Who wrote the BOM?

[Imconfused]

Jerusha:

Aah-- you have seen that web-site where there is a claim of some Ogam writing in a cave referring to St. Brandan’s monks? That is exciting, if in fact it is real. I would like to wait for some authoritative evidence.

I am more convinced that Joe worked from Indian oral history. Ogam (Irish-Celtic writing adapted for stone-carving) could be a possibility-- and more acceptable to LDS.

Well, Jerusha, if St. Brendan did land in West Virginia, and apparently there is evidence that he was there, he most certainly would have had some type of contact with the Indians in that vicinity. I’m trying to think- too far down for Algonquin- too far east for Quapaw-hmm, I’ll have to look it up. Never the less, soewhere in those links you gave me is reference to the Chi Rho and God’s Hand carved on trees predating colonial days. If we took this as truth, and we don’t know, then what Smith probably got was a conglomerated story derived through who knows how many different oral versions and dialects. The tribes have changed over the years as well and so have the languages. The languages today are barely recognizeable to the original group upon arrival through the bering Strait. So if we are talking 570 AD. that is at least 1200 years or more before Smith would have heard it or found something relating to it. So it is probably relatively distorted after 1200 years. Now the Mormons on this site tell us that Smith was an ignorant and relatively illiterate farmer with a penchant for superstitious divining anyway. For his own part, he might have run onto something and assumed it to be Egyptian because it appeared so foreign. Especially since the ChiRho and God’s Hand symbolism might actually appear like pictographs, you know. Yes, this is worth more research. One would have to start within that indigenous language group, though.And then follow the migration patterns to determine exactly who St. Brendan ran into. So much migration and population fluxes, you know, among the tribes. by the way we also know, that by 570 Ad the Choctaw groups in mid south east were also writing with alphabets and using pictographs based on Mayan language. We had some pretty literate Indians on the East Coast and South in 570 AD. We also know that by 570 Ad they had establishe trade routes through their own version of city states, were sophisticated as to dealing with foreigners up from the Mexico area, were involved with export import. It’s a thought.
By the way, your research will fail if you start with trying to make it acceptable. You can’t think about how it would or would not be acceptable to if you are going to do justice to the truth. Just an aside.

 

[TOmNossor]

flameburns623:

Vogel’s personal faith or lack thereof isn’t especially germaine to his study of the historical context of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Agreed. As I recall, it was Vogel’s theistic language that made it difficult to understand what he was trying to get at. Joseph Smith was a prophet just like all the other prophets because he (Joseph) thought he communed with the supernatural and his followers believed. That there was no supernatural was not particularly important to Vogel.

flameburns623:

I was a Mormon for well over a decade. I loved the Church and miss many aspects of it. I have read–and listened on tape to–the Standard Works, several times each. To me they all speak in the same monotone–on the very face of it, they are literary works of the same hand. For much of the last half of the time that I counted myself a Mormon I danced with the idea that the Book of Mormon could qualify as divinely-inspired fiction–a theory which got at least one LDS scholar disfellowshipped. I left realizing that I could not continue to believe in the idea of Joseph Smith as a prophet.

I suspect you are unconvinced by the studies (using approved methodology) that demonstrate that the BOM was not the product of one author. In truth, I never dug deep enough into them to determine if I thought anything profound was demonstrated by them. The BOM explained Christianity to me in ways that the Bible didn’t. I read C.S. Lewis and thought that the BOM taught what he taught clearer than the Bible.
Van Hale does not seem to embrace the historicity of the BOM. There is at least one other person who may have these types of leanings. I do not believe disbelieving in the historicity of the BOM is problematic so much as teaching others to disbelieve in the historicity. One is a matter of orthodoxy, what you believe; the other is a matter of orthopraxy, what you do.

But, I do believe the concept of inspired fiction removes a great deal from the truth claims of the church. And while I guess inspired fiction could explain what LDS point to as evidences, that would be an unusual stance to take. I think the Old World work and the work of Brant Gardner and some BYU scholars in the New World is tough to explain away.

