pattern" fall completely to shambles the moment the last Apostle died... or did it take a week or two?

considering the Roman Catholic church was organized by a Bishop named Ignatius of Antioch int he early 100's i would say it took a few years.

 

[Scott1]

considering the Roman Catholic church was organized by a Bishop named Ignatius of Antioch int he early 100's i would say it took a few years.

Please... for the last time.... Ignatius was the first person recognized as using the word "Catholic" in relation to the Church.... he did not organize the Church.... the church was founded at Pentecost.

Please... google is your friend... even Wiki.... PLEASE! :cover:

 

[McBell]

To write off the BoM as a miracle of Satan, or some evil spirit, is ridiculous. Why would anyone evil want a book that moves one towards Christ. Anyone relying on this explanation has not read the book thoroughly.

I agree that this is ONE POSSIBLE reason:

Perhaps the lying spirit knew that the best way for its lies to remain undetected would be to imitate an appreciation of the words of God whilst adding in subtle but important additions that would spread evil. In fact, the best way to generate such an impression would be to trick a human into believing that it were God/JC and then feeding its message through that human's genuine feeling of loving devotion. The perfect mask.

Others have done it? I still haven't heard of a comparable example. And the challenge to duplicate it is still out there. No one has.

I presented two.
However, with your Kent Hovind approach it can never happen.

Again, if Joseph made the book up--then why? What did he have to gain by making up the BoM? He didn't need it to start a religion. Many religions begin without a new book of scripture. If anything, he could have simply written the Doctrine and Covenants, containing his own revelations. The Book of Mormon would have been an expensive waste of time. Even today, the Church sells copies at cost, never profiting from the sales.

Why what?
Why did Joseph write it or why did the evil spirit (if that is the case) write it?

How do you tell who's acting, Satan or God?

One has to have faith.
There is no way to tell other than gut feeling or just belief that it was from god.

 

[McBell]

The thing is, Starfish, if we could have a totally objective debate on this subject it would be one thing. That, unfortunately, is impossible. People who don't believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture will simply ignore any and all "evidence" we could possibly provide. They will either get their responses from anti-Mormon websites, or else they will say something completely irrational such as, "Well, anybody could write a chapter-long chiasmus. That doesn't prove anything." It's just so frustrating being able to see what we see and yet be unable to get past the biases people have. If you don't know what I mean, believe me, you soon will.

You can't have a totally object debate simply because theists who disagree with the LDS will not accept that your beliefs/faith/etc. is as valid as their beliefs/faith/etc.

Also one has the problem of showing which is right.
For with out proving the right, it is impossible to prove the wrong.
So those who try to prove one or the other wrong are doing nothing more than pointing out the differences in the two.

Since both sides of the debate are on the exact same unproven foundation...


Then we have the non-theists...
Non-theists are going to want something other than the emotional responses as have thus been presented in this thread.
They will want some sort of empirical evidence.
Something that does not end up with statements like:

"You have to already believe to understand"
"you have to be guided by the spirit"
​

The reason being that these are merely cop outs to the non-theist.
Any statement that says or implies that one has to already believe to believe, does not help the theists argument and in most cases (based upon my experiences and observations) tells the non-theist that you are not willing to look outside your own box.

Then we have those like fish-hunter, who present their opinion and attempt to back it up with verses that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Now before anyone starts crying/whining/etc. there are always exceptions.

 

[Popeyesays]

As I said, I'm not an expert, but I don't think so. I think the scholars think it was actually written about that time, in part because they think it was actually written, that is, composed, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. I suppose earlier documents may have been incorporated, but this would be a stretch. The thinking is that Christ's legacy was preserved in an oral tradition until someone finally wrote it down somewhere around then. I find it interesting that few Christians know this.

Q document - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards,
Scott

 

[DeepShadow]

It seems a fairly logical suggestion to me, given Lucy Mack Smith's accounts of Joseph Smith Jr. recounting tales of the Nephites as a child

Joseph was in his twenties when he told those stories--hardly a "child." That was after his visit by the Angel Moroni but before he recieved the plates. Check the dates yourself.

added to Cowdery's links with Ethan Smith, plus the general religious environment of the community at the time, that a group of men with Smith as it's imaginative and charismatic heart, set about to write a book and through it start their own religious movement.

