Who wrote the Book of Mormon and where did it come from?

[ParkerD]

They were so small, in fact, that they fit into Joseph Smith’s head.

Good one–funny, too!

 

[PaulDupre]

Joseph Smith and the early converts were aware by inspiration from God that they were literal blood lineage descendants of the tribe of Ephraim.

Ephraim? Are you sure?

Early Mormon leaders were direct descendants of Jesus.

Joseph Smith was the first to reveal this teaching, when he informed the plural wife of Apostle Judge Adams, that the Apostle “was a literal descendant of Jesus Christ.” (Oliver B. Huntington Journal, p. 259)

Prophet Lorenzo Snow, and his counselor George Q. Cannon, later declared this doctrine publicly:

President George Q. Cannon also spoke … he said, "There are those in this audience who are descendants of the old Twelve Apostles - and shall I say it, yes, descendants of the Saviour Himself. His seed is represented in this body of men.

Following Pres. Cannon, President Snow arose and said that what Bro. Cannon had stated respecting the literal descendants among this company of the old apostles and the Saviour himself is true - the Saviour’s seed is represented in this body of men. (Journal of Pres. Rudger Clawson, pp. 374-375)

 

[why_me]

The argument about the two sticks will never go anywhere since the bible is open to interpretation. Mormons have their claim and catholics have their claim. It is going nowhere. Now as to the question who wrote the book of mormon, now that is a tougher question to answer and the answer is far from simple. Some claim Joseph Smith, some claim Sidney Rigdon and some claim ancient prophets.

Now we need to deconstruct the sources. First could Joseph Smith have written it? At the time of JS, very few believed that he could have written it and that is why they tried to find the original source. But they were unsuccessful and the church continued to grow.

Now who could have written the book? Not JS that is for sure since part of the translation process had him with his head in his hat reciting what is now known as the book of mormon. Of course the translation process occured in other ways but no one saw a manucript in Jospeh’s possession. Quite amazing to write a book in manucript and then memorize it and repeat it through memory by reciting it to someone. I don’t think that it could happen.

Then we have sidney who constantly denied writing the book when he were alive. Some critics at that time assumed it was sidney but he constantly denied it and very few mormons (if any) at that time could believe that he wrote it. They knew him, spoke with him, and believe that he didn’t write the book.

Also, difficult to write a book, pass it on to some farm boy, and have him memorize it, stick his head in a hat to recite it. Truly amazing if this occured but probably not. And so that leaves the third explanation: written by prophets.

Now of course, we also have 11 witnesses who claimed to see the plates and at least 8 of them claimed to have touched the plates and turned the leafs over. And they claimed that it was a spiritual experience not a man made experience.

Quite interesting really. And difficult to disprove.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Ephraim? Are you sure?

Thank you for posting this. The whole descendants of Ephraim is a little dubious sounding. Though I’ve heard from various Mormons (including in a few books) that many are told that it is through adoption that they are part of the tribe of Ephraim.

 

[why_me]

I don’t see what any of that has to do with what I said, except that it is using the Book of Mormon to prove itself.

How does the entire Bible equal “Judah”?

To argue these points is not easy nor do I find it productive. It is quite impossible to change a person’s mind. If it were easy, we would not have so many chritian chruches in the world today. All have a differing interpretation of the certain sections in the bible.

Mormons have thier interpretation and catholics have their interpretations. In the end, it doesn’t really matter who is right and who is wrong. We will not be judged on it.

Let us follow Thomas Á Kempis when he writes: What good can it do you to discuss the mystery of God the trinity in learned terms if you lack humility and so displease that God? Learned arguments do not make a man holy and righteous, whereas a good life makes him dear to god.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Quite interesting really. And difficult to disprove.

And as difficult as you think it is to disprove the official Mormon story as to how the Book of Mormon came to be, others think the converse. And as much as you may believe FAIR apologetics, others do not buy it, and have their own theories. FAIR apologists may think they disprove these other theories, however to non-FAIR persons, they have not done so. This is how religion works. Whether it’s the Koran, Dianetics, the Bible, the Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book (Shakers, which interestingly was given by an angel, and has 8 witnesses), the Bhagavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon, people believe the claims surrounding them (and put up “evidence” to support them), and others do not (and also put up “evidence”). For us, these other theories of the Book of Mormon (both internal and external evidences) “prove” to us that the Book of Mormon is not scripture. To Mormons, they believe that this is not proof, and believe in the official story.

Also, your understanding of the other theories is lacking and very rudimentary. Please read more. I’m currently reading an interesting 52 page article on the subject. Yes, it is okay to read “anti-Mormon” websites to see the other side. I regularly read “anti-Catholic” websites, and post on them, to see the other side. You learn a lot, not only about them, but about yourself and your beliefs.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

To argue these points is not easy nor do I find it productive. It is quite impossible to change a person’s mind. If it were easy, we would not have so many chritian chruches in the world today. All have a differing interpretation of the certain sections in the bible.

