Who wrote the BOM?

[Jerusha]

Given the established fact that the Smith family participated in grave-digging-- they could have found some artifacts from the Viking invasion, such as coins (Vine Deloria* in one of his earlier writings mentions coins older than 1492 have been found, particularly in Ohio) Joseph could have used these as his “text”, or trigger for the automatic writing.

• Sioux, began his career as Episcopalian priest, most well-known book is “God is Red” print.google.com/print?q=Vine+Deloria&oi=print

 

[Jerusha]

Ireland was too isolated to have heard of that. However, the Vikings could certainly have heard of the Muslim world.

Smith would not have heard from European sources about St. Brandan’s voyage. However, he could easily have had some knowlege of Indian legends about Brendan’s missionaries, if the theories are valid.

 

[Imconfused]

Jerusha:

Given the established fact that the Smith family participated in grave-digging-- they could have found some artifacts from the Viking invasion, such as coins (Vine Deloria* in one of his earlier writings mentions coins older than 1492 have been found, particularly in Ohio) Joseph could have used these as his “text”, or trigger for the automatic writing.

• Sioux, began his career as Episcopalian priest, most well-known book is “God is Red” print.google.com/print?q=Vine+Deloria&oi=print

Oh, good heavens, correct. You know he was using the Hebrew to translate what he claimed (I believe) to be Egyptian works. Could it instead have been in either the Indian language or old Irish-celtic?

 

[Imconfused]

Imconfused:

Oh, good heavens, correct. Actually though there is evidence that Brendan was in West Virginia. You know Smith was using the Hebrew to translate what he claimed (I believe) to be Egyptian works. Could it instead have been in either the Indian language or old Irish-celtic?

This is great. First I get a double posting then I quote myself. Hello, program.

 

[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.

 

[catsrus]

Q. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?A. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt the plantes, as the lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.

Well, Emma, from your testimony, they obviously were concealed - by the linen table cloth - and you never saw them; you only felt them through the cloth.

 

[Jerusha]

Poor Emma-- of anyone directly involved in the whole mess, I pity her the most.

 

[TOmNossor]

I will try to keep this somewhat short.

Chazemataz:

He got his first King James Bible at age 12, and I guaruntee you that he had it read by age 14.

If you guarantee this, please substantiate it with more than just your assertion. I have reason to believe that you are incorrect. The truth is that Joseph was far more likely to ponder and pray than he was to read. I know he did read the KJV of the Bible largely because this was probably the text he used as he learned to read, but this is a lot different than him reading the Bible in its entirety. Also, based on his relative penchants for reading I would very much doubt that he was overly impressed with himself, meaning if he did complete the Bible as you suggest it is likely that was normal in his environment.

If you are interested in discussing “becoming gods,” I find this topic very interesting and we could delve into it a lot.

And do you believe that “Automatic writing” is a non-supernatural phenomena? I am not suggesting that Joseph Smith was automatic writing, but even if you accepted this as the method through which the BOM come into being wouldn’t you be asserting the supernatural?

Charity, TOm

 

[Chazemataz]

TOmNossor:

I will try to keep this somewhat short.

If you guarantee this, please substantiate it with more than just your assertion. I have reason to believe that you are incorrect. The truth is that Joseph was far more likely to ponder and pray than he was to read. I know he did read the KJV of the Bible largely because this was probably the text he used as he learned to read, but this is a lot different than him reading the Bible in its entirety. Also, based on his relative penchants for reading I would very much doubt that he was overly impressed with himself, meaning if he did complete the Bible as you suggest it is likely that was normal in his environment.

If you are interested in discussing “becoming gods,” I find this topic very interesting and we could delve into it a lot.

And do you believe that “Automatic writing” is a non-supernatural phenomena? I am not suggesting that Joseph Smith was automatic writing, but even if you accepted this as the method through which the BOM come into being wouldn’t you be asserting the supernatural?

Charity, TOm

Yes I do. Where in one of the Mormon scriptures does it say that they can becoem Gods? also, why does the Community Of Christ reject The Pearl of Great price?

 

[Jerusha]

I am not suggesting that Joseph Smith was automatic writing, but even if you accepted this as the method through which the BOM come into being wouldn’t you be asserting the supernatural?

I am not God— therefore I cannot make that judgment. I accept mystery-- it is an integral part of Catholicism.

