The Book of Mormon: Ancient Record or 19th Century Creation?

[Marie5890]

(Have you ever noticed how the BoM lacks any sense of Jewishness? Esp the part that is purported to be prior to Christ coming? It talks a great deal about the Holy Spirit, about being baptized etc, even before Christ comes. That they build a temple, but hello, they do not have the Ark of the Covenant, which is why the ancient Temples were built, to house the Ark and make sacrifices in it? Read the pre-Christ portion of the BoM. You are not reading anything of Jewish ways. It’s all Christian. Odd, since Yeshua was a Jew, dont you think?)

 

[RebeccaJ]

All,
First, here is Paul Owen’s response to a LDS scholar who imprudently (IMO) “attacked” him/BYU for publishing his perspective on certain aspects of the BOM.
While Paul Owen has no theological commitment to the BOM he states that his considered opinion is:

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/scholar-to-scholar-owen-gee-bom/
So, Dr. Owen is not a LDS. He does not believe that God restored ancient Christianity through Joseph Smith AND that Christians who reject this restoration are not following God’s will. But, it is clear that he does not believe the BOM is best explained via an appeal to 19th century sources and Joseph’s supreme intellect. I doubt he would say that there is NO CHANCE the BOM comes solely from Joseph Smith and his 19th century environment; it is just not the best explanation for the data we have in his opinion.

I’m confused. I thought what was being addressed was scholarship by non-LDS, regarding the BoM, not one man’s opinion.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’m confused. I thought what was being addressed was scholarship by non-LDS, regarding the BoM, not one man’s opinion.

Yep I was expecting something more than one man’s testimony of Joseph Smith.

 

[XuDan]

I’m confused. I thought what was being addressed was scholarship by non-LDS, regarding the BoM, not one man’s opinion.

Yep I was expecting something more than one man’s testimony of Joseph Smith.

According to TOm everything in Mormonism comes down to opinions. Even when the Presidents of their church speak definitively on things, if it differs from TOm’s opinion, then in his opinion, they were speaking incorrectly from their opinion. This matches my experiences in the LDS church well, this perspective is par for the course in the LDS church, and why you get such a variety of interpretations with in a single Ward, and why church wide you have a shift in dogma so regularly.

My point is, in such a culture, opinions that are ultimately in favor of the LDS church are going to be glommed onto and used in apologetic and discussed to anyone who will listen. Even if in the next breath the person who spoke the opinion gives 20 other reasons why they believe the Mormon church to be false,they will hang onto that one opinion that they can throw back at people in apologetics. Opinions that sound nice are regularly substituted for scholarly conclusions backed by facts.

Enough about TOm and his tactics. The reality is, there has already been substantial evidence provided that suggest Smith plagiarized parts of the BoM. From a scholarly perspective, this cannot be ignored. There is enough that had it been submitted to a professor in an academic setting, Smith would have been suspended and his student, academic, and professional reputations destroyed - it would likely have followed him for life. Today it would have also incurred legal and financial repercussions if done in the same manner it was back then. There is more than just incidental parallels, it cannot simply be dismissed and brushed under the rug. If any student handed in an introduction that was a near word for word duplicate of an already existing work (without citing the contributor and their work), there would be no debate. There would be no valid defense. They would be branded (rightly so) a plagiarist.

Further, if the BoM is the Word of God (as claimed by the 8th article of faith), why was so much of it taken from non-religious/non-spiritual texts? If they were plagiarized or appropriated from other religious texts one could claim that they were religious or spiritual truths inspired by God and the BoM is a compilation and correction of their context. After all it is the assertion of the LDS church that all religions hold “shards of truth” albeit in differing sizes and frequency. This is also the position taken by Smith and his “retranslation” and additions to the Bible. This is simply not the case though.

A common hurdle thrown up by LDS is that Smith simply couldn’t have created the BoM out of thin air. They are absolutely correct, he and Cowdery conspired together, and relied on the works of others to create the BoM.

Another hurdle is that there were eyewitnesses to the Golden plates. There were no actual eye witnesses to the plates, as the eleven are on record saying they saw the plates through supernatural or subjective means, not literally. Instead we have visions of them, an Angel coming to testify of them to another, etc. So this simply affirms that no one actually saw with their own eyes the source documents that were -]translated/-] copied.

There is no credibility given to works of plagiarism or works that rely on plagiarism, nor should there be.

 

[Jerusha]

Anyone who wants to explore the cultural context of Mormonism needs to go no further than this MASSIVE rickgrunder.com/parallels.htm bibliography, compiled by a used book collector in upper New York State. It is well worth a week or so, just reading it. (He used to be a librarian at BYU)

And the price is now very reasonable.

 

[Chris-WA]

A common hurdle thrown up by LDS is that Smith simply couldn’t have created the BoM out of thin air. They are absolutely correct, he and Cowdery conspired together, and relied on the works of others to create the BoM.