Mormons have thier interpretation and catholics have their interpretations. In the end, it doesn’t really matter who is right and who is wrong. We will not be judged on it.

Let us follow Thomas Á Kempis when he writes: What good can it do you to discuss the mystery of God the trinity in learned terms if you lack humility and so displease that God? Learned arguments do not make a man holy and righteous, whereas a good life makes him dear to god.

LOL! If you actually believe this, then you really shouldn’t be posting on these issues, disrupting those of us, Mormon and Catholic (and others) that actually want to discuss these issues (and not just copy and paste from FAIR, then claim that it’s pointless to discuss these things, HAHA).

 

[why_me]

On the two sticks here is what the mormons said in their magazine Ensign a few years ago:

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1987.htm/ensign%20february%201987.htm/ezekiels%20sticks%20and%20the%20gathering%20of%20israel.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Ezekiel’s Sticks and the Gathering of Israel
By Keith Meservy

Ezekiel’s ancient prophecy of the two “sticks”—or books—does more than foresee the Bible and Book of Mormon. It marks the coming of the Book of Mormon as the beginning of the great latter-day gathering.

Keith Meservy, “Ezekiel’s Sticks and the Gathering of Israel,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, 4

Many critics have long frowned upon the Latter-day Saint interpretation of sticks in Ezekiel’s prophecy (Ezek. 37:15–20) as two books of scripture—the Bible and the Book of Mormon. They insist that sticks, either scrolls or tallies, do not make scriptures, and that, even if they do, Latter-day Saints are taking the prophecy out of context: chapter 37 as a whole discusses the gathering of Israel, not books of scripture. They suggest that stick really represents a scepter, a tribe or one of the divided kingdoms of Judah or Israel

It continues from there…and the above does sound like some of the lds critics on this thread.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

On the two sticks here is what the mormons said in their magazine Ensign a few years ago:

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1987.htm/ensign%20february%201987.htm/ezekiels%20sticks%20and%20the%20gathering%20of%20israel.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Ezekiel’s Sticks and the Gathering of Israel
By Keith Meservy

Ezekiel’s ancient prophecy of the two “sticks”—or books—does more than foresee the Bible and Book of Mormon. It marks the coming of the Book of Mormon as the beginning of the great latter-day gathering.

Keith Meservy, “Ezekiel’s Sticks and the Gathering of Israel,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, 4

Many critics have long frowned upon the Latter-day Saint interpretation of sticks in Ezekiel’s prophecy (Ezek. 37:15–20) as two books of scripture—the Bible and the Book of Mormon. They insist that sticks, either scrolls or tallies, do not make scriptures, and that, even if they do, Latter-day Saints are taking the prophecy out of context: chapter 37 as a whole discusses the gathering of Israel, not books of scripture. They suggest that stick really represents a scepter, a tribe or one of the divided kingdoms of Judah or Israel

It continues from there…and the above does sound like some of the lds critics on this thread.

Yes, I read that, and already addressed it with my views. There is no reason to believe that there was anything else on the sticks besides what Ezekiel wrote and what God told him to write in Ezekiel 37 (yes, he wrote on them, critics do not all say that he didn’t). Please read this thread.

 

[why_me]

LOL! If you actually believe this, then you really shouldn’t be posting on these issues, disrupting those of us, Mormon and Catholic (and others) that actually want to discuss these issues (and not just copy and paste from FAIR, then claim that it’s pointless to discuss these things, HAHA).

Actually if you are a good catholic, you need to read The Imitation of Christ by Kempis. It is a great book that dwells on the holy and spiritual life. For example he states. Even if I know everything in the world, if I do not have love (I cor. 13:2), what good will it do me in the presence of God, who will judge me by what I have done?

I have said over and over again the importance of love on this section of the forum. But… I saw no love among some posters as they engaged their mormon brother and sister on learned topics. And when I did speak on love, it did not go over very well.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Actually if you are a good catholic, you need to read The Imitation of Christ by Kempis. It is a great book that dwells on the holy and spiritual life. For example he states. Even if I know everything in the world, if I do not have love (I cor. 13:2), what good will it do me in the presence of God, who will judge me by what I have done?

I have said over and over again the importance of love on this section of the forum. But… I saw no love among some posters as they engaged their mormon brother and sister on learned topics. And when I did speak on love, it did not go over very well.

More deflection. I’ll post this again:

“LOL! If you actually believe this, then you really shouldn’t be posting on these issues, disrupting those of us, Mormon and Catholic (and others) that actually want to discuss these issues (and not just copy and paste from FAIR, then claim that it’s pointless to discuss these things, HAHA).”

