Let me know if this summary is what you are saying:
…
5. If the Book of Mormon disagrees with the first vision, The Book of Mormon is not true. (Vision trumps Book of Mormon)
6. If the Book of Mormon is not true, your witness of it being true is false.
7. If your witness is false, Joseph Smith is not a prophet.
Is this close?
How do Mormons reason that a witness to the Book of Mormon makes Joseph Smith a prophet?
That is pretty much it. Reader’s unfamilar with the quoted post should click on your name above to link to the whole thing.
The exception is that within the LDS framework, point 5 would be more like, “if the Book of Mormon does not agree with the First Vision, I have not understood it clearly, and must reconsider in light of other revelation.” From there believers allow the Church to tell them what to think about the Book of Mormon. Where it conflicts is with Smith’s statement that it is the most correct of all books, and the Book’s internal claim of containing the fulness of the gospel. If it is most correct and internally sufficient, it should be used to interpret other resources, instead of the other way around.
HOW LDS PERCEIVE THE BOOK AS EVIDENCE OF SMITH’S STATUS
Primarily, a personal testimony of Book of Mormon truth means God supports the Book, so God supports the source. However, many elements of presentation frame how readers interpret that witness. Missionaries often draw readers attention to the physical remarkability of the book
I do not intend what follows as an attack on Mormonism, but as complete consideration of a question usually not completely considered within an LDS perspective. I loved the Book of Mormon, and considered it my favorite book for many years.
The Book of Mormon seems physical evidence of something more at work than those men known to be involved with it. Missionaries ask people to consider if any man could have written this book. Readers focus on whether it was produced by God or by men. The third alternative, rarely receiving comment, is that it could have been inspired by the adversary directly. Those readers deciding no man could have written it decide it was written by God because the third option is not really on the table.
At one time I believed no man could have written it. My very esoteric conversion to Catholicism put the conclusion that God had inspired it contrary to very solid personal evidence contradicting it. I considered the idea that it was inspired by the Adversary. One reason for this was recognizing Catholicity filling the valid dogma in the book-- subtly hiding heresies such as preexistence of human sipirts other than Christ–the book’s main purpose seems to be leading readers away from Catholicism.
Since then, having distanced myself from the issue, I can see ways it could be a human fabrication. Could any man have written this book? If any body of men were involved, only the Jesuits or the Masons among those present in that region might have had the knowledge to do it. This makes it more significant that many early LDS members were masons, and that by now fewer than five popes have affirmed that the purpose of Freemasonry is to destroy the Church.
“COULD ANY MAN HAVE WRITTEN THIS BOOK?”
It makes ostensibly a strong argument, especially when using the figures missionaries provide investigators regarding the entire work having been completed in months. Also they point out that Smith himself had but an elementary education, without resources to many books.
In addition many of the Book’s claims of Ancient America disagreed with knowledge of Ancient America at the time. They contradicted archaeology and history of the day(things like the development of the wheel). LDS apologists affirm a fabrication would have reflected these things, not contradicted them.
Except the two arguments are inconsistent. That academic resources lacked indicates a fabrication might have little if any basis in contemporaneous understanding of the cultures involved. It means such alleged external evidences could simply prove imagination at work. By their own arguments, any fabrication had to be an uneducated fabrication, which would reflect ignorance of existing knowledge, and carry more basis in the culture of its own time.
As far as the actual contents go, it is a big book. Massive chunks are paraphrased portions of Isaiah, First Corinthians 13, and the Sermon on the Mount, just to begin with. This limits the need for creativity. Rhetoric reflects the revivalist debates Smith encountered in his own region, and intuitive conceptual devices for memorizing huge chunks of material. The accounts of war reflect wars against Tecumseh just a few years before it was written – it reflects the things that would have occupied an attentive teenage boy’s mind in that region at that time.
Another example is that the short period they claim it was written in is not accurate even according to their own account. Those figures include only the actual time Smith spent dictating to scribes. Joseph Smith calimed his first vision in 1820 and the Book of Mormon was not published until 1830. That makes 10 years he could have been formulating ideas – whether overtly imaginative or experiential delusions in this approach remains to be seen. LDS members considering this drop the idea quickly, because the Church affirms it was written in the specific length of time. Questioning equates to saying the emperor has no clothes.
Mormons also have a tremendous escalation of commitment in this that spans generations. If they are mistaken it means that thousands of ancestors of many modern Mormons lost everything they had, including their lives, out of conviction of the truth of this. It is hard for them to perceive the rich cultural values of these sufferings even if believing a misrepresented basic premise.
