- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
President Benson made his quote 21 years ago. Over the last 21 years, the Church has quietly accepted changes advocated by FARMS–the limited geography theory, intermingled lamanites (DNA issues). They have given tacit support, and this alone challenges the Book of Mormon, to me. Statements made by Prophets and Apostles for the last 160 years or so have been “wrong”. Why can’t FARMS find any real, legitimate, evidence to support the BOM? Why are Church academics having to jump through hoops to get things to work? The obvious answer is that the book was written by Joseph Smith–a variety of plagiarism, imagination, and local theories. It is rather, one of the–if not the–biggest creators of doubt about the Church and Joseph. wordsleuth23 wrote:It is rather, one of the–if not the–biggest creators of doubt about the Church and Joseph.
It’s also one of the biggest driver for convert baptisms, quite a paradox!
wordsleuth23 wrote:The obvious answer is that the book was written by Joseph Smith
Even with that being the case (I personally lean in this direction), the Book of Mormon is an enigma. There it is! (wherever it really came from). It is an amazing synthesis of all the major religious, cultural and historical questions of his day, written by scribes, as a very young man dictated it with his face buried in an old hat. The existence of it, regardless of its true creation, is epic. Joseph was an inspired religious genius, and that is pretty much how all prophets throughout the ages produced their work.
So even my doubts loop me back to belief in the value.
Could it be that ending doubt is not the same thing as filling in all the blanks to perfect knowledge? It seems to me that he is saying that if one can discover the BofM is true, then it would give them reason to believe in the rest or exercise faith in the rest. Until knowledge and greater understanding of things and process can confirm ones faith.
Isn’t this the essence of “line upon line”?
Valoel wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:The obvious answer is that the book was written by Joseph Smith
Even with that being the case (I personally lean in this direction), the Book of Mormon is an enigma. There it is! (wherever it really came from). It is an amazing synthesis of all the major religious, cultural and historical questions of his day, written by scribes, as a very young man dictated it with his face buried in an old hat. The existence of it, regardless of its true creation, is epic. Joseph was an inspired religious genius, and that is pretty much how all prophets throughout the ages produced their work.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I lean in that direction, but honestly the BoM is a mystery to me in many ways still. Much of Joseph’s later actions, I think, have plausible explanations (other than a direct link to God), but the BoM is definitely not well explained by any of the current explanations in my book.I think I’ll just stop coming since Valoel expresses my thoughts so well.
Okay, not really. You didn’t think you could get rid of me that easily did you?
jmb275 wrote:
I think I’ll just stop coming since Valoel expresses my thoughts so well.Okay, not really. You didn’t think you could get rid of me that easily did you?
jmb, I’ve really enjoyed your comments since you joined. I doubt anyone wants to get rid of you!HiJolly
In saying that I believe Joseph wrote the BOM, I’m also saying I don’t find it to be an enigma. Initially, I did; why? Because my whole life I was told how uneducated Joseph was; how impossible it would have been for him to write the BOM; etc, etc. My natural mindset towards the issue is that Joseph wasn’t smart enough to do it on his own. Careful study shows otherwise; The Book of the Hebrews–written before the BOM–is similar, and there is good reason to believe Joseph was aware of its theories. There is a tremendous amount of borrowing from the Bible. There is incorporation of local theory about Indians, and stuff Joseph thought of himself. Ultimately, this doesn’t mean the Church isn’t “true”, but it certainly casts doubt upon it. Minus some FARMS gymnastics, nothing about the BOM has been proved, but plenty of it has been disproved. How can I believe it’s true, and by true I mean real/actual. wordsleuth23 wrote:The obvious answer is that the book was written by Joseph Smith–a variety of plagiarism, imagination, and local theories.
This is true, IMO. I’ve spent a little time reading the debates and books on “Who really wrote the Book of Mormon” (and that book). I think the jury is still out about whether Joseph borrowed from Spalding, etc., or whether Vogl’s “pious fraud theory” is accurate. There are strong feelings either way. But what I find interesting, and helpful to me is to try to put myself in their time. They call this “presentism.”
Many people had visions and dreams that were considered real messages from God. In fact, dreams were acceptable as evidence in a court of law! So I think it’s even possible that Joseph believed that he was a prophet…even if he made up a lot of the claims. I’m actually compelled to lean toward much of what Robert Beckstead said about possible hallucinogens helping the visionary process back then. I don’t have strong convictions either way. But I think there are good teachings in the book, and I think many benefit from following them.
wordsleuth23 wrote:In saying that I believe Joseph wrote the BOM, I’m also saying I don’t find it to be an enigma. Initially, I did; why? Because my whole life I was told how uneducated Joseph was; how impossible it would have been for him to write the BOM; etc, etc. My natural mindset towards the issue is that Joseph wasn’t smart enough to do it on his own. Careful study shows otherwise; The Book of the Hebrews–written before the BOM–is similar, and there is good reason to believe Joseph was aware of its theories. There is a tremendous amount of borrowing from the Bible. There is incorporation of local theory about Indians, and stuff Joseph thought of himself. Ultimately, this doesn’t mean the Church isn’t “true”, but it certainly casts doubt upon it. Minus some FARMS gymnastics, nothing about the BOM has been proved, but plenty of it has been disproved. How can I believe it’s true, and by true I mean real/actual.
Hey, you’re preaching to the choir man. The point I’m raising is that there is still no good explanation for how Joseph did it in so short a time, and what his motivation was. I can conceive of explanations for the former, but the latter, I haven’t heard anything very convincing. I know there are other prodigies who have written equally amazing things at his age. And certainly Tolkien’s work rivals Joseph’s in creativity. But Joseph did all this in a very short amount of time, and for what reason?I’m in your camp, I lean toward believing it to be a 19th century work. But I still wouldn’t claim that with any certainty.
Rix wrote:I’ve spent a little time reading the debates and books on “Who really wrote the Book of Mormon” (and that book). I think the jury is still out about whether Joseph borrowed from Spalding, etc., or whether Vogl’s “pious fraud theory” is accurate.
I would say the Spaulding theory is unlikely. It’s a very tempting theory, but the evidence is weak in my opinion. Too weak to say anything definitive.jmb275 wrote:Rix wrote:I’ve spent a little time reading the debates and books on “Who really wrote the Book of Mormon” (and that book). I think the jury is still out about whether Joseph borrowed from Spalding, etc., or whether Vogl’s “pious fraud theory” is accurate.
I would say the Spaulding theory is unlikely. It’s a very tempting theory, but the evidence is weak in my opinion. Too weak to say anything definitive.You may be right…doesn’t matter much to me, but I think “Uncle Dale” (Dale Broadhurst) has done some good work that is compelling to totally rule the Spalding theory out. The latest wordprint study by Criddle et al out of Stanford lends credence to it too. But again, doesn’t matter to me.
Rix wrote:jmb275 wrote:Rix wrote:I’ve spent a little time reading the debates and books on “Who really wrote the Book of Mormon” (and that book). I think the jury is still out about whether Joseph borrowed from Spalding, etc., or whether Vogl’s “pious fraud theory” is accurate.
I would say the Spaulding theory is unlikely. It’s a very tempting theory, but the evidence is weak in my opinion. Too weak to say anything definitive.You may be right…doesn’t matter much to me, but I think “Uncle Dale” (Dale Broadhurst) has done some good work that is compelling to totally rule the Spalding theory out. The latest wordprint study by Criddle et al out of Stanford lends credence to it too. But again, doesn’t matter to me.
Yes, I read that study by Criddle. It was very interesting. The science seems fairly good.jmb275 wrote:The point I’m raising is that there is still no good explanation for how Joseph did it in so short a time, and what his motivation was. I can conceive of explanations for the former, but the latter, I haven’t heard anything very convincing. I know there are other prodigies who have written equally amazing things at his age. And certainly Tolkien’s work rivals Joseph’s in creativity. But Joseph did all this in a very short amount of time, and for what reason?
