Is the Book of Mormon a 19th century production?

[_Chap]

... finding himself in a sickly and depraved state, he didn't have more basic motivations for seeking the comfort of the saints? ....

Um, that's 'sickly and deprived'? At least I hope so.

[_Baker]

Um, that's 'sickly and deprived'? At least I hope so.

Haha, yes - will edit.

[_mentalgymnast]

Feats of memory are done by many people, and again they may have written the text years before making it look like a translation was going on.

I've considered this but haven't seen any evidence for it unless, as I said before, you want to go the Spalding route. Throwing Oliver into the mix along with the short translation period along with the chronological complexity and interwoven nature of the text, I think you're making a long stretch to brush off the known translation narrative and punch it up to being a 19th century production.

Regards,
MG

[_DarkHelmet]

Terryl Givens said:

The naked implausibility of gold plates, seer stones, and warrior-angels finds little by way of scientific corroboration, but attributing to a young farmboy the 90-day dictated and unrevised production of a 500-page narrative that incorporates sophisticated literary structures, remarkable Old World parallels, and some 300 references to chronology and 700 to geography with virtually perfect self-consistency is problematic as well.

That might be problematic if it was attributed to a young farm boy, but anyone making that claim is attributing it to an intelligent young man in his early twenties with a history of shady money making activities. If it wasn't such an obvious 19th century production, historians would be far more interested in it than they are. It is ignored by everyone outside of a small religious sect when it should be studied and revered by both religious folks, and the secular scientific and historical communities if it was really what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

[_mentalgymnast]

Oliver Cowdery was a major player during this time. He would have HAD to be in cahoots on the scheme. But the fact is that he never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon and its divine origin or spilled the beans on Joseph. He had plenty of reason to do so especially early on with the Fanny Alger affair and such.

There is in fact some suggestion that he did deny it at some point - Times and Seasons, Vol 2, page 482.

One line. One poem.

What did Johnson mean – the “Book of Mormon... denied by Oliver”? Many have claimed that Peter “denied” Christ, wherein actually Peter did not deny Christ’s divinity, but denied being linked with Jesus at the high priest’s house. Likewise, Johnson, employing poetic license may have used “denied” in a broader sense of setting aside or failing to promote the Book of Mormon rather than the narrower analytical sense of renouncing the Book of Mormon.2
Even if, however, one assumes that Johnson believed that Oliver renounced the Book of Mormon, he was not privy to such first hand information,3 and at worst was perpetuating an unsubstantiated rumor. As noted by Anderson, “It does not matter historically if an irresponsible rumor can be proved to be contemporary – it is still rumor without direct evidence to support it.”4
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/B ... sses_2.pdf

OTOH, we have this:

There is a wealth of evidence, however, which demonstrates that Oliver never denied his testimony. For example, there is evidence that after leaving the Church and practicing law, Cowdery’s integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony.
The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a “Mormon,” or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.6
Oliver Cowdery—at this time an excommunicated from the LDS Church—testified to all those present that the Book of Mormon was true. Eