- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Some on this list are struggling to stay active, others are angry about what they have learned about church history, still others, I suppose, are just fascinated by the church’s history and desire like minds to discuss things with. Given all we know about the translation of the Book of Mormon process from eye witness accounts, what are the prevailing arguments about how Joseph Smith could have been the author of the book? Let me be a bit more precise. We know, for instance, that JS translated by using a peep stone he put into a hat and then put his face into (not the Urim and Thummim). The words would then appear on the stone. It appears that the plates didn’t even need to be present. We know that there were secondary sources available to him, such Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews, the bible (including the Apocrypha), Josiah Priest’s Wonders of the World, etc. We know he was fairly illiterate. Emma said there was no way JS was capable of penning the BofM because he was simply too illiterate. We know the book has a very ‘presentist” dimension to it, tackling many of the religious controversies of JS’s day, such that some people claim it was clearly a 19th century creation. Okay, so what I would like to know is, if these are accurate observations, how does one explain how JS wrote the BofM if, in fact, it was NOT through divine intervention? If you still believe it was by divine intervention, that is fine, of course, but I am interested in people who perhaps do not believe that any longer or who have thought about this issue. Is it possible that JS could have written the BofM? If so, how did he do it? Was it a story he conjured up before hand? Did he simply have the creative powers to tell the story with his face buried in a hat? Did he and the others actually sit down with secondary sources and write it out, such that the whole thing is one big scam? Any thoughts? Thanks, Curt
Curt, I appreciate your questions, but we don’t limit discussion here to just one theory – excluding all others just for the sake of discussion. That is stacking the deck unnecessarily and excludes any who don’t start with that premise. We don’t do that here. This will be a discussion about everyone’s feelings about the Book of Mormon authorship or not a discussion at all.My take on authorship:
Could Joseph have written the Book of Mormon? Iow, could it be nothing more than fiction? Sure, to deny that possibility completely is silly, imo. However, I personally don’t view it that simply – for a number of reasons.
1) I really do believe it is a MUCH more complex record than many assume. I think there are legitimate strengths and arguments to be made regarding: 1) chiasmus; 2) the geography of 1 Nephi (especially); 3) the cultural contrast between the Nephites, the Mulekites and the Jaredites (which, as a history teacher, I can tell you are striking and incredibly accurate for what we know of the groups that might have been the genesis of each group); 4) the consistency of the split-narrative format; 5) the various narrative voices and styles (that shift quite seemlessly, especially when Mormon is recorded as inserting his own commentary smack dab in the middle of quotes from other sources); and more. I don’t pretend that these things “prove” Joseph wasn’t the author, but there are much stronger arguments than most people (even members) realize.
2) Joseph really didn’t understand the Book of Mormon very well – and very few authors misunderstand what their own works actually say to the degree that Joseph did. His lack of understanding is a pretty good argument for the manner in which the transmission is said to hace occurred.
3) There is an element of fluidity in the descriptions of the translation process that would be difficult for someone who simply was making it up – or who had done nothing more than map out a story in his mind over time.
4) In order for it to have been a fraud, as it would have to be if Joseph wasn’t sincere in his description of what happened, there would have had to have been a fairly wide-spread conspiracy – and I just don’t see that in the records we have available to us, even from anti-Mormon sources of the time.
5) I’m not really concerend all that much about what others perceive to be anachronisms – especially since the record itself does a pretty good job explaining why the doctrinal ones are there. As to nearly all of the others, the question of elephants and steel is perhaps the best example of why I don’t spend emotional or intellectual capital worrying about it. There are LOTS of stories of mastadons roaming the American continent(s) in the traditions of the American Indians, and “steel” is much like “man” – a very generic term that could mean much more than the most narrow parsing of the word itself.
6) All of the books that are listed as inspiration for Joseph to have written the Book of Mormon actually are RADICALLY different than it. The central themes, the narrative flow and voices, the cultural statements – pretty much everything indicates that the Book of Mormon isn’t derived from those sources. One could argue reasonably that the genesis of the idea to write the Book of Mormon came from the existence of such books, but I find the idea that they actually provided source texts to be quite weak.
I personally think there is a better argument for “delusion” than for “deceit” – but I choose to believe it was actually an inspired transmission. That is a conscious choice, and I understand very well the arguments against it, but it’s what I have chosen to believe on faith. I’ve read it slowly and carefully and analytically and parsing as I go – and I honestly believe most members still have little idea what it actually contains within its pages.
Also, there is an existing post entitled “Questions about the Book of Mormon”that has 61 comments already. That link is: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=742 I would suggest reading that thread, as well.