None of these men had access to the kind of poetry we find in the Book of Mormon, such as the Arabic quellenlieder--they hadn't been discovered yet. Neither had the proper names they used.

While I disagree with the premise of the OP, I think there's plenty for both sides to chew on. I understand how references to "horses" and "steel" draw criticism, and the rebuttals we can offer are scientifically sound, but unsatisfying. Nevertheless, critics need to deal with the data as well.

What about writing style? Statistical wordprint analysis has shown that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon all had a different writing style than Nephi, who had a different writing style than Alma. Are we to believe the wordprint analyses that conclude the book had at least fifteen authors? Were all of them Joseph's contemporaries, yet none of them among the usual suspects as authors of the book?

What other logical conclusion could you expect a non-believer to come to?

Let's be clear, the Mormon conclusion is not a matter of logic, and non-believers are more than entitled to assert equally non-logical conclusions...but if you insist your conclusion is logical, it must account for ALL the data.

As yet there is no explanation that does this, on either side.

 

[madhatter85]

Please... for the last time.... Ignatius was the first person recognized as using the word "Catholic" in relation to the Church.... he did not organize the Church.... the church was founded at Pentecost.

Please... google is your friend... even Wiki.... PLEASE! :cover:

If that were true why didn't it keep the same organization? Why the need to change it?

The highest office of the catholic church then was the office of "Bishop"

what happened to Apostle? when an apostle died they ordained a new one by the laying on of hands... It is clear in the Bible.

The entimology of the word Pope - it comes form PAPA which is a Latin abbreviation for a term meaning "Bishop of Bishops" or "Father of Fathers" it was created by a group of bishops as a way for them to create a "leadership" position.

Christ did not ordain Popes, he ordained Apostles. Why would he go through the trouble to organize the Apostles and the Seventy if he had no intention of maintaning the same organization?

 

[Scott1]

If that were true why didn't it keep the same organization? Why the need to change it?

It changed?

The highest office of the catholic church then was the office of "Bishop"

Still is.

what happened to Apostle? when an apostle died they ordained a new one by the laying on of hands... It is clear in the Bible.

Clear? Opinions vary.

The entimology of the word Pope - it comes form PAPA which is a Latin abbreviation for a term meaning "Bishop of Bishops" or "Father of Fathers" it was created by a group of bishops as a way for them to create a "leadership" position.

Super... thanks.... I'm fairly certain I have read that before....

Christ did not ordain Popes, he ordained Apostles. Why would he go through the trouble to organize the Apostles and the Seventy if he had no intention of maintaning the same organization?

I dunno.

All this from a simple request of historical accuracy.... oh well.

Peace,
S

 

[cardero]

Starfish writes: Others have done it? I still haven't heard of a comparable example.

Are you seeking a comparable example?

Starfish writes: And the challenge to duplicate it is still out there. No one has.

Starfish, why would you find a (multi-lingual) deity who would require (yet another) paricular human subject and have this person dig up (and haul) golden plates, to decode (through a very unusual, unorthodox and extravagant process) a transcription of another book (that can only be based and interpreted through personal faith) impressive?

 

[cardero]

Maddhatter85 writes: Why such Vehemency? so vehement in fact that he was martyred by an angry mob? Satan could not afford for the truth to be known, otherwise he would lose everything he has been working so hard to achieve.

The persecution and/or martyring of a nominated and/or self-proclaimed prophet through devious means does not lend credibility to the prophet’s message or is a reliable measure of divinity to someone who declares inspiration from GOD (it is also an ineffective method to prove the existence of Satan). From my understanding, this is not a requirement of GOD and it often makes further prophesizing difficult for the prophet and makes it that much harder for anyone to reach him (or her) for further questioning and understanding.

 

[Halcyon]

What on earth? Seriously, I don't know what you're getting at here.

Joseph Smith Jr. recounted tales of the Nephites prior to finding the BoM according to his mother.

That hardly seems likely. If you disliked Joseph as much as some of these men did at various points in their life, it would have been a small price to pay to bring him down.