How do we know how long it really took Joseph to write the Book of Mormon? Just because he dictated in a relatively short period of time, doesn’t mean it was “written” in that time period. In Lucy Mack Smith’s uncensored autobiography, she talks about Joseph’s remarkable imagination, and he would tell stories for hours that contained BOM References, before he “wrote” the book. A combination of study, the Bible, and a vivid imagination that had worked on the story for a long time–that’s how. You’re right, we’ll never know for sure, but an explanation of this nature makes more sense that the Church story.
wordsleuth23 wrote:jmb275 wrote:The point I’m raising is that there is still no good explanation for how Joseph did it in so short a time, and what his motivation was. I can conceive of explanations for the former, but the latter, I haven’t heard anything very convincing. I know there are other prodigies who have written equally amazing things at his age. And certainly Tolkien’s work rivals Joseph’s in creativity. But Joseph did all this in a very short amount of time, and for what reason?
How do we know how long it really took Joseph to write the Book of Mormon? Just because he dictated in a relatively short period of time, doesn’t mean it was “written” in that time period. In Lucy Mack Smith’s uncensored autobiography, she talks about Joseph’s remarkable imagination, and he would tell stories for hours that contained BOM References, before he “wrote” the book. A combination of study, the Bible, and a vivid imagination that had worked on the story for a long time–that’s how. You’re right, we’ll never know for sure, but an explanation of this nature makes more sense that the Church story.
You’re absolutely right. And this is one reason I conceive it entirely possible that he wrote the book himself. But if we’re to believe the accounts that he looked into a hat with a stone in it, then he wasmighty, mightygood at dictating verbatim. I know there have been changes to the BoM, but on the whole, he was masterful at picking up exactly where he left off, and not skipping a beat. There is more to that than just a remarkable imagination. No doubt he was brilliant, but I consider it at least possible that his story is what actually occurred. What we ought to do is start a new thread on this. I’d like to hear Mormon Heretic’s take on this (he’s done a lot with church history).
I think part of the problem here is that ETB is just lumping too much into one argument. For example, if he would have focused just on the restoration of the gospel then I think his argument would have been stronger. If the BOM actually does come from God then it says a lot about Joseph Smith and the restoration story in general. In addition, it IMPLIES a lot about the church today and it’s leadership. However, it clearly doesn’t follow that all objections to the church can be overcome by the truthfulness of the BOM alone. A couple of issues to consider…
A) To say that the current church leadership must be true prophets because the BOM is true would be similar to claiming that the Jewish Pharisees were true servants of God because the Ten Commandments were true.
Likewise, to assume that the current church leadership must be true prophets because JS was a true prophet falls apart in the same manner. (i.e. Moses was a true prophet therefore the Jewish Pharasees were true servants of God.)C) I believe JS himself would say that the fact that the BOM is from God and that he’s a true prophet doesn’t mean he’s infallible. For example, he made it pretty clear that a prophet is not always a prophet and that he made mistakes all the time.
D) Likewise, even if the current leadership of the church is composed of true prophets of God, it doesn’t follow that they have done everything right and make no mistakes whatsoever. It’s funny, we say that all the time, but when it comes down to it, most LDS seem to still want to believe that they are infallible. In addition, there are plenty of scriptural examples of those called of God doing things that weren’t always correct or even accepted of God.
That said, I think the point ETB was trying to make is still a good one. He just took it too far. I think most of us here would agree that if the BOM really came from God, that would be a fairly significant thing and would probably say a lot about JS. It would also have an impact on the attention that should be given to both the current leadership of the church and to the church itself. If the BOM is true, then all of these things become potentially very significant and are likely worthy of some of our attention. That’s really not too far of a stretch and I think that’s probably the point ETB was trying to make.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.