I think this is possible but I disagree that Joseph Smith was not capable of doing this mostly on his own. Many LDS argue Joseph did not have enough formal education to have written such a work. But a formal education was not necessary to do so. Joseph was well-schooled in the bible and religious matters, and of the issues of the day pertaining to life during the 2nd Great Awakening. He was also known for having an excellent memory. He was quite capable of writing the BoM with the knowledge and resources he had.

Another hurdle is that there were eyewitnesses to the Golden plates. There were no actual eye witnesses to the plates, as the eleven are on record saying they saw the plates through supernatural or subjective means, not literally. Instead we have visions of them, an Angel coming to testify of them to another, etc. So this simply affirms that no one actually saw with their own eyes the source documents that were -]translated/-] copied.

This is a very important point often overlooked/ignored by LDS apologists. No one can truly understand early Mormon history if they do not understand the magical world view held by its earliest members in New York. The Smiths were up to their ears in magic, as many of the earliest converts were treasure hunters and of the treasure-hunting mindset. They all believed that “spirit guardians of the forest” were guarding all kinds of treasure hidden in the hills that had been put there in ancient times. They would go on night expeditions to dig up the treasure using seer stones, but the treasure would always sink back into the earth or disappear. Joseph used seer stones for treasure hunting, pretending he could see within the stone the location of the treasure. So the earliest Mormon converts were of the same mindset. They believed in something called “second sight,” which is spiritual seeing, having visions. Notice how the witnesses to the plates saw them “with the eyes of our understanding.” This is not physical–it’s second sight.

Also, there are zero records of Joseph using the golden plates to translate the BoM. No one in his family nor any of his scribes ever report that he translated from the plates. Most of the time the plates were not even present, and when they were they were covered up. LDS art always depicts Joseph translating the BoM from the plates. Missionaries teach prospective converts that this is how Joseph “translated.” But the truth is that he used a seer stone placed in a hat from which he claimed to see the English characters appear for writing the BoM. This is the universal testimony of his scribes and family who witnessed Joseph writing the BoM.

 

[Jerusha]

A common hurdle thrown up by LDS is that Smith simply couldn’t have created the BoM out of thin air. They are absolutely correct, he and Cowdery conspired together, and relied on the works of others to create the BoM.

I think this is possible but I disagree that Joseph Smith was not capable of doing this mostly on his own. Many LDS argue Joseph did not have enough formal education to have written such a work. But a formal education was not necessary to do so. Joseph was well-schooled in the bible and religious matters, and of the issues of the day pertaining to life during the 2nd Great Awakening. He was also known for having an excellent memory. He was quite capable of writing the BoM with the knowledge and resources he had.

I think there is plenty of room for compromise between the two viewpoints. Joseph did not compose the book in isolation from his social context. He had plenty of advisers and co-collaborators who formed the nucleus for the new religion. We cannot know for sure how much of one and how much of another. It is altogether possible that Oliver Cowdery supplied books and manuscripts from Ethan Smith’s library.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m confused. I thought what was being addressed was scholarship by non-LDS, regarding the BoM, not one man’s opinion.

Yes, one non-Mormon Biblical Scholar who never said the BoM was an ancient document. What do the non-Mormon anthropologist, linguists, biologist, and historians have to say about the BoM? I think they would say it is a 19th century work of fiction.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m curious to know why having Owen’s opinion align to what is personally believed, is intellectually affirming. And why someone who’s scholarship does not affirm what is believed, is intellectually discarded.

 

[Tarquin]

When the BOM first came out its critics said that Joseph Smith was such a simpleton the BOM could not possibly be what Joseph claimed.

I suppose it may not be very relevant, but from a historian’s perspective, I would be interested in reading what those critics said.

When Today it is much more common for critics to call Joseph Smith a religious genius. It is my position that as committed non-LDS dig deeper into the complexities of the BOM the “religious genius” label will give way to descriptions that may not accept the CoJCoLDS as God “one true church,” but appeal to some mystical (and even divine) occurrence. And of course those whose explorations result in some embracing of the idea that the CoJCoLDS is the “one true church” will in theory become LDS (and thus be dismissed here as dishonest and mentally deficient ).

None of that relates to the Book of Mormon as a 19th century creation. (Although I do find some of it interesting.) Regardless of whether Smith was simplistic, complex, imitative or creative, the relevant fact is that Joseph Smith lived in the 19th century, so if he created the Book of Mormon, we may expect the book to reflect attitudes and beliefs common in the 19th century where he lived. As to whether future descriptions of Smith will lean towards “mystical” or “divine,” or continue with simplistic and complex, my expectation is that nothing much will change. Mormons will “know” they belong to the “one true church,” and non-Mormons will know they don’t.