Harris followed several people claiming the leadership after Joseph Smith's death, he never attempted to leave the Church, so no reason.
Whitmer and Cowdery were discommunicated, but Whitmer founded his own Mormon Church, recanting his testimony would have made his Church null and void.
According to the Times and Seasons Cowdery did recant his testimony, but even if this is untrue the fact that he eventually sought out the Utah saints and was re-admitted suggests he never wanted to be apart from the Church, and public denial of his testimony would have made re-admittance an impossibility.

Joseph was in his twenties when he told those stories--hardly a "child." That was after his visit by the Angel Moroni but before he recieved the plates. Check the dates yourself.

No need, I trust you. I typed that post from memory, so I'm not surprised I got parts wrong. Still, as a non-believer and a person who doesn't ascribe any evidential validity to dreams or visions, the fact of Joseph's pre-BoM tales of the Nephites is telling.

None of these men had access to the kind of poetry we find in the Book of Mormon, such as the Arabic quellenlieder--they hadn't been discovered yet. Neither had the proper names they used.

Having no idea what an Arabic quellenlieder was/is I googled it, the only results I got were from Mormon or BoM-related websites. This suggests to me that the quellenlieder is extremely obscure and as such strikes me as most likely a product of Nibley's notorious parallelomania.

What about writing style? Statistical wordprint analysis has shown that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon all had a different writing style than Nephi, who had a different writing style than Alma. Are we to believe the wordprint analyses that conclude the book had at least fifteen authors? Were all of them Joseph's contemporaries, yet none of them among the usual suspects as authors of the book?

The problem with this is that Joseph claimed to have translated the BoM, God didn't dictate it. So, unless the language of the Nephites was KJV English and the translation process was actually transliteration, Joseph or his scribes would have had to rearrange and add to the translation to make it sensible to an English speaking audience. Therefore we would expect the BoM to resemble the writing style of the translaters - just grab a few copies of the Qur'an translated by different people to see what I mean.
The fact that we have 15 slightly different writing styles (according to BYU's "wordprint analysis") is thus more suggestive of role-playing, i.e. as with many of today's authors of fiction, they pretend to be a character, get in their head, and then write as that character. It's really not that difficult. Or even simpler would be to emulate the writing style of one of their favourite authors, or even books from the OT.

Let's be clear, the Mormon conclusion is not a matter of logic, and non-believers are more than entitled to assert equally non-logical conclusions...but if you insist your conclusion is logical, it must account for ALL the data.

As yet there is no explanation that does this, on either side.

Getting back to the purpose of my original post, the OP asked a question, I answered it according to the explanation I find most likely.
I didn't answer to Mormon-bash, when was the last time you saw me in a Mormon-related thread where I wasn't defending you? You'll have a hard time finding such a post because I only post to either ask a question, or when it's something like this, since I am interested in the historicity and formation of religions.

As far as this particular question goes I can see several possibilities;
a) Everything Joseph Smith said and did was true.
b) Satan inspired the writing of the BoM.
c) It's a case of automatic writing.
d) The religion and BoM is entirely man-made.

If I accepted "a" I would already be a Mormon.
I don't accept "b" because I don't believe in the existence of Satan.
I don't accept "c" because as a skeptic and materialist automatic writing seems as far fetched to me as "b".
This leaves me with "d", and while I may not be able to prove my opinion to be reality, I do see related evidence supporting it.

And no, I don't need to account for all the data, just enough to make the alternatives seem less likely than my explanation.

 

[madhatter85]

It changed?

the RCC does not have Apostles or seventy as clearly organized by Christ himself
Matthew 10: he calls his 12 Apostles

1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Luke10: he calls his seventy

1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Acts 14: they ordained Elders

23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

It is clear the pattern that Christ himself is set in the New Testament.

Clear? Opinions vary.

sorry to burst your bubble but it's not an opinion, it's fact..
Acts 1: The Remaining 11 Pray to the Lord to find out who he has chosen to fill the empty seat of the 12 Apostles

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

It is stated that beginning with the Baptism of John that there should always be 12 Apostles.

I dunno.

I suggest you find out, because ignorance is not bliss.

All this from a simple request of historical accuracy.... oh well.