 

[why_me]

Yes, I read that, and already addressed it with my views. There is no reason to believe that there was anything else on the sticks besides what Ezekiel wrote and what God told him to write in Ezekiel 37 (yes, he wrote on them, critics do not all say that he didn’t). Please read this thread.

The mormons have a good case for their interpretation. You may not agree with it, but that does not matter. In the end, it makes no difference. What does make a difference is to follow christ with love in the heart and holiness in the soul. For example: The soul is not satisfied by words in their thousands, whereas a good life sets the mind at rest, and a pure conscience give assurance before god.

Isn’t Kempis great?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The mormons have a good case for their interpretation. You may not agree with it, but that does not matter. In the end, it makes no difference. What does make a difference is to follow christ with love in the heart and holiness in the soul. For example: The soul is not satisfied by words in their thousands, whereas a good life sets the mind at rest, and a pure conscience give assurance before god.

Isn’t Kempis great?

Yes, you believe that they have a good case in their interpretation, I and others believe that they do not (especially if we’re talking specifically about that article, it delves into many irrelevant matters when Ezekiel 37 itself tells us what was written on the sticks and what they represent (and there is no reason to believe that what God said to write on the sticks was a cover page, as the article asserts. That’s reading something into the passage that isn’t there. The passage itself never says or implies that others would be writing on the sticks, let alone that they were scriptures).

If in the end, it makes no difference, then you really don’t need to copy/paste apologetics from FAIR and other sources then just claim it doesn’t matter . It’s much better to discuss with people that actually think it matters.

 

[why_me]

More deflection. I’ll post this again:

“LOL! If you actually believe this, then you really shouldn’t be posting on these issues, disrupting those of us, Mormon and Catholic (and others) that actually want to discuss these issues (and not just copy and paste from FAIR, then claim that it’s pointless to discuss these things, HAHA).”

First, the thread is about who wrote the book of mormon. Second, we have been down this road before with these type of arguments and discussions. And that is fine, especially if you want to discuss learned issues that will lead to nowhere.

Now a separate thread about the two sticks is fine but this thread should be about the book of mormon and who wrote it.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

First, the thread is about who wrote the book of mormon. Second, we have been down this road before with these type of arguments and discussions. And that is fine, especially if you want to discuss learned issues that will lead to nowhere.

Now a separate thread about the two sticks is fine but this thread should be about the book of mormon and who wrote it.

From the OP:

Ezekiel 37:15-20 says, “15 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.”

So, the stick of Judah was written by the descendants of Judah(Jews) in the land of Judah.

So also, the stick of Joseph was written by the descendants of Joseph in the land of Joseph(Americas). And the Lord called the prophet Joseph to bring this work forth.

I am discussing what these passages mean, and was doing that just fine with ParkerD. If you do not want to discuss that, that is fine. Remember, you said this is all pointless. Discussing who wrote the Book of Mormon specifically will also lead to nowhere, using your logic.

 

[why_me]

I am discussing what these passages mean, and was doing that just fine with ParkerD. If you do not want to discuss that, that is fine. Remember, you said this is all pointless. Discussing who wrote the Book of Mormon specifically will also lead to nowhere, using your logic.

You are right. The OP stated a topic that did not really make sense to the rest of his post. However, mormons have their own interpretation of those verses. And catholics have their interpretation. Everyone knows that this would be the case. If catholics would have the mormon interpretation, they would join the lds faith.

One of the problems with the bible is that most of it is open to interpretation by differing sects. God could have been more detailed or specific. But I suppose that he wanted to create such confusion among the ranks of his followers.

 

[ParkerD]

Ephraim? Are you sure?

Hi, Paul,
That was a funny one about “Apostle Judge Adams”. I’ve never heard of him. Sometimes I think some people were misunderstanding what they thought they heard when they thought they heard something and wrote it in their journal.

I’ve read that Joseph Smith was a literal descendant of Ephraim. Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young taught that. (Doctrines of Salvation, III, p. 247)

ThuriferAcolyte,
Many will be “adopted in” to the house of Israel and thus be called “Abraham’s seed”, most often through the tribe of Ephraim is what I have heard, but there have also been many literal descendants of Ephraim who have joined in the past and others (literal descendants of Ephraim) who are still hearing the voice of the “Good Shepherd” as they have opportunity and have been prepared with an open heart and a desire to find out about their ancient heritage. The Bible is clear that Ephraim’s descendants would be scattered among the nations.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

You are right. The OP stated a topic that did not really make sense to the rest of his post. However, mormons have their own interpretation of those verses. And catholics have their interpretation. Everyone knows that this would be the case. If catholics would have the mormon interpretation, they would join the lds faith.

One of the problems with the bible is that most of it is open to interpretation by differing sects. God could have been more detailed or specific. But I suppose that he wanted to create such confusion among the ranks of his followers.