First, here is Paul Owen’s response to a LDS scholar who imprudently (IMO) “attacked” him/BYU for publishing his perspective on certain aspects of the BOM.
While Paul Owen has no theological commitment to the BOM he states that his considered opinion is:

Imprudent or not, Gee is as much a “scholar” as Owen, perhaps more, and is worth hearing no less than is Owen. Gee graduated from BYU in 1988, was a graduate student in Near Easter Studies at UC Berkeley, receiving his MA in 1991. He went on to earn a PhD in Egyptology at Yale in 1998, a decade before Barker received her Lambeth degree. Paul L. Owen earned his BA from LIFE Bible College, his MA form Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, and finally a PhD from the University of Edinburgh. He also studied at Dallas Theological Seminary. His stated purpose, at least at one time, was to make an impact in Christian apologetics vis-à-vis Mormonism. He does not favor Mormonism, yet he is capable of discussing religious issues in their terms. No need to poison the well.

I would also take issue over your characterization of Gee’s response as being “imprudent.” I have read Owen’s Theological Apostasy and the Role of Canonical Scripture: A Thematic Analysis of 1 Nephi 13–14, and Gee’s two responses. While I understand Owen’s counter-response in “Scholar to Scholar: Paul Owen responds to John Gee’s critique of recent Book of Mormon article;” Gee’s observations regarding Owen’s connection of 2 Esdra with the Book of Mormon are valid in my eyes. I have not given as much time to other aspects of the disagreement between the two men and would not be surprised to side with Owen on other points. I have read, as I said, Gee’s two critiques and Owen’s response, as well as another apparently anonymous and less detailed response, so I am not saying this without having given due consideration to both sides. Both sides wax caustic in places.

(cont.)

 

[Tarquin]

Then follows a passage from the article linked to, and you continue:

So, Dr. Owen is not a LDS. He does not believe that God restored ancient Christianity through Joseph Smith AND that Christians who reject this restoration are not following God’s will. But, it is clear that he does not believe the BOM is best explained via an appeal to 19th century sources and Joseph’s supreme intellect. I doubt he would say that there is NO CHANCE the BOM comes solely from Joseph Smith and his 19th century environment; it is just not the best explanation for the data we have in his opinion.

I went to the link you gave, read the entire article, and must disagree with your claim that Paul Owen “does not believe the BOM is best explained via an appeal to 19th century sources and Joseph’s supreme intellect.” We simply do not know. The word “best” does not appear in the article I read. I do not see where he says any particular explanation is “not the best explanation”. Therefore, until I learn otherwise, I believe he may think an appeal to 19th century sources” may actually be one of the best explanations.

Besides, I’m not convinced that what Owen is doing is looking for the best explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon anyway, in this particular article published by the Maxwell Institute. It is unlikely the truly best explanation would get published by a Mormon institute. In the article that was published, Owen offered a number of alternatives for consideration. He gave his fourth purpose in writing his article on the connection between 2 Esdras and the Book of Mormon: “4. To consider alternative models of the literary history of the Book of Mormon which could transcend conventional boundaries between conservative and progressive approaches to the text.” As many scholars do, as scientists do, as military strategists do, Owen examined alternative theories as an academic exercise. The author of such an exercise sometimes offers his preference among the alternatives, and sometimes does not. It is possible I am misunderstanding Owen’s tone, but I do not get the impression he was making a judgment on the comparative worth of the different alternatives he addressed. If he did give a clear statement on the irrelevance, or the comparative weakness, of 19th century sources as elements influencing the writing of the Book of Mormon, I hope you will provide the relevant quote(s).

It would be pertinent to know which other Mormon and non-Mormon scholars accept Owen’s various choices, as he himself explains them, for the source(s) of the Book of Mormon. He seems to have persuaded hardly a soul.

You rightly quoted Owen as saying, “I believe the origin of both the plates and the narrative is found in Joseph’s real visionary encounters with God, and an angel who identified himself with the name Moroni. I don’t believe Joseph made this up, though the iteration of these encounters naturally evolved over the years.” Now Owen is saying he believes the origin “of both the plates and the narrative” is found in Smith’s “real visionary encounters” despite his contrary stance elsewhere in his writing. Is this his “best” explanation? I cannot tell.

But what is a “real visionary encounter” anyway? It is an encounter that is visionary: “fanciful,” “unreal,” “imaginary.” A true believer, of course, would counter that “visionary” refers to supernatural vision – a “real vision” rather than a “real visionary encounter.” But that would contradict Joseph Smith’s and some of “the Witnesses’” own testimonies about encounters which distinctly were not “visions,” but were the face-to-face meetings of material beings.

Owen argued,

the tone of my actual wording in the article is more tentative than Gee suggests: “What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text [italics in original] with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World” (p. 99). Note the qualifiers: “suggesting” and “could be.” Those qualifiers were offered out of a mindfulness of the context in which I was writing (a publication of BYU’s Maxwell Institute). In the article, I neither made a hard commitment to the Book of Mormon’s fictional and/or modern character on the one hand, nor to its origin in the Old World as opposed to New World (whether ancient or modern) on the other.

Owen is tentative about the possibilities he presents. Furthermore, his writing was composed “out of a mindfulness of the context” in which he was writing – a Mormon publication the majority of whose readers would be expected to be Mormons. I can easily believe Michael Coe is less worried about demographic responses to his research, thus feels less pressure to play to the audience.