Peace,
S

I am being historically accurate, thanks.

 

[SoyLeche]

The problem with this is that Joseph claimed to have translated the BoM, God didn't dictate it. So, unless the language of the Nephites was KJV English and the translation process was actually transliteration, Joseph or his scribes would have had to rearrange and add to the translation to make it sensible to an English speaking audience. Therefore we would expect the BoM to resemble the writing style of the translaters - just grab a few copies of the Qur'an translated by different people to see what I mean.
The fact that we have 15 slightly different writing styles (according to BYU's "wordprint analysis") is thus more suggestive of role-playing, i.e. as with many of today's authors of fiction, they pretend to be a character, get in their head, and then write as that character. It's really not that difficult. Or even simpler would be to emulate the writing style of one of their favourite authors, or even books from the OT.

I don't know a whole lot (read: next to nothing) about word print analysis, but it seems like I have read that the word prints can often survive a translation. Also, the patterns that are looked for are very hard to fake, even if you are trying (which they'd have no reason to do, since word prints wouldn't be discovered for another hundred years or so) - so "getting into a character" likely wouldn't have much of an effect on the wordprint. Also, very little of the BoM is in 1st person anyway, so "getting into character" wouldn't play much of a role anyway.

 

[Popeyesays]

A comparable example? I found more truth in these two paragraphs from Selections from the Writings of the Bab, pp. 77-78 than in the entirety of the Book of Mormon:

"WORSHIP thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise. Thus and thus alone should be the worship which befitteth the one True God. Shouldst thou worship Him because of fear, this would be unseemly in the sanctified Court of His presence, and could not be regarded as an act by thee dedicated to the Oneness of His Being. Or if thy gaze should be on paradise, and thou shouldst worship Him while cherishing such a hope, thou wouldst make God's creation a partner with Him, notwithstanding the fact that paradise is desired by men.
2Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God. That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.
3Although when true worship is offered, the worshipper is delivered from the fire, and entereth the paradise of God's good-pleasure, yet such should not be the motive of his act. However, God's favour and grace ever flow in accordance with the exigencies of His inscrutable wisdom. "

One's own mileage may vary of course.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Sententia]

Here are the facts:

He had the equivalent of approximately a 4th grade education.
His family was very poor and lived in a small, rural community in the early 1800's, lacking many resources and exposure to the world.
He was age 22-23 when he translated the BoM. Age 24 when it was published.
He and his family had to work hard to exist. They were farmers. His time to write was very limited.
There are eyewitesses to the translation. His wife said that he only worked on it for a few months, approx. 3 months.
There are eyewitnesses (11) who testified of seeing the gold plates. Some later left the Church but never refuted what they saw.
There are eyewitnesses who worked as scribes while he translated, describing the process.

This is not a thread for listing "errors" in the book. That's not the point. Please explain to me how it is possible, in light of the facts, that he could make up such a book and pass it off as scripture, fooling millions, including scholars, for nearly 180 years?

Dawkins:
YouTube - Richard Dawkins on Mormonism, Joseph Smith, and Mitt Romney

 

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Starfish
Here are the facts:

He had the equivalent of approximately a 4th grade education.
His family was very poor and lived in a small, rural community in the early 1800's, lacking many resources and exposure to the world.
He was age 22-23 when he translated the BoM. Age 24 when it was published.
He and his family had to work hard to exist. They were farmers. His time to write was very limited.
There are eyewitesses to the translation. His wife said that he only worked on it for a few months, approx. 3 months.
There are eyewitnesses (11) who testified of seeing the gold plates. Some later left the Church but never refuted what they saw.
There are eyewitnesses who worked as scribes while he translated, describing the process.

This is not a thread for listing "errors" in the book. That's not the point. Please explain to me how it is possible, in light of the facts, that he could make up such a book and pass it off as scripture, fooling millions, including scholars, for nearly 180 years?
----------------------------------------
However, statistically speaking many more of millions including scholars would say they were never fooled by the claims because they never accepted those claims. If you are trying to pump up a ride on the bandwagon, you should understand there are TWO bandwagons beside each other, and both seem to b e hawking for ridersw.

Regards,
Scott