That is hardly a problem with the Bible (or God ), but shows the need for an authoritative interpreter, whether one believes that to be the Catholic, Orthodox, LDS, or whatever church.

 

[Kdesiel]

The argument about the two sticks will never go anywhere since the bible is open to interpretation. Mormons have their claim and catholics have their claim. It is going nowhere. Now as to the question who wrote the book of mormon, now that is a tougher question to answer and the answer is far from simple. Some claim Joseph Smith, some claim Sidney Rigdon and some claim ancient prophets.

The discussion on the tow sticks I find quite interesting, and I see it going somewhere. I have been following along passively and learning some interesting points. Both Parker and T.A have covered some good ground and I can say I’ve found it quite enjoyable. If you don’t like it, ignore the conversation and find another one to comment on, but don’t speak for me when you say “this is going nowhere” when in actuality it is a good example of productive debate and discussion between two people. So Shhhhhhh…Quiet down the grownups are speaking I’m trying to listen.

J.Smith didn’t write the BoM…alone anyways. Oliver, Sydney and Joseph worked on the book together. You can’t simply break it down by asking Could J.Smith write such a story…yes yes he could. Judging by his later teachings and how off the wall they were it is quite possible he had just the right amount of imagination to at the very least come up with the story line or concept of the book. To keep saying that he recited the translation while others transcribed the words to paper, is an opinion not fact. The fact is no one knows exactly, the only accounts of the translation are biased accounts so they don’t carry much weight.
I say compare the context of the writings to the true word of God the Bible. How do the teachings of the BoM stack up with the doctrines Christ spelled out in the Bible? Is the Christ in the Bible the same as the Christ spoken of in the BoM? Do they teach the same things? Are they one in the same? “My house is a house of order” if it were truth and a divinely translated work the Christ’s in both books wouldn’t differ but would be the same in deed and teaching. The fact is …They aren’t.

Now let’s use the Pearl of Great Price as an example to J.Smiths translating ability. J.Smith claimed he translated the scrolls which contained the Book of Abraham and writings from Joseph. He is quoted in saying the scrolls were written by “Abraham’s hand”
Being a Prophet with the Almighty as his guide could he be wrong? Later when a good portion of the scrolls were found, they were translated by well known Egyptologists and guess what…yeah no book of Abraham, The Book of the Dead and sections of The Breathing Texts, writings commonly placed with ancient Egyptians upon burial. When the writing styles compared to the writing styles of Abrahams time…yup they don’t match up, in fact the writing on the scrolls was done some 1500 years AFTER Abraham.
So if we’ve proved The Pearl of Great Price was in fact not what J.Smith said it to be, how can we accept the BoM? J.Smith said he translated it through the inspiration of God, but with knowledge not only that we have today but, Egyptologists in the late 1800’s also witnessed to the falsity of his translation, could it be that J.Smith just lied? He construed another book, a book to reinforce other controversial teachings he was introducing to the church at the time?

By comparing texts, the lack of philosophical evidence, the lack of physical evidence, and the example of one so called translation being proved to be false, we can now come to the conclusion the authorship of the BoM is not divine in nature.

 

[why_me]

And as difficult as you think it is to disprove the official Mormon story as to how the Book of Mormon came to be, others think the converse. And as much as you may believe FAIR apologetics, others do not buy it, and have their own theories. FAIR apologists may think they disprove these other theories, however to non-FAIR persons, they have not done so. This is how religion works. Whether it’s the Koran, Dianetics, the Bible, the Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book (Shakers, which interestingly was given by an angel, and has 8 witnesses), the Bhagavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon, people believe the claims surrounding them (and put up “evidence” to support them), and others do not (and also put up “evidence”). For us, these other theories of the Book of Mormon (both internal and external evidences) “prove” to us that the Book of Mormon is not scripture. To Mormons, they believe that this is not proof, and believe in the official story.

Yes, but here is the point. A theory is a theory and has nothing to do with truth. For example, if I say that I have a theory about how the Koran came to be, it does not make it true. It is just a theory. All the books that you mentioned including the bible have people claiming theories about how they came to be. But what theory is truth or if any of the theories are true, needs to be proven. And no critic has proven their theory true about the book of mormon. Now of course, I can have a theory. But that doesn’t mean much. But going about validating the theory is a much harder enterprise.

For example, if I am an atheist and claim that the bible is a fairy tale. You may claim that the bible is the word of god. It is up and it is up to you to prove it. And unfortunately, it can not be done. But certainly science is claiming to make inroads in proving the bible a fairy tale. But…it can never be certain that it is. It only can produce what it considers to be evidence that humans were not divinely created.

Can you prove god’s existence? Can you prove the bible true? No. Can you prove the book of mormon not true? No. But we are free to believe what we want to believe…until prove tells us otherwise.