Cont,

 

[TOmNossor]

flameburns623:

I have read Hugh Nibley and some other LDS apologists. There are reasons that, while Roman Catholic and Protestant apologists are taken seriously in the larger intellectual world–LDS apologists tend to get resoundingly ignored. What non-Mormon atheist or agnostic wrestles with great Mormon minds such as BH Roberts or James Talmage? Yet Thomas Aquinas, CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, and a host of others are widely read by critics of the Christian faith. Yes, some religious pluralists hope to welcome Latter-Day Saints into the the wider communion of the Christian faith. But that is a far cry from any sort of widespread belief, outside of the Mormon fold, that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical document accurately recording events which took place in real geographic locations on the American continent in real historical time

LDS scholarship is coming into its own. There have been many more pro-LDS works completed since this interesting “call to arms was issued.”

LDS Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It.

To believe in the historicity of the BOM and not be a LDS (or some type of Mormon) is a very unusual stance. Also, most scholarly journals do not have a Mormon Truth vs. Falsity section. What non-LDS archeologists think the historicity of the BOM makes sense? Well there where two, but they joined the church and now they are not non-LDS. What non-LDS theologian sees reason and strength in the LDS paradigm and teaching? I know of at least one who became a LDS 5 years after publishing his master’s thesis on some LDS ideas. What about a non-LDS Old Testament scholar who cites the BOM to illuminate the beliefs and practices of ancient Judiasm? Well there is one. There are other examples of such things in the article I linked (the ones I mentioned are all not in the article I linked). This paragraph could be extended by more examples in and outside of the linked article.

flameburns623:

What I rather see Mormons doing is what you have done respectfully and well–sometimes even brilliantly-- in this forum: try to re-invent LDS theology in a way that is on some level amenable to traditional Christian theology. ‘Almost dost thou reconvert me to be a Mormon’, to purloin a phrase from the Book of Acts. But the hard-and-fast evidence just isn’t there–we can FIND the vast majority of places mentioned in the Holy Bible, we have established the historicity of a great many Biblical events and personages. But Lehi and his Book of Mormon kin are unknown to us from the outset. And, once the family of Lehi cross the ocean to the New World–they’re pretty much lost to anything remotely resembling what we know to have existed here prior to the arrival of Westerners.

Thank you for some of those words. LDS theology is a product of 4 books. The largest by far is the Bible. The BOM is in profound agreement with the Bible in the eyes of many non-LDS readers. So now we have about 80% of LDS scripture that aligns with non-LDS scripture. I have argued for a long time (and this view was recently mentioned at the Joseph Smith conference) that as the Saints separated from those Christians who they believe were persecuting them, they also emphasized LDS Christianity in a way as to separate themselves theologically as well. This does not mean there is not a oneness associated with God. This does not mean that we are not saved by Grace. As LDS theologians begin to define our theology, I see ideas that I share here (and often that I share in my ward). That there is development of LDS theology, I cannot and will not deny. That it is some kind of corruption or deception, I vehemently deny.

I am sorry it took so long to respond here. I almost delayed further as I responded to some things on another thread I should prolly ignore. Anyway, I wish you luck in your journey.

Charity, TOm

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I agree with Flame on this one. The way that article was put it didnt say much and a lot of it was he-said-she-said type arguments. I dont believe he copied anyone’s novel or any other work, except some passages out of the Bible. The bottom line though for me is that article didnt say anything worth publishing.
As for the stuff about if JS was crazy or high when he wrote it or that it was a failed attempt at a novel, I dont believe that either.