 

[flameburns623]

Two books which IMHO provide a very adequate psycho-social explanation for Smith’s composition of the Book of Mormon are the following:

Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism, Robert N. Hullinger, Signature Books, 1992

Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism, Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1989.

Hullinger’s premise is that Smith was at least partly motivated to write the Book of Mormon out of concern for the rise of Deism and skepticism in early America. Vogel suggests that in addition, Smith grew up in a culture heavily saturated by restorationist ideas, where many Americans felt that the only hope for the Christian faith was either a return to the primitive church of the apostle’s time–which was the impetus for the "Christian Connection’ and the Campbellite movement–or else a miraculous act of God to restore the Christian faith in it’s purity. Smith, asserts Vogel, bought into and provided the second solution.

I’m sorry but the starting premises of the Book of Mormon, it’s written style, and the subject matter it focuses on speak far too clearly of a 19th-century origin by someone who was perhaps imaginative but none too educated nor sophisticated. Pretty much Joseph Smith to a ‘tee’. I don’t think Satan or his fellow-demonic spirits had much direct influence on the Book of Mormon vis’a’vis ‘authomatic writing’ or some other supernatural intervention–I rather expect they could have written better. That Mormonism is a false teaching and thereby fulfills Satan’s desire to misdirect as many as possible from true doctrine I don’t deny. But the Book of Mormon shows far too many ear-marks of a merely-human work to be a direct product of the Father of Lies.

 

[TOmNossor]

Imconfused:

I do think as well that the Mormons are strict creationists.

I am not. A very large number of LDS are not. In the early 1900’s the first presidency and the twelve addressed this issue and the result was a statement that did not preclude evolution (Elder Talmage was a big part of this). But we do affirm that God is responsible for creation AND that there is truth contained in the Adam and Eve story. However, “days” in creation were not literal days 12 years ago when the 19 year old missionaries taught me, so we are definitely not predominately “young-earth creationists” in any case.

Imconfused:

A literal interpretation of scripture is difficult enough, but when it comes to a literal translation of a humanly created book, well.

It is you who embrace an inerrant Bible not the LDS.

:Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. . . . Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. (Dei Verbum, 11, November 18, 1965).

Now, I personally embrace what I call “functional inerrancy.” I am somewhat concerned about the small but increasing tendency of LDS scholars to question specific portions of the Bible. I believe it is obvious that the Bible (Old Testament) has been manipulated, but I believe what we have was declared sufficient by God’s prophet. I will show possible Biblical problems that are tough for inerranists to reconcile, but I will not reject passages of the Bible.

On the Apostasy:

Apostasy as used by LDS means different things than it does when used by Catholics. A LDS might say that the authority is totally Apostate, but the beliefs slowly became heretical. Never did the beliefs and practice of the Catholic Church evidence a complete apostasy of belief.

Now, I believe in the apostasy for a number of reasons that we can go into if you like. I believe that the authority of Peter was not passed to Linus, Cletus, or Clement. But this is a huge topic. 570 is an interesting date, but I do not point towards it when I discuss the apostasy.

Charity, TOm

 

[flameburns623]

Chazemataz:

Yes I do. Where in one of the Mormon scriptures does it say that they can becoem Gods? also, why does the Community Of Christ reject The Pearl of Great price?

Doctrine and Covenants 132: 15-21:

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

I will have to research the other question. Not many RLDS/Community of Christ members post here.

 

[Jerusha]

I don’t think Satan or his fellow-demonic spirits had much direct influence on the Book of Mormon vis’a’vis ‘authomatic writing’ or some other supernatural intervention–I rather expect they could have written better. That Mormonism is a false teaching and thereby fulfills Satan’s desire to misdirect as many as possible from true doctrine I don’t deny. But the Book of Mormon shows far too many ear-marks of a merely-human work to be a direct product of the Father of Lies.

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.

 

[TOmNossor]

Chazemataz:

Yes I do. Where in one of the Mormon scriptures does it say that they can becoem Gods? also, why does the Community Of Christ reject The Pearl of Great price?

Well, then we at least agree the BOM came through supernatural means. I believe that anyone who gives the evidences and problems a fair shake must come to that conclusion.

The BOM contains very little on men becoming gods. The Bible and the D&C do mention such thing. D&C 76 is particularly good if you are wondering if LDS embrace unique scriptures that assert men may become gods. (D&C 132 is good too, thanks Flameburn).

I am not certain why the CoC rejects the entirety of the PGP. Part of me would enjoy not believing that Joseph Smith practices Polygamy, but I do not see that as very likely.