William Hamblin counters:

Is there anyone besides Paul Owen — Mormon, non-Mormon, or anti-Mormon — who accepts Owen’s theory and explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon? . . . If I am correct that Owen’s argument is so idiosyncratic that no one else accepts it, why would the Maxwell Institute choose to publish it? Do they have any scholarly standards or peer review on such matters?

 

[Tarquin]

Someone said that Margaret Barker is “supporting Mormonism.”

Please provide a link, because I cannot find where that was done. I fear you may be misrepresenting what was actually said.

Margaret Barker has presented a number of times discussing her interaction with the BOM and Joseph Smith’s “revelations.”
At the Library of Congress she asked:

I should like to take a few of these issues and set them in another context—Jerusalem, in about 600 BCE. Do the revelations to Joseph Smith fit in that context—the reign of King Zedikiah, who is mentioned at the beginning of the First Book of Nephi? (King Zedikiah was installed in Jerusalem in 597 BCE.)

Not meaning to rattle anyone’s cage, least of all Margaret Barker, but I did read it. Carefully. More than once. Here is an important point to remember when considering claims that Barker’s expertise as applied to the Book of Mormon, or “the revelations to Joseph Smith,” leads her to conclude there is harmony between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, or that the Book of Mormon is a divine revelation, or that the Book of Mormon’s alleged history is actual history:

I am not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions. I am a biblical scholar specializing in the Old Testament, and until some Mormon scholars made contact with me a few years ago, I would never have considered using Mormon texts and traditions as part of my work. . . . I am still, however, very much an amateur in this area. What I offer can only be the reactions of an Old Testament scholar: are the revela¬tions to Joseph Smith consistent with the situation in Jerusalem in about 600 bce? Do the revelations to Joseph Smith fit in that context, the reign of King Zedekiah, who is mentioned at the beginning of the First Book of Nephi, which begins in the “first year of the reign of Zedekiah”?

”not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions.” “an amateur.” Barker is making no judgment on the Book of Mormon either as fabrication or revelation. Her comments address the consistency between what little is given in that small section of the Book of Mormon that allegedly occurs in Jerusalem, and what she knows of Jerusalem in “the reign of King Zedikiah” in “about 600 bce.” Beyond that, she seems not to have taken a stand in the article presented, on the question of the origin of the Book of Mormon, nor on the validity of its alleged history, geography, culture, flora and fauna, anthropology, nor on the 19th century sources of the Book of Mormon.

 

[Tarquin]

More remarkable than her talk at the Library of Congress was John Clark’s talk at the Library of Congress:
ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/7067/6716
I have referenced his talk on this board, but am met with “He is a LDS.”
This explains the motivation I have in referencing Margaret Barker and Paul Owen. They cannot be dismissed as “just a LDS.” It is QUITE evident that Margaret Barker, Paul Owen, and John Clark have read the BOM with much more attention to what is really there than Michael Coe has.

You promote Barker as a qualified scholar although not LDS, but you reject Coe although he is not LDS either. Do you sincerely, honestly believe, from evidence available, that self-professed “amateur” Margaret Barker (“until some Mormon scholars made contact with me a few years ago, I would never have considered using Mormon texts and traditions as part of my work”), has read the BOM “with much more attention” to “what is really there” than archaeologist and friend of Thomas O’Dea, Michael Coe - who knows personally and respects the research of Mormon archaeologists, has? Barker studied Christian theology, then devoted herself to research in ancient Christianity (concomitantly Biblical studies). Eventually, she was granted a Lambeth Degree by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2008 in recognition of her work on the Jerusalem Temple and the origins of Christian liturgy.

Do you think Coe just got off the boat? It looks to me like he may possibly have been studying the “limited geography” and “Lamanite” culture longer than you have been alive. Coe’s introduction to Mormonism was very early in his career, while he was still a student. He graduated Harvard in 1950, and earned his PhD the old fashioned way in 1959, nearly half a century before Barker received her honorary doctorate. Coe is regarded as one of the foremost Mayanist scholars of the latter 20th century. Coe has also made extensive investigations into archaeological sites in North, Central, and South America, and specialized in the comparative studies of ancient tropical forest civilizations.

He met Tom O’Dea through a course on comparative religion at Harvard. O’Dea took him to Yale to see that school’s archival collection of manuscripts on Mormon and history. I should think that someone appealing to credentials – the remarks of “scholars” (and who isn’t a scholar nowadays) – would favor Coe’s remarks above others. Coe’s conclusion was:

I really think that Joseph Smith, like shamans everywhere, started out faking it. I have to believe this – that he didn’t believe this at all, that he was out to impress, but he got caught up in the mythology that he created. This is what happens to shamans: They begin to believe they can do these things. It becomes a “revelation.” . . . Joseph Smith had a sense of destiny; … this is how he transformed something that I think was clearly made up into something that was absolutely convincing.