I have though about it a little bit and I think he was inspired by what he saw around him. To me it all comes down to what he says in his Revelation of JS where he mentions a few denominations by name and says they are full of BS. He saw what we saw and trumpet every day–Protestant CONFUSION. The concept of all these denominations all against eachother and all teaching different things could not have come from the one true God. The Bible was too good to be turned and twisted the way he saw it every day with his own neighbors. The solution was to pray, read and imagine how Christianity was supposed to look, which clearly didnt exist on earth because of all the confusion he saw around him. The Bible is very clear on stuff and what he saw was not Christianity. His hope was to rediscover this lost Gospel and Church that he read about and knew maked sense, and make it real, and this task was not impossible if there was enough dedication and the right ideas. In all of this he was also affected by his surroundings in various forms, and that influenced how his image of true Christianity would form. For one he was American so the reality of open spans of available land and Constitutional freedoms and the motto where if you can imagine it you can really attain it is what was a major driving force. (There isnt a counrty like it anywhere on earth.) A second important factor is that he was very likely anti-Catholic simply because he grew up in a Protestant environment (and he took the same stand for the Anglicans who were British who to the Americans were Satan’s twin, the Orthodox nobody knew much of anyway), so by ignoring and writing off these groups from the start he outright disregarded (unknowingly) history and tradition.

To sum it up, the driving forces of mormonism and its members:
1)Unhappy with divisions in protestantism, the need to unite.
2)American outlook/dream instilled in the heart and mind.
3)Inherent biases from Protestant roots, mostly rejection of historical Christianity.

Now Im not turning LDS here, but this makes perfect sense to me. Am I loosing it here?

 

[Jerusha]

So it is probably relatively distorted after 1200 years.

Agreed—wholeheartedly. Handley, however, did a good job in “The Man Who Led Columbus to America” in making some connections. The Viking invasion was a much more significant and recent event that could have contributed.

1)Unhappy with divisions in protestantism, the need to unite.
2)American outlook/dream instilled in the heart and mind.
3)Inherent biases from Protestant roots, mostly rejection of historical Christianity.

1. (Clarification of 2) A justification for a form of Manifest Destiny which did not include the necessity of wholesale genocide of the American Indian. (Except it did not work)

 

[Imconfused]

Catholic Dude:

I agree with Flame on this one. The way that article was put it didnt say much and a lot of it was he-said-she-said type arguments. I dont believe he copied anyone’s novel or any other work, except some passages out of the Bible. The bottom line though for me is that article didnt say anything worth publishing.
As for the stuff about if JS was crazy or high when he wrote it or that it was a failed attempt at a novel, I dont believe that either.

I have though about it a little bit and I think he was inspired by what he saw around him. To me it all comes down to what he says in his Revelation of JS where he mentions a few denominations by name and says they are full of BS. He saw what we saw and trumpet every day–Protestant CONFUSION. The concept of all these denominations all against eachother and all teaching different things could not have come from the one true God. The Bible was too good to be turned and twisted the way he saw it every day with his own neighbors. The solution was to pray, read and imagine how Christianity was supposed to look, which clearly didnt exist on earth because of all the confusion he saw around him. The Bible is very clear on stuff and what he saw was not Christianity. His hope was to rediscover this lost Gospel and Church that he read about and knew maked sense, and make it real, and this task was not impossible if there was enough dedication and the right ideas. In all of this he was also affected by his surroundings in various forms, and that influenced how his image of true Christianity would form. For one he was American so the reality of open spans of available land and Constitutional freedoms and the motto where if you can imagine it you can really attain it is what was a major driving force. (There isnt a counrty like it anywhere on earth.) A second important factor is that he was very likely anti-Catholic simply because he grew up in a Protestant environment (and he took the same stand for the Anglicans who were British who to the Americans were Satan’s twin, the Orthodox nobody knew much of anyway), so by ignoring and writing off these groups from the start he outright disregarded (unknowingly) history and tradition.

To sum it up, the driving forces of mormonism and its members:
1)Unhappy with divisions in protestantism, the need to unite.
2)American outlook/dream instilled in the heart and mind.
3)Inherent biases from Protestant roots, mostly rejection of historical Christianity.