I certainly did not mean to imply or aver that all comments on the Book of Mormon’s authorship were not welcome in this thread, and I apologize if it came off that way. I am just interested in what people have to say about the issue, but if the answer is simply, yes, it was divine intervention, then what? I did check the other thread that Ray suggested and I guess it speaks somewhat to what I am getting at but seems to drift more into the veracity of the book rather than the process by which it was created. The BofM is, arguably, a complex book that would seem incapable of authorship by someone like JS (Mark Twain’s criticisms notwithstanding). And yet, BH Roberts argued that he may well have had the imagination to do so. Since we seem to have a fairly accurate record of the translation process, with the peep stone in the hat, and since it certainly seems implausible that there was a wide-spread conspiracy to create the book, i.e., that JS and the others sat around and concocted it, what is the explanation for it? Again, divine intervention is one answer, but aren’t there those on the list who might believe otherwise? Btw, I think Joseph had a great imagination – and I think members do a grave injustice to him when they claim that “a poor, ignorant farm boy couldn’t have written such a book”. I personally think there are aspects of it that are hard to believe he concocted from his imagination – but that has nothing to do with the breadth and depth of his imagination or creativity or intelligence. As I said early on in my first comment, I do believe that he might have written it. I think that’s a legitimate conclusion. In fact, in a way, by using the word “transmission” instead of “translation”, my own view is that the words were his own – not a literal, word-by-word translation. In that sense, I do believe “he wrote it”. I just choose to believe it is a legitimate religio-historical record – or, more broadly, legitimate scripture for me.
I think it is somewhat biased when someones says there is no way Joseph could have written the BoM. Things like his education level, the complexity of the book and others are pointed to as proof that it had to be of divine origin. The problem is one does not prove the other. If Joseph cold not write it it does not necessarily prove it was of god. Additionally I find it interesting that we can not accept that a farmboy was intelligent enough to produce such a work, yet the same individuals will readily accept it being of supernatural origins. I mean from a purely logcical reasoning point of view it is much more realistic to conclude that it was written by men than delivered by an angel. I think this is often the case when something is unexplainable, we ascribe it to the supernatural. Does all this mean I do not believe it is of divine origin. Honestly I do not know. I actually can accept it either way. This may be because my belief in the God and his nature relies very little on the authenticity of the BoM.
I don’t think the answer can ever be known. There are lots of possibilities. It is almost easier to exclude ideas in order to narrow down the possibilites.
There is a very real possibility that is was “channeled” or came about through “automatic writing.” Although, maybe “automatic thought” is a better way to put it.
It seems astounding to me that such a large conspiracy could have existed, but there is a possibility of a multiple authorship conspiracy.
Joseph was a genius IMO. It appears the text was inspired/influenced by a combination of hot topics of his time period and his own life as well as the Bible.
He was a master myth maker.
Some of the unpublished revelations cause me to think “channeling” or “automatic writing” because the language is beyond bizaar. However, it may have been an attempt to sound a certain way and convey a certain message or “spirit.” Humans do seem to have the ability to manifest things in a way that is symbolic of where they are at, um, spiritually (for lack of a better term). I lean towards the belief that things are symbolic representations/manifestations of the human who believes them or holds whatever it is sacred (or created it). This is how it is with all sacred text.
FWIW, Joseph was not a very good writer, but he was very well read. So the often mentioned quality of him being illiterate is only partly true. I am saying this based on Michael Quinn’s “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” which traces many of Joseph’s statements and beliefs to specific books (on the occult and esoteric wisdom in particular) in circulation in the area where he lived. I mean he almost quotes them word for word sometimes. I just wanted to point them out. He was very likely a voracious reader.
I agree with a lot of Ray’s arguments though. I personally find myself more in the “Channeled” camp, and I leave the door wide open to the possibility of divine inspiration in that process.
Like Cadence said, Cadence wrote:my belief in the God and his nature relies very little on the authenticity of the BoM.
I have no burning desire to know whether or not there was a military general named Mormon. But I do feel a desire to cooperate with curt’s premise.
curt wrote:Is it possible that JS could have written the BofM? If so, how did he do it?
If there were no Nephites, I think justme gave the answer for how Joseph Smith could have written the book.
just me wrote:Joseph was a genius IMO.
1. Amazing religious genius
2. Authentic transcendental experience
3. Best available map of Arabia
I think we are sometimes too quick to conclude Joseph couldn’t have juggled mentally the monumental database necessary to concoct the Book of Mormon. Humans are notorious for doing prodigious and extraordinary things. Anecdotes from Joseph’s mother have him clearly immersed in the Book of Mormon world years before starting the translation. Perhaps by the time pen met paper the Book was already written in Joseph’s mind. After all, we know he had been “working on it” for perhaps 7 years.
