LA Times Book Review: The Book of Mormon

[Jashon]

Before starting up once more with a well-traveled theory like this, it would be good to read the text itself and the relevant academic literature.

[Telavian]

VH mentions Jerusalem's walls 30 times! But in 1828 JS didn't know that Jerusalem had walls. Solid evidence that he hadn't read through VH by that time.

Yes, very solid! Thank you so much!

[Seed Starter]

Right off the bat in VH, chapter 1 and emphasized, is that Jerusalem had three walls.

Most of this city was surrounded with three walls. In some places, where it was deemed inaccessible, it had only one. The wall first built was adorned and strengthened with sixty towers. Fourteen towers rested on the middle wall. The outside one, (most remarkable for its workmanship) was secured with ninety towers.

So Joseph Smith absorbed all the themes of VH, but he somehow didn't know when he was dictating the Book of Mormon that Salem had walls.

VH mentions Jerusalem's walls 30 times! But in 1828 JS didn't know that Jerusalem had walls. Solid evidence that he hadn't read through VH by that time.

Is that solid evidence? If I was borrowing ideas from a book but didn't want people to catch on wouldn't leaving something important like that out help me and those to come give credence to the idea that I was just doing my own thing? Middle school kids copying stuff from Wikipedia for an assignment are often smart enough to make it seem more legit by not copying it all or changing the order. If the devil was telling Joseph what to write wouldn't he be smart enough to be aware of VH and make sure Joseph left out that part so people could give JS an out later on? He is the master of deception. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying there are possible explanations for the wall thing that may be problematic for the JS/BOM apologists. I have no evidence and I'm not making a claim here, just thinking out loud.

Mormonism especially modern Mormonism seems like a pretty good vehicle to get folks into idol worship of all kinds (temple/psr's/ kingdoms to come). The devil would surely include all manner of special witnesses of Christ in his plan to lead men away from Christ as seen in the church today. People that want to do good and be good would never follow anything overtly satanic. Twisting Christianity seems like a much more clever better way to go.

[Telavian]

Is that solid evidence? If I was borrowing ideas from a book but didn't want people to catch on wouldn't leaving something important like that out help me and those to come give credence to the idea that I was just doing my own thing? Middle school kids copying stuff from Wikipedia for an assignment are often smart enough to make it seem more legit by not copying it all or changing the order. If the devil was telling Joseph what to write wouldn't he be smart enough to be aware of VH and make sure Joseph left out that part so people could give JS an out later on? He is the master of deception. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying there are possible explanations for the wall thing that may be problematic for the JS/BOM apologists. I have no evidence and I'm not making a claim here, just thinking out loud.

Mormonism especially modern Mormonism seems like a pretty good vehicle to get folks into idol worship of all kinds (temple/psr's/ kingdoms to come). The devil would surely include all manner of special witnesses of Christ in his plan to lead men away from Christ as seen in the church today. People that want to do good and be good would never follow anything overtly satanic. Twisting Christianity seems like a much more clever better way to go.

Anyone who really thinks about this would agree with you.

However, inevitably anytime this discussion comes up people say something like:
Book X couldn't have been a source text because the Book of Mormon talks about 1, 2, 3 and X doesn't.
Or they say book X talks about 1, 2, 3 and the Book of Mormon doesn't.
Or book X has 1, 2, 3 and JS didn't know this.

I understand where they are coming from. However, it fundamentally fails to understand the concept being discussed.

[larsenb]

Are you saying that BH Roberts was wrong when he claims that some of the Book of Mormon was invented by Joseph?

What does BH Roberts or you mean by invented?

Invented means not from God but from Joseph's mind.

You seem to be upset about this. However, this doesn't mean the Book of Mormon is not scripture. God could have given Joseph ideas that Joseph used to fill in the blanks. Scripture is a partnership between God and man. It is rarely "Thus saith the Lord".

And maybe the adversary gave Ethan Smith some of his ideas in order to help undermine belief in the Book of Mormon in a few people. It can cut both ways.

[Telavian]

And maybe the adversary gave Ethan Smith some of his ideas in order to help undermine belief in the Book of Mormon in a few people. It can cut both ways.

Yes, this could be true.

[Hogmeister]

And if this is the best case you got with these loosey goosey parallels (that are really reaching) we have nothing to worry about.

A story with 14 exact parallels, then a work with at least 33 parallels. Two different books that describe a Jewish group fleeing, a sea voyage, breaking into two warring groups, form a republic, more wars, then Messiah visits and extensive peace.

People see what they want to see. I am certain of that.

Read the friggin tale man. So you know what kind of absurd horse you are riding. They are not the exact parallells you imagine they are.

How many books existed before 1829? The longer the book the more coincidental and non-coincidental parallels it will have with other books. That said they are not exact parallels. Anyone intellectually honest enough to actually read the tale will see that.

The example you are using is about as solid as the claim that the 1st Book of Napoleon matches or parallels the 1st Book of Nephi.

[Telavian]

They are not the exact parallells you imagine they are.

I never claimed they were.

That said they are not exact parallels.

I never claimed they were.

The example you are using is about as solid as the claim that the 1st Book of Napoleon matches or parallels the 1st Book of Nephi.

So you are claiming two different books with massive parallels are on the same level as two different books with virtually no parallels? Why is this? This seems confusing and strange.

Do you think this explanation would be sufficient in a college level literature class if you wrote a paper which shared substantial thematic elements with another student?

[Jashon]

And maybe the adversary gave Ethan Smith some of his ideas in order to help undermine belief in the Book of Mormon in a few people. It can cut both ways.

Yes, this could be true.

If you read the intro to the 1996 edition of VH (pasted above), you will see that E. Smith used material from Boudinot and Adair, 1816 and 1775. So E. Smith got some of his ideas from other humans.

In any event, the proposal being put forth here is that JS used PP and VH and any number of works (whatever might come to mind as a potential source), to formulate parts of the Book of Mormon, and that there was either fraud or delusion at work. This proposal also means that he was a pseudo-biblical author, and so the linguistic profile of the Book of Mormon should be roughly that of a pseudo-biblical writing; there are a number of specimens of that genre to look at, including 1st book of Napoleon and the Late War, etc.

[Telavian]

If you read the intro to the 1996 edition of VH (pasted above), you will see that E. Smith used material from Boudinot and Adair, 1816 and 1775. So E. Smith got some of his ideas from other humans.

You are claiming that Ethan can get inspiration from other sources, but Joseph can't?

In any event, the proposal being put forth here is that JS used PP and VH and any number of works (whatever might come to mind as a potential source), to formulate parts of the Book of Mormon, and that there was either fraud or delusion at work.

This is not true. Why does there have to be fraud or delusion?

This proposal also means that he was a pseudo-biblical author, and so the linguistic profile of the Book of Mormon should be roughly that of a pseudo-biblical writing;

This is not true.

[Jashon]

You are claiming that Ethan can get inspiration from other sources, but Joseph can't?

No, I was responding to someone's suggestion that E. Smith might have received parallel ideas from the devil, anticipating the Book of Mormon. I didn't say that JS couldn't.

In any event, the proposal being put forth here is that JS used PP and VH and any number of works (whatever might come to mind as a potential source), to formulate parts of the Book of Mormon, and that there was either fraud or delusion at work.

This is not true. Why does there have to be fraud or delusion?

Because JS said that he received the Book of Mormon from God while the proposal is that he was responsible for the Book of Mormon, in which he incorporated thematic material from various texts that he was exposed to, such as PP and VH. If this isn't what you're thinking, then why don't you state quite clearly what you are thinking.

This proposal also means that he was a pseudo-biblical author, and so the linguistic profile of the Book of Mormon should be roughly that of a pseudo-biblical writing;

This is not true.

No, Book of Mormon English is quite archaic, which any English speaker familiar with the KJV can discern, much more archaic than VH, which wasn't even an attempt by E. Smith to be archaic. Also, JS spoke modern English, verifiable in his writings, and just like everyone around him. So if he authored the Book of Mormon, then he was imitating older English, just like pseudo-biblical authors did who were familiar with the KJV.

Perhaps you have an idiosyncratic view of all this. I can't tell. You aren't very clear about what you're thinking.

[Telavian]

Because JS said that he received the Book of Mormon from God while the proposal is that he was responsible for the Book of Mormon, in which he incorporated thematic material from various texts that he was exposed to, such as PP and VH. If this isn't what you're thinking, then why don't you state quite clearly what you are thinking.

JS was never clear at all what translated "by the gift and power of God" actually means. I view scripture as a partnership between God and man.
In one case he even remarked, "It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon & [he] also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things"
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... mithpapers

No, Book of Mormon English is quite archaic, which any English speaker familiar with the KJV can discern, much more archaic than VH, which wasn't even an attempt by E. Smith to be archaic. Also, JS spoke modern English, verifiable in his writings, and just like everyone around him. So if he authored the Book of Mormon, then he was imitating older English, just like pseudo-biblical authors did who were familiar with the KJV.

He may have wanted to use language to make it appear more "scripture-like" than the current language of his day. There are a lot of people who associate older styles of language with scripture. Personally, I do as well. I like the thee/thou of prayer and scripture.

Perhaps you have an idiosyncratic view of all this. I can't tell. You aren't very clear about what you're thinking.

You can read my thoughts here:
https://uncorrelatedmormonism.com/is-th ... ally-true/

[Luke]

Are you saying that BH Roberts was wrong when he claims that some of the Book of Mormon was invented by Joseph?

What does BH Roberts or you mean by invented?

Invented means not from God but from Joseph's mind.