Now Im not turning LDS here, but this makes perfect sense to me. Am I loosing it here?

It depends. If one tends to look only at the world, then no, you are not losing it. If one has his eye on God, then yes, you are losing it.

Also, there is this: many, many people justify their own divisive behavior with the claim of disunity among Churches. Anyone seeking unification, does not further divide by creating another church out of union. Does that make sense?

 

[Imconfused]

Jerusha:

I agree— I tend to believe that it happened through psychological processes, neither demonic nor Divine. At that time in his life, he was nothing more than a relatively harmless troubled young man.

Direct or indirect, it is a work of Satan.
1.The rites and rituals are of the magic and superstitious variety such as the sealings by proxy of the dead. We must try to remember first that corpses do not have souls to baptise, and after death, the destination of said soul is in God’s hands, without regard to human will.
2. It is a religion that subverts God’s place. Only through jealousy of God’s inherent rights did Lucifer fall in the first place. LDS puts man above God, first in their creation stories and secondly in their rites and rituals. They substitute what man desires for what is properly God’s choice. That is truly Satanic.
3. The constant need to put forth either direct lies about their own history along with American history and also lies of omission put forth by failure to disclose truths when known are Satanic actions. Satan is the Father of Lies.
4. As far as Joseph Smith being merely a disturbed young man- Satan does not use the healthy, strong in faith for his work.

 

[TOmNossor]

Imconfused:

Also, there is this: many, many people justify their own divisive behavior with the claim of disunity among Churches. Anyone seeking unification, does not further divide by creating another church out of union. Does that make sense?

This I believe this is an excellent point. It is part of the difficulties I have with those who split off from the Catholic Church.

I would be surprised however if we could not agree that God can call forth a new body of believers from a group of believers who have strayed from the more full truth. There seem to be instances in the Old Testament when things like this happened, but it is without question that this happened at the birth of Christianity.

This leaves us disagreeing on if God called forth a Restored gospel and if it was even possible for the dispensation that started with the Apostles to need a Restoration.

Charity, TOm

 

[Imconfused]

TOmNossor:

This I believe this is an excellent point. It is part of the difficulties I have with those who split off from the Catholic Church.

I would be surprised however if we could not agree that God can call forth a new body of believers from a group of believers who have strayed from the more full truth. There seem to be instances in the Old Testament when things like this happened, but it is without question that this happened at the birth of Christianity.

size]

Charity, TOm
No Tom, God did not call forth new believers with Christianity and abandon those who had strayed from the Old Testament. the new Christians were of the Old Testament. Jesus says very, very clearly-literally in fact, that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.In other words, He did not come to wipe out the old Church but to complete it. What Joseph Smith did was reject the old Church’s entirely and start a new one. Jesus’ actions were unifying, Smith’s were not.

 

[Jerusha]

1.The rites and rituals are of the magic and superstitious variety such as the sealings by proxy of the dead. We must try to remember first that corpses do not have souls to baptise, and after death, the destination of said soul is in God’s hands, without regard to human will.
2. It is a religion that subverts God’s place. Only through jealousy of God’s inherent rights did Lucifer fall in the first place. LDS puts man above God, first in their creation stories and secondly in their rites and rituals. They substitute what man desires for what is properly God’s choice. That is truly Satanic.
3. The constant need to put forth either direct lies about their own history along with American history and also lies of omission put forth by failure to disclose truths when known are Satanic actions. Satan is the Father of Lies.
4. As far as Joseph Smith being merely a disturbed young man- Satan does not use the healthy, strong in faith for his work.

In my harshest moments, I have been known to say that the spirit of the anti-Christ is in Mormonism. Evidences-- fantasies of taking over the government of this country and establishing a theocracy-- public agencies that are Mormon-dominated give preferential treatment to Mormon employees and clients.