With all that said, I will go on record with Ray saying that I’m willing to believe that the Book of Mormon is quite possibly more (or other) than meets the eye. Also, like Ray, I at the same time reserve my unwavering belief that the book does not exist to serve our expectations and presumptions. And that the Book is
NOexcuse for any Latter-day Saint to hang his or her hat and prop up his or her feet spiritually. It’s not a proof text. It’s not a cook book. It’s not superhumanly, mythically perfect. It is a sacred text of my religion. Period. I generally stay out of this, but… my two cents. I’m not sure why this happens but Oliver Cowdery gets so little recognition and credit for his role in the creation of the church and the Book of Mormon. Since we’re discussing theories, for me it makes perfect sense that Joseph and Oliver were “inspired” to write the BoM, together. They “translated” over 90% of it together and Oliver is the one that did the typesetting and the proof-reading for the original version. He often made minor changes to the text, etc. without consulting JS. To me that feels like ownership, at some level.
Also, one of the apologetics site did a pretty extensive study/research project to prove that it wasn’t an early 19th century text. Rather it proved to be a 16th century text, concurrent with the King James version of the bible.
Lastly, I don’t understand the idea that the bible is straight from the mouth of God but the BoM is not. If you accept the premise of the NT, that it was written by men decades after the life of Christ, “inspired” by His words, teachings, etc., why not the BoM?? We know as much about the actual existence of Christ as we do about Mormon.
If the Bible inspires you, if the BoM inspires you, then for you, they are scripture. Spiritual food. All claims to historicity in texts that are intended to be spiritual in nature are generally ill-conceived and tend to be discriminatory, at some level, imo. But, I do understand how important certainty is for many.
curt wrote:…what are the prevailing arguments about how Joseph Smith could have been the author of the book? … We know he was fairly illiterate. Emma said there was no way JS was capable of penning the BofM because he was simply too illiterate… how does one explain how JS wrote the BofM if, in fact, it was NOT through divine intervention?
My favorite conspiracy theory about the Book of Mormon is that Sidney Rigdon modified a manuscript he stole from Solomon Spalding that supposedly specifically mentioned Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, and Lamenites according to some signed affidavits. One problem with this theory is that this particular manuscript has never been found and an existing Solomon Spalding manuscript that was found and published actually bears little resemblance to the Book of Mormon. Another problem is that Sidney Rigdon consistently claimed that he didn’t know anything about the Book of Mormon until he received a copy from Parley P. Pratt. Although this theory sounds like it is mostly based on rumors and speculation rather than credible evidence, some researchers at Stanford University actually did a computer wordprint study that they claim supports the Spalding-Rigdon authorship idea.
Personally, I don’t believe Joseph Smith could have just made it all up on the fly while looking at a peep stone in a hat but I do believe he could have easily memorized the story and dictated it regardless of who actually wrote it. Another theory is that maybe Joseph Smith was crazy to the point that he actually believed his own delusions. In this case he could have easily told a story that would sound very different from his own writings. My point is that trying to claim that it is impossible that Joseph Smith could produce the Book of Mormon without supernatural assistance is simply not true because if you use your imagination or look at some existing theories there are definitely other possible explanations that are at least plausible. It’s a question of faith not proof.
Quote:D&C 9: 7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.
11 Behold, it was expedient when you commenced; but you feared, and the time is past, and it is not expedient now;
This passage always strikes me about the relationship between Oliver & Joseph in the translation process. I can identify with Oliver. I feel he had certain assumptions about the process, maybe based on what Joseph described, but when he attempted it, the words didn’t come to him. That could mean:
1 – Joseph was just very confidently making it all up.
2 – Joseph was a more gifted translator or understood God’s communication better.
Obviously, #2 is the more orthodox explanation, but clearly #1 is not ruled out by reading this. I do believe that Joseph believed he was translating an ancient record. But whenever I read this passage, I always imagine that Oliver has to be wondering if Joseph is making this up or really translating. It seems unfair that we assume Oliver, who is very humble and more educated than Joseph, is just a failure as a translator after he was told he could. And this process as described here does not exactly sound like the head in hat, seeing words appear method described elsewhere. So no wonder Oliver couldn’t do it.
And yet I think Ray’s points are also valid. I do agree that delusion is more likely than fraud, and I would also not rule out the possibility that there is some sort of ancient people like the BOM describes. I tend to think literal word-for-word translation is not how this was done, though – more like channeling story telling.
This is one of my “on the shelf” issues. Whether some form of “inspired fiction” or more literal history I’m not concerned, the scriptural value to me personally comes from the text itself, not in how it came to be. There was a time, in the heat of my personal faith crisis, that I felt a need to account for the book via physical origin. I always had the impression that Joseph was not enough of a bible scholar to develop the story entirely on his own. I was intrigued by some of the parallels to Rigdon’s teaching – but I don’t give the Spaulding theory any credence. The Spaulding manuscript that was recovered debunks that supposed tie fairly well in my opinion.