This man had an incredible memory. He made it up and dictated it nonstop. It’s very long, the Book of Mormon. I mean, it’s an incredible feat of the mind. Even if it is all made up, to do something like that is really extraordinary. And how literate was he? He knew the Bible very well, because it comes out in the language of the King James Bible, which I was raised on. But to be able to carry this through to its logical end, that’s amazing. Really, it is. I mean, if it’s a work of fiction, nobody has ever done anything like this before.

Actually, there have been a number of “spirit writers” – John Ballou Newbrough, Jane Roberts, Joanna Southcott, Donald Walsch, and others. I think Coe may not have been aware of Oahspe when he wrote those remarks. But he was has been aware of Mormonism for half a century.

“QUITE” evident, indeed, is who is the long-time field-archaeologist and who the apprentice; who is the professional and who the dilettante.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, you’ve got a much bigger problem. You really do. We have another part of the world where the archaeology is really very well known now; we know a lot about people like the Maya and their predecessors. So to try to find unlikely evidence in an unlikely spot, you’ve got a problem. And of course none of the finds that biblical archaeologists are rightly proud about, no finds on that level have ever come up for Mormon archaeologists, which makes it a big problem.
How do they cope with this? I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know; I really don’t. I don’t really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn’t shown up – how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There’s simply no way to bring them together.
One might wonder how my profession in general, the profession of archaeology, has used Book of Mormon archaeology – or let’s say archaeology done by Mormons; I always separate these two things out. I think that for the Book of Mormon, even though they don’t know much about the Book of Mormon or Mormonism, they take the whole thing as a complete fantasy, that this is a big waste of time. Nothing can ever come out of it because it’s just impossible that this could have happened, because we know what happened to these people. We can read their writings: They’re not in reformed Egyptian; they’re in Maya.

If not from Central America, where are the ideas and stories in the Book of Mormon from? They are from the 19th century, with the help of books about other lands and histories.

 

[Chris-WA]

One of the other sources for The Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith’s father’s dreams. LDS historical sources cite that Joseph Sr. often had vivid dreams which he related to his family. Joseph Smith Sr. had a dream in 1811, later written about by his wife, Lucy Mack Smith. This dream is remarkably similar to Lehi’s first vision found in 1 Nephi. In both instances, both Joseph Smith Sr. and Lehi are visited by a personage who provides them with a box or book, the contents of which enables them to understand God’s salvation. They are jubilant at first but soon encounter opposition and flee for their lives. They both awake from their vision trembling.

Joseph Sr. had another dream that is a dead-ringer for Lehi’s dream about the tree of life. From Lucy Smith’s History of Joseph Smith about Joseph Sr.'s dream:
I was traveling in an open, desolate field…My guide…said, “This is the desolate world”…I came to a narrow path…I beheld a beautiful stream of water…I could see a rope, running along the bank of it…* a tree such as I had never seen before. It was exceedingly handsome. It’s beautiful branches…bore a kind of fruit…as white as snow…I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description…and [thought that] I must bring my wife and my children, that they might partake with me. Accordingly, I brought my family…[and] we all commenced eating…We were exceedingly happy, insomuch that our joy could not be easily expressed. While thus engaged, I beheld a spacious building…[that] appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of…people, who were very finely dressed…[T]hey pointed the finger of scorn at us…But their contumely [arrogance] we utterly disregarded…[in preference to] the fruit that was so delicious. He [the guide] told me it was the pure love of God, shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him…"[L]ook yonder [he said], you have two more [children], and you must bring them also"… I asked my guide what was the meaning of the spacious building which I saw. He replied, “*t is Babylon, it is Babylon, and it must fall.”

Lehi’s dream in The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi:
[A] man…bade me follow him…I had traveled for the space of many hours…I beheld a large and spacious field…I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy…I did go forth and partake of the fruit…[which] was most sweet, above all that I had ever tasted. Yea, I beheld that the fruit thereof was white…t filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also…I beheld a river of water…[and] they [his family] did come unto me and partake of the fruit also. And…I saw them [sons Laman and Lemuel], but they would not come unto me and partake of the fruit…I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river…I also beheld a straight and narrow path…[and] a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world… a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth. And it was filled with people…and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine…they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.
Of interesting note is that the narrator of 1 Nephi keeps referring to his father. “These are the words of my father” (8:34); “And all these things did my father see, and hear, and speak” (9:1); “I must speak somewhat of the things of my father” (10:1). In chapter 11, another reference is made to his father’s dreams:
And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desires thou? And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw. …[T]he Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond , yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow. …[An angel said,] Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?..t is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men…And the multitude of the earth…were in a large and spacious building …and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great.
So we have Joseph Jr. using his father’s dream as the source material for Lehi’s dream, and takes it a step further by having the narrator of 1 Nephi pointing out he is talking about his*** father’s dreams. If The Book of Mormon is truly an ancient record, how is it possible that Joseph Smith’s father’s dreams so closely match in both motifs and phrasing the dreams of Lehi?*

 

[Tarquin]

If I may return to the appeal to John Clark. I have not forgotten him.