Satan does not use the healthy, strong in faith for his work.

Joe Smith was certainly a tool of the devil, and evil people. However, I cannot make judgments about his eternal reward. Whatever it was.

 

[HMarieH]

I think that it doesn’t matter who wrote the Book of Mormon. The Bible does have this to say about any other gospel though:
Gal. 1:8-9 says that anyother gospel that is preached is to be accursed. It is also wrong to add to the Bible, Rev. 22:17. If God wrote inspired the BOM than He is accursed. That, of course, is not so. The Book of Mormon is of men. Matt 15:9 says, “but in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” To worship the commandments of men is vain worship.

 

[Jerusha]

I’m willing to bet that the edition of the Bible that Tom has doesn’t have those scriptures. You see- JS edited it according to his own understanding. :bigyikes:

 

[BJ_Colbert]

I guess that is why the Catholic church has so many bibles, so that many men may interpret it different ways according to how they see things. If you don’t agree with one you can buy another one that you might agree with. I can’t imagine one church having 5 or 6 different interpretations of the Bible. The American, the NAB, etc etc. All depend on a different interpretation of the original words. Now, which one is correct? Why are the priests allowed to rewrite the bible according to their own interpretations?
BJ

 

[Jerusha]

Read them parallel, and you will get FULLER meaning, not contradictions. The differences are only dependent on minor variations in interpretations from the different languages.

Why are the priests allowed to rewrite the bible according to their own interpretations?

These are scholars, not necessarily priests, who work together as a team project. They are HIGHLY educated linguists. NOT, people who, only knowing (probably) one language, claim supernatural powers of interpretation.

 

[BJRumph]

1.) Actually, JS was a polyglot, though Egyptian, in any form, was not one of his known languages. One of my favorite sermons if his was delivered in several languages, to prove to his followers that he was not the unschooled farm-boy that many of them were taking him to be (and by extension he is often portrayed today). Always pride with that one…

2.)In regards to the argument that JS was just responding to the cultural events surrounding him; one of the evidences of this theory used by it proponents, is the obvious anti-masonic passages contained in the BoM (the Secret Combinations led under the satanic influence of Cain/Master Mahon) paralleled the great anti-masonic fervor that was taking hold of the eastern US at the time (due to things like the Morgan Affair which eventually led to the formation of the Anti-Masonic Party and what not).

Connection or not, the Spaulding Manuscript does show evidence that such “what if” scenarios were at least present in the minds of the populace, if not yet fully manfest in a proliferation of competing novellas and dime stories.

3.) I would be more open to the (more charitable) concept that JS was just attempting to novellize the cultural stresses of the time (like Spaulding), and assert that he feel later to less earthly influence if it were not his assertation of the supernatural essence of the BoM even before it was composed. To me, this evidence suggests that Smith was under unnatural influence from start to finish without leaving room for an innocent to be corrupted later through his demonstrated weakness of pride.

4.) The Bible does not add anything as (historical or archeological)evidence to the truthfulness of the LDS church through the simple virtue that they hold it to be part of their scripture; otherwise, the JW’s would be “more true” than the LDS because 100% of their scriptures are in the Bible and are therefore not questioned by the rest of Christendom; something as an LDS you are prolly not asserting.

 

[Jerusha]

You mean this?

Were I a Chaldean I would exclaim: Keed’ nauh to-maroon lehoam elauhayaugh deyshemayaugh veh aur kau lau gnaubadoo, yabadoo ma-ar’guauoomen tehoat shemayaugh alah. (Thus shall we say unto them: The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.)