I don’t think Joseph was a conscious fraud, there was too much supernaturalism in his surroundings for him not to believe in supernatural sources. Being human I suppose he wondered how much he was inspired sometimes. My opinion.
I like the point that Swimordie brings up, and it makes me wonder what the process was for the origination of the bible scriptures? Was the Book of Mormon so much different on a process level? The words come from some source, through an individual, to a written text which is then reviewed and edited and agreed as portraying the correct meaning/teachings. I also think the events surrounding it are to be considered. In other words, it wasn’t written and then published for lots of money. It wasn’t published and then decades later another person picks it up and finds it has meaning to start a church, and goes back to prop Joseph up as brilliant. It seems to be what it was said to have been from the beginning…a book of scripture and people were drawn to it and supported it from the beginning and it doesn’t appear it can be proven (as Cadence wrote), but is a matter of faith. And it was only 1 piece in the puzzle of what Joseph was claiming to do…not the end goal. If the other pieces of the puzzle were not equally important (establishing a church, teaching doctrines, establishing temples, serving people, etc), the book would just go away as interesting but unimportant.
I think more amazing than the ability to produce it, is to produce it with a purpose that hasn’t changed much over 180 years. But I guess I focus more on the purpose and the message (like Orson wrote) than the details of the process because I’m open to that process being not of this world. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE learning more about seer stones and details of the history which are fascinating…but ultimately, despite what the details are and what is correctly taught to me in classes, it is only as important to me as the message it contains.
To make my point: If an Angel came down and was videotaped teaching calculus, that would be an amazing story. But not as important to my spirituality as a man claiming to be a prophet producing a book that helps me develop greater charity for my fellow man.
Time for me to weigh in on one of my favorite issues to discuss! However, everyone has already made such good points. I agree with most of what has been said. Here are some additional questions that arise for me: 1. What about Muhammed? Do you feel a need to account for the origin of the Quran? It is not obvious to me that the origins of that book are significantly different than the BoM or D&C (especially if one takes the “channeled” approach as has been described here). I see little reason to believe in the divinity of the BoM and not the Quran. Having said that, I think the Quran contains a lot of “inspired” things. I just finished reading a biography of Muhammed and I was blown away at the similarities to Joseph and the early church.
2. I have yet to hear a convincing argument as an alternative to Joseph’s story. There are some I think are more plausible than others, and I tend to agree with Hawkgrrrl that Oliver Cowdery’s role is sorely undervalued. If it is not authentically historical, then I think Joseph and Oliver were likely the main authors (though I cannot deny it is in some way inspired, even if only by current events).
3. I don’t feel compelled to have a definitive theory on the origin of the BoM to be skeptical of Joseph’s claims. Anyone can claim all sorts of nonsense but it doesn’t mean it’s the best explanation even if I can’t explain it. I don’t believe in ghosts and yet I can’t explain all the mysteries of why strange things happen.
4. Tolkien invented an entire world, and mythology with carefully crafted cultures, individuals, and even an entire language to go along with it. He was a genius as well in my book. And yet, I don’t think Lord of the Rings is a historical record or “true” (nor would I even if Tolkien claimed it was). But then again, Joseph did what he did in a very short amount of time with much less education when compared to Tolkien. I only say this to point out that it is certainly conceivable that it could have been written by Joseph and Oliver. People have done amazing things all throughout history!
5. I also don’t get the impression that it was a fraud. I really believe Joseph thought his experiences were legit. I can’t fault him for that. Although in his later life I think he became a sort of philosopher king, I think early on he was being sincere. This is part of what makes the BoM a huge conundrum. I don’t think anyone can deny that it is an amazing book despite its origins.
6. A huge turnoff for me is the method. I think methods are important, and I am highly skeptical of the method of translating an ancient book from golden plates via a rock in a hat (and so are many others, which is why it is whitewashed in our church). Why am I skeptical? Not because I don’t think it could happen, but because the method is unreliable. Perhaps this truly is part of God’s method. If that’s the case, I don’t think it would be unreasonable for God to give those of us who are less credulous a bit stronger witness of some kind. Yet that doesn’t seem to happen for me (of course I’m less credulous on witnesses as well, so maybe it’s all my fault).
My conclusion:
Right now I am very uncertain about this aspect of the church. The BoM is truly a mystery to me. However, as of right now, I side on the inspired fiction side, though I stress that I do think it is inspired. Joseph was not illiterate (although he couldn’t write that well) and he was, IMHO, a genius, particularly of religion. And if ever there was a case for a prophet, he makes a very strong on. But then again, so does Muhammed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.