You seem to be upset about this. However, this doesn't mean the Book of Mormon is not scripture. God could have given Joseph ideas that Joseph used to fill in the blanks. Scripture is a partnership between God and man. It is rarely "Thus saith the Lord".

This is an extremely slippery slope.

[Telavian]

What does BH Roberts or you mean by invented?

Invented means not from God but from Joseph's mind.

You seem to be upset about this. However, this doesn't mean the Book of Mormon is not scripture. God could have given Joseph ideas that Joseph used to fill in the blanks. Scripture is a partnership between God and man. It is rarely "Thus saith the Lord".

This is an extremely slippery slope.

This is true and I don't doubt it.
However, I do also think the "literal word of God" concept is also a very limiting concept that has been used to control people.

[Jashon]

He may have wanted to use language to make it appear more "scripture-like" than the current language of his day. There are a lot of people who associate older styles of language with scripture. Personally, I do as well. I like the thee/thou of prayer and scripture.

This was a popular topic debated on boards more than 10 years ago and there are published analyses of pseudo-biblical writing.

Perhaps you have an idiosyncratic view of all this. I can't tell. You aren't very clear about what you're thinking.

You can read my thoughts here: https://uncorrelatedmormonism.com/is-th ... ally-true/

What are your thoughts about the Book of Mormon's unique names? How did the Lord give those to JS?

[Telavian]

What are your thoughts about the Book of Mormon's unique names? How did the Lord give those to JS?

They could be from God. I have no problems with that.

In looking up random names in Google Book Search then several of them appear in Calmet's Great Dictionary of the Holy Bible. (1812)
However, I am not claiming that Joseph used this book or any other.

The names are somewhat less important to me because the names are just English versions of whatever they were called if they literally existed.

[Jashon]

So God revealed unique names to JS as words, not ideas.

And also the vocabulary usage that had long been dead. JS wasn't an early English scholar, so he couldn't have come up with those on his own. The Lord must have given him those as words.

[Reluctant Watchman]

What I'm hearing is that the BoM is a nice collection of stories, has some good lessons, but Joseph plagiarized it from other writings... which inherently means he also made up the other parts as well. Why believe in a book that you think was fabricated when it specifically claims it was from God and translated from ancient writings? Either Joseph translated it or he was a fraud. There's not much middle ground here.

[Seed Starter]

So God revealed unique names to JS as words, not ideas.

And also the vocabulary usage that had long been dead. JS wasn't an early English scholar, so he couldn't have come up with those on his own. The Lord must have given him those as words.

Why do you assume it was the Lord and not the devil? Wouldn't you agree that either is capable of giving Joseph information on this level? Is the devil as smart as a 19th century English scholar? That doesn't seem like a high bar to hit for the greatest deceiver of all time

[logicalheart]

All of the books written which portray at least 14 events in parallel to events in my own life, are evidence that my life is a fraud and copied from these other stories.

[Shawn Henry]

There's no indication that Joseph read books at all. His mother said he was the least inclined to read. Plagiarism makes no sense at all, but nonetheless, much of those parallelisms are there. So where did they come from?

It seems secular thought dominates this thread. The only options we should be considering are spiritual. Creativity in writing in closely connected to the spiritual realm. There is indeed a spiritual mystery here, but not a secular one.

[Shawn Henry]

Was Jospeh Smith inspired by the big religious and historical ideas of other novelists? Possibly.

I would say no, not possible. It is possible Sydney was, because he could actually read books. There's no indication Joseph did. You are right to see a problem, a mystery to be solved, but I don't think you have the right answer.

The BoM is too connected to the spiritual realm, any origins have to include the spiritual.

You do seem to contradict yourself a little too. Often you say the BoM was channeled and now you are saying it was plagiarized. Which is it?

I like your passion and respect your intellect, I just think you are missing something in regard to the BoM.

[Shawn Henry]

What do you all think about this explanation.

Suppose the story of the BoM was meant to be told and the spiritual pressure was building up and the holy spirit began sharing that message with all who would hear. Sometimes inspiration took hold and, in some minds, creativity was inspired, but it was best heard by Joseph Smith. He heard the spirit closely enough to get out the message with enough accuracy to suffice God's plans and in a future day, when we believe these "lesser things" we will be given the "greater things".

[AgeOfAquarius]

Another reason to believe that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God is the Chiasmus that runs through it.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

What do you all think about this explanation.

Suppose the story of the BoM was meant to be told and the spiritual pressure was building up and the holy spirit began sharing that message with all who would hear. Sometimes inspiration took hold and, in some minds, creativity was inspired, but it was best heard by Joseph Smith. He heard the spirit closely enough to get out the message with enough accuracy to suffice God's plans and in a future day, when we believe these "lesser things" we will be given the "greater things".

I'm a pretty black and white guy. Good or evil. Right or wrong. Just give me the facts and let the cards fall where they fall. As much as I enjoy your insights, this feels like an excuse rather than a plausible rationale for the checkered history surrounding the Book of Mormon translation.