I asked you to defend your assertion that Joseph read the Bible by 14. If you cannot defend it, I would like for you to qualify it as pure speculation on your part.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

flameburns623:

Two books which IMHO provide a very adequate psycho-social explanation for Smith’s composition of the Book of Mormon are the following:

Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism, Robert N. Hullinger, Signature Books, 1992

Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism, Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1989.

Hullinger’s premise is that Smith was at least partly motivated to write the Book of Mormon out of concern for the rise of Deism and skepticism in early America. Vogel suggests that in addition, Smith grew up in a culture heavily saturated by restorationist ideas, where many Americans felt that the only hope for the Christian faith was either a return to the primitive church of the apostle’s time–which was the impetus for the "Christian Connection’ and the Campbellite movement–or else a miraculous act of God to restore the Christian faith in it’s purity. Smith, asserts Vogel, bought into and provided the second solution.

I’m sorry but the starting premises of the Book of Mormon, it’s written style, and the subject matter it focuses on speak far too clearly of a 19th-century origin by someone who was perhaps imaginative but none too educated nor sophisticated. Pretty much Joseph Smith to a ‘tee’. I don’t think Satan or his fellow-demonic spirits had much direct influence on the Book of Mormon vis’a’vis ‘authomatic writing’ or some other supernatural intervention–I rather expect they could have written better. That Mormonism is a false teaching and thereby fulfills Satan’s desire to misdirect as many as possible from true doctrine I don’t deny. But the Book of Mormon shows far too many ear-marks of a merely-human work to be a direct product of the Father of Lies.

I consider a number of things associated with the old world journey, Nahom, and many of the shadows evident in new world events to largely rule out a non-supernatural view.

I dialogue occasionally with Atheists. One of them has suggested that the least parsimonious explanation for anything is the supernatural. He therefore embraces a naturalistic explanation for the BOM. But for those who already embrace the supernatural, it seems to me there is just way too much not to see this explanation as far more parsimonious than a naturalistic.

All of the BOM problems have been addressed, but seldom do I see the BOM evidence receive as much attention. In my opinion the problems are more explainable with a divine paradigm than are the evidences with a naturalistic paradigm.

Vogel is an intelligent fellow. He speaks in a non-offensive way to non-LDS theists, but he most definitely is not a theist of any stripe. His concept of “pious fraud” and the inspiration of Joseph Smith has nothing to do with the supernatural when it is all dissolved.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

flameburns623:

by someone who was perhaps imaginative but none too educated nor sophisticated. Pretty much Joseph Smith to a ‘tee’. I don’t think Satan or his fellow-demonic spirits had much direct influence on the Book of Mormon vis’a’vis ‘authomatic writing’ or some other supernatural intervention–I rather expect they could have written better. That Mormonism is a false teaching and thereby fulfills Satan’s desire to misdirect as many as possible from true doctrine I don’t deny. But the Book of Mormon shows far too many ear-marks of a merely-human work to be a direct product of the Father of Lies.

The majority of serious critics of the BOM do not agree with your assessment that the BOM is the product of one “none too educated or sophisticated.”

There is a small group of Mormon critics who are collecting a seemingly end list selection of books that COULD have contributed to the complexity of the BOM. They seem none to concerned that they cannot place even one of these books in Joseph’s hands, but this is their path.

It has been recently observed that while LDS paint a lofty picture of Joseph Smith, many critics are postulating more brilliance, charisma, and … than believers suggest.

If Joseph Smith was merely perpetuating a fraud, why is the rabbit hole so deep. As Clark puts it, the New World setting for the BOM become more and more plausible as cement, swords, possible smelting, and … are discovered. A fraud should become less believable, but the BOM engages more and more intelligent folks as the years go by.

Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Vogel… most definitely is not a theist of any stripe.

What is you source of authority for that kind of judgment?

 

[flameburns623]

Hi, Tom:

I have to hop off here if I’m to get any sleep before my night shift tonight. 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.

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 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.

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.

I really need to get to bed. You wouldn’t believe the number of typos I am correcting as I write. I really enjoy the dialogue you bring to this subject. You are truly a credit to the faith you embrace.

 

[TOmNossor]

Jerusha:

What is you source of authority for that kind of judgment?

Limited participation and extensive observation with and of him on discussion boards.
I can provide links if you wish.

Flameburns623,
Thank you for the kind words. I will try to respond later. Have a good sleep.

Charity, TOm