More remarkable than her talk at the Library of Congress was John Clark’s talk at the Library of Congress:

A few remarks by Clark will give a sense of his objectivity:

“Archaeology shows that almost everyone involved in the running quarrel over Joseph and his book have misrepresented and misunderstood both.”

• I was reminded of a previous use of the word “imprudently.” Clark must believe the world is fortunate to have him present, considering the incompetence of “almost everyone involved” in debates over Smith and the Book of Mormon. What might we yet learn:

“The book speaks specifically only of a limited land about the size of Pennsylvania.”
– Clark did not think it important to provide any specific passage in the Book of Mormon that specify this limitation and size. Perhaps a more helpful Mormon will present this “evidence.”

“Most Mormons fall into a more subtle error that also inflates Joseph’s talents; they confuse translation with authorship. They presume that Joseph Smith knew the contents of the book as if he were its real author, and they accord him perfect knowledge of the text.”
– This complaint probably arises from the fact that Smith had himself listed as the author of the book. If someone were to write out an entire book, say the Gospel of John, A Course in Miracles, one of Ellen G. White’s books, or Mary Baker Eddy’s “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures” or the Book of Mormon, and at the end of it all say they don’t know much about it or misunderstood it; it would be safe to conclude that this person wasn’t paying attention and didn’t think the exercise was very important to begin with.

“Perfect” knowledge is not the issue. Minor details might be forgotten, but we can hardly excuse ignorance of the central themes of such books. All the foibles that Joseph admitted to, and that his followers admit beyond those, including “getting it wrong” about the Book of Mormon, paint an unflattering picture of a faltering prophet, capricious seer, and untrustworthy author.

“This presumption removes from discussion the most compelling evidence of the book’s authenticity – Joseph’s unfamiliarity with its contents.”
– Using the word “compelling” does not make a weak argument more compelling. Unfamiliarity of the contents of a book says nothing about the book. Where there is a presumption is in assuming Joseph actually was unfamiliar with its contents. That’s a laugh. He was obviously - obviously - darned familiar with them.

“the most compelling evidence of the book’s authenticity – Joseph’s unfamiliarity with its contents”.
– This seems ridiculous to me. *Ignorance *of a book is hardly an enhancement to that book’s “authenticity.”

Despite his posturing, Clark has a higher regard for Coe than other, equally insistent, equally wrong Mormon apologists seem to have:
“I draw from the following sources: Michael D. Coe and Richard A. Diehl, In the Land of the Olmec”
“I recommend any edition of Michael D. Coe, The Maya”
“See Michael D. Coe, Richard A. Diehl, and Minze Stuiver, “Olmec Civilization, Veracruz, Mexico: Dating of the San Lorenzo Phase,” Science 155, no. 3768”

I, too, prefer Coe.

 

[Chris-WA]

In previous posts we have seen how Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from the Bible to create stories in the Book of Mormon. Here is another striking example. It is the wilderness journey of Lehi’s family chronicled in 1 Nephi. This story closely parallels the wilderness journey of the Israelites in Exodus, so much so that the only plausible explanation is that Joseph must have used the Exodus story as his source for the Lehi story. Here are 20 parallels LDS historian Grant Palmer details in his book, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, that are very hard to explain away:

1. The main character in both stories (Moses, Nephi) knows the Egyptian language, lives a life of luxury, and leaves it behind because their lives are threatened (Ex. 2:5-10, 15; 1 Ne. 1:2; 2:1, 4; also 3:24-25).
2. Each protagonist is portrayed as justifiably killing a man before becoming a prophet (Ex. 2:11-12, 1 Ne. 4:10-11, 18).
3. Both receive, through a divine vision, a warning to escape into the wilderness (Ex. 3:2, 8; 1 Ne. 1:4-6, 13).
4. God promises them (Moses/Lehi, Nephi) that they will lead their people to a promised land (Ex. 3:8, 10; 1 Ne. 2:19-20).
5. They camp by the Red Sea (Ex. 13:18; 1 Ne. 2:2, 5-6).
6. They are provided divine means, a “pillar of cloud” in one case and a “Liahona” in the other, to lead them (Ex. 13:21-22; 1 Ne. 16:10, 16; also see Alma 37:44). The Liahona functions like a compass needle over a map, but it takes the shape of a “ball…of fine brass…And we did follow the directions of the ball” (1 Ne. 16:10, 16). This is reminiscent of the “holy” four-inch “balls…[of] cast brass” mentioned in William Morgan’s 1827 Freemasonry Exposed: “These globes or balls contain on their convex surface all the maps and charts of the celestial and terrestrial bodies” (cf. 1 Ne. 16:30, 16).
7. At the Red Sea, the people lose faith and begin to murmur (Ex. 14:11-12; 1 Ne. 2:11-12).
8. While camped at the Red Sea, God arranges to have an opponent slain (Pharoah’s horsemen/Laban the record keeper) so that God’s people will not perish (Ex. 14:27-30; 1 Ne. 4:2-3, 11-12, 18).
9. After traveling three or four days in the wilderness along the Red Sea, they call their camp Shur/Shazer (Ex. 15:22; 1 Ne. 16:6, 11-13). The Israelites travel along the Red Sea in the Sinai Peninsula, while the Nephites travel by the Red Sea in Arabia.
10. They move several times, finally camping at an oasis with twelve “wells of water” and seventy “palm trees,” or in the Book of Mormon, the “fertile parts” are mentioned for the first time (Ex. 15:22-25, 27; 16:1; 1 Ne. 16:14b-17). At the previous biblical camp of Marah, the bitter water is “made sweet” (Ex. 15:23-25). The Nephites are not allowed to cook, but their food “become sweet” (1 Ne. 17:12).
    [*]The Israelites murmur about their hardships, specifically about hunger (Ex. 16:2-3; 1 Ne. 16:18-20). The Nephites murmur about hunger when Nephi’s steel hunting bow breaks.
    [*]Directions from the cloud/liahona provide food in the form of manna and quail for the Israelites and “wild beasts” for the Nephites (Ex. 16:9-15; 1 Ne. 16:25-31).
    [*]Accusations erupt against the groups’ leaders for bringing them into the wilderness. The people yearn to return home (Ex. 17:1-3, 7; 1 Ne. 16:33-36). They travel “many days” before again stopping to camp at Meribah/Nahom. When Ishmael dies, the Nephites increase their complaints of " hunger, thirst, and fatigue." When Miriam, the sister of Moses, dies, this exacerbates Israelite complaints about having been brought into the wilderness to perish of thirst (1 Ne. 16:33-35; Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:1-13). Dathan and Abiram accuse Moses, as Lamen and Lemuel do Nephi, of wanting to be “a prince over us,” “a king and a ruler over us” (Num. 16:13; 1 Ne. 16:38).
    [*]The leaders’ lives are now threatened because of the strife (Ex. 17:4, 1 Ne. 16:37).
    [*]God speaks to his people, and starvation is once again avoided (Ex. 17:5-7; 1 Ne. 16:35, 39).
    [*]The people, despite many miraculous interventions on their behalf, fail to remain repentant very long (Ex. 2-33, esp. 16:9-35, 17:1-7; 1 Ne. 1-18).
    [*]Because of their transgressions, the people continue to wander in the wilderness for many years (Num. 32:13, Ex. 16:35; Alma 37:41-42, 1 Ne. 17:4).
    [*]Moses ascends “the mount” to receive the “laws”; Nephi ascends “the mount” to learn " great things," after which Moses supervises construction of a tabernacle, Nephi a ship, prior to entering the promised land. They remain a considerable period of time before departing (Ex. 19:1-5, 20:19-40; 1 Ne. 17:5-8, 18:1-3).
    [*]The people rebel by dancing and singing, and they begin to forget the Lord (Ex. 32:6-7, 17-19; 1 Ne. 18:9). In the Bible this event occurs while Moses is on the mountain. In 1 Nephi it occurs on the ocean voyage to their promised land.
    [*]God is displeased and threatens the people with destruction. However, the people repent and eventually reach their destination (Josh. 1; 1 Ne. 18:10-23).
    

Mr. Palmer points out, “It is remarkable that many of the Nephite ideas and events occur at the same point in the chronology and at similar places as in the Israelite wilderness experience. These twenty shared motifs suggest dependency on the Bible Exodus story.”

 

[Tarquin]

Excellent observations, Christ-WA.

In…Here are 20 parallels LDS historian Grant Palmer details in his book, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, that are very hard to explain away:

1. The main character in both stories (Moses, Nephi) knows the Egyptian language, lives a life of luxury, and leaves it behind because their lives are threatened (Ex. 2:5-10, 15; 1 Ne. 1:2; 2:1, 4; also 3:24-25).

Moses had a sound reason for knowing Egyptian. He was apparently reared in the most official, and most central to the religion, household in the entire nation. I do not see any reason for Lehi bothering with teaching his children Egyptian.

1. Each protagonist is portrayed as justifiably killing a man before becoming a prophet (Ex. 2:11-12, 1 Ne. 4:10-11, 18).

There is one huge difference between the two in this regard, and one small one. First, God did not tell Moses to kill the Egyptian overseer (as far as I can tell), and did not justify him. In Acts 7:25, we read that Moses thought the Israelites “would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not.” That is what Moses thought. It is possible that at the time of the murder, Moses was not doing God’s will specifically, but was applying his own personal nuance to it. Perhaps Moses should *not *have killed the Egyptian. That way, the grumbling Israelites might not scorn him with “Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?” Furthermore, he might have had the then-Pharoah’s ear instead of his wrath: "When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, " Exodus 2:15. If he hadn’t killed the Egyptian, the Israelites might have been more willing to listen to him, and Pharoah might have been more willing to accomodate Moses’ later wishes to free some of Pharaoh’s slaves.