An Egyptian: Sa e eh-ni: (What other persons are these?) A Grecian: Diabolas basseleuei: (The Devil reigns.) A Frenchman: Messieurs sans Dieu, (Gentkemen without Go.) A Turk: Ain shems: (The fountain of light.) A german: sie sind unferstandig. (What consumate ignorance!) A Syrian: Zaubok. (Sacrifice!) A Spaniard: Il sabio muda conscio, il nescio ne. (A wise man reflects, a fool does not.) A Samaritian: Saunau! (O Stranger!) An Italian: O tempa! oh diffidanza! (O the times! O the diffidence!) A Hebrew: Ajtaij aol raicu (Thou God seest me.) A Dane: Hvnd tidende! (What tidings!) A Saxon: Hwaet riht! (What right!) A Swede: Hvad skilla: (What skill!) A Polander: Nav-yen-wheo bah poa na Jesus Christus: (Blessed be the name of Jesus Christ.) A Western Indian: She-mo-kah She-mo keh ough-nepgab. (The white man, O the white man, he very uncertain.) A Roman: Procul, o procul este profani! (Be off, be off ye profane!) But as I am I will only add: when the wicked rule the people mourn.

At the time he wrote the BOM, competence in other languages, especially in Egyptian, was nonexistent or minimal. As Emma and others wrote, and his best apologists say today, he was just an uneducated farmboy. At the time he made that speech, he had friends who knew other languages. and Chaldean???

yabadoo

!!! Shades of Fred Flintstone!!!

He also had had opportunities to learn other languages by 1842.

Have these phrases been verified by linguists? Or was he just speaking in tongues?

 

[HMarieH]

I don’t care if an angel from God told JS to write the book of Mormon, it is not God’s word. If an angel told JS to write the BOM than he is with Satan right now. Afterall God can not exist with sin. That is why no sin will enter heaven. Please read Gal. 1:8-9, “But even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” If there is to be any fulfillment of the law it is love, not the BOM, Rom 13:10.
If anyone was given the power to loose thing or bind them it was Peter, who also wrote about the Church. Remember he had the Holy Spirit in him and therefore was carrying out God’s will to shape the Church. The works or the Church are taught in the Bible while Jesus is not upon the earth. This authority that was given to Peter was a mere power of attorney. He later died and now that the Bible is complete we have no control over such things in the Church.
Who has authority in the Chuch? Matt 28:18-20. If Christ has all authority over the Church then how much can man have?

 

[BJRumph]

I don’t think so, though it is possible. After doing his multi-language bit, he then pointed out how each of the listeners heard the sermon in their own language, and can therefore verify for themselve if he spoke truly, or if he was just the unlearned farmboy that they suposed him to be; and that he was far more cunning than any were giving him credit for. (odd thing to assert in the context)

Like I said, Pride…

Yes, the Rosetta hadn’t even be translated when the BoM was in progress, and the supposed authentication of his translation of the “egyptian” characters published. That was also a favorite issue, as what the letter actually said was that JS’s translation was “as good as any” to be found (as no one could actually translate egy at that time), rather than it being a true or correct translation as was being asserted by over-zelous followers. IIRC, JS didn’t make the claims based on the now destroyed letter, which makes it a great peice of “evidence” from an apologetics pov, as if it sways the cedulous, it is used, but if it is challenged, then you yourself can “debunk” it as any kind of authentication, but the foolish episode of members, not JS.

 

[Imconfused]

Jerusha:

I’m willing to bet that the edition of the Bible that Tom has doesn’t have those scriptures. You see- JS edited it according to his own understanding. :bigyikes:

Oh, no wonder. I forgot about that. Thanks. Except I thought I heard Mormons use the King James? These verses are in it as well.

 

[Imconfused]

BJ Colbert:

I guess that is why the Catholic church has so many bibles, so that many men may interpret it different ways according to how they see things. If you don’t agree with one you can buy another one that you might agree with. I can’t imagine one church having 5 or 6 different interpretations of the Bible. The American, the NAB, etc etc. All depend on a different interpretation of the original words. Now, which one is correct? Why are the priests allowed to rewrite the bible according to their own interpretations?
BJ

The only things that ever change in the Catholic Bible is the words used. the interpretation has remained constant for 2000 years.