My point, however, is that in the case of Nephi, Mormon God actively instructed Nephi to murder a man. An unconscious drunk, at that.

The second issue is that the words used by Joseph Smith to justify this murder were the same words that were used, wrongly, wickedly, to justify an injustice - the unjust crucifixion of the Lord Jesus:

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole* nation not perish**." *John 11:49-50

*And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that **a nation should dwindle and perish *in unbelief.
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise. 1 Nephi 4:12

Nephi should have “remembered the words of the Lord” when He said “Thou shalt not kill.” Besides, as others have noted, the person telling Nephi to murder an unconscious man is never really identified, is he? I see “the Spirit,” and I know Mormons presume that “Spirit” is God or Jesus or Gabriel or somebody. But if so, why not say so. For all Nephi knew, that was Lucifer speaking to him. Didn’t Nephi know that the devil can appear as an angel of light, like the angel that visited Joseph Smith in his family’s bedroom? Back then, Joseph failed to test the angel! And apparently neither did Nephi test the blood-thirsty spirit that told him to murder a man.

This is the Test and “Three Grand Keys”:
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God. Doctrine and Covenants 129:4-9

 

[iepuras]

Nephi should have “remembered the words of the Lord” when He said “Thou shalt not kill.” Besides, as others have noted, the person telling Nephi to murder an unconscious man is never really identified, is he? I see “the Spirit,” and I know Mormons presume that “Spirit” is God or Jesus or Gabriel or somebody. But if so, why not say so. For all Nephi knew, that was Lucifer speaking to him. Didn’t Nephi know that the devil can appear as an angel of light, like the angel that visited Joseph Smith in his family’s bedroom? Back then, Joseph failed to test the angel! And apparently neither did Nephi test the blood-thirsty spirit that told him to murder a man.

This is the Test and “Three Grand Keys”:
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God. Doctrine and Covenants 129:4-9

Joseph Smith had a tendency to not follow the rules he himself outlined. He didn’t test the angels who appeared to him and he certainly didn’t follow Doctrine & Covenants Section 132 in his practice of polygamy.

 

[Tarquin]

Here is a LDS scholar who responds to much of what is presented in the beginning of this thread.
mormoninterpreter.com/the-late-war-against-the-book-of-mormon/

How wonderful. Thank, you, TOmNossor. This healthcare technologist pointed to a book I have not read before, but genuinely looks like fun: “The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain. The latter is a history of the war of 1812 deliberately written in a scriptural style. A traditional (non-statistical) comparison between this text and the Book of Mormon was apparently introduced by Rick Grunder in his 2008 bibliography Mormon Parallels.” The book is available, as so many are, at archive.org: archive.org/details/latewarbetweenun00inhunt I began reading it, then skimming through it. Even a brief glance shows There are so many phrases pre-echoing, and allusions to passages in, the Book of Mormon, that I have absolutely no doubt that this 1816 book was used by the author of the Book of Mormon.

I do hope you will give the pertinent sentences of McGuire that you believe relate to this thread. I would like to read them. But on the other hand, I am sorry, mate, I’ve reached my limit for that post of yours that contained that link. You gave links and references, and they and you alluded to further articles. It takes considerable time and effort to examine those. I have read and re-read thousands of words now, resulting from wanting to understand what you were arguing in a single post. It is frustrating when one reads a linked article, as I have a couple of times in those links, and finds that it is generally or completely irrelevant to the discussion, or so poorly argued that it is useful to neither side of a discussion.

Frankly, I enjoy research. That is why I often do read the links and do research beyond them. I am usually willing to read a person’s reasoning, and do expect them to use quotes, and present a summary or detailed explanation of their reason for their opinions (beliefs). However, I am just not willing to struggle through McGuire’s site to find what you, not I, believe is the relevant argument in all that. If you cannot quote the significant passages, or give an accurate summation of the arguments you want us to know about, from some people’s perspective (not mine) you might as well say nothing, as the effect will be about the same for a lot of people. Some people never click on links, no matter what side of a discussion they support. So a half dozen links are not a dazzling argument. They are hardly more likely to have a persuasive effect on people than is an unposted post.

 

[Jerusha]

The latter is a history of the war of 1812 deliberately written in a scriptural style. A traditional (non-statistical) comparison between this text and the Book of Mormon was apparently introduced by Rick Grunder in his 2008 bibliography Mormon Parallels.” The book is available, as so many are, at archive.org: archive.org/details/latewarbetweenun00inhunt I began reading it, then skimming through it…

Yup, Rick covered the ballpark- in detail. The Johnson bros then found it through an objective technique.

And Ben McGuire advocates the cognitive technique that Rick Grunder used. There is no mistaking that the parallels are rich and thick. Like the best milk-shake I ever had. Of course, Ben’s own bias might prevent him from even reading Grunder’s review.

And Oliver Cowdery was an itinerant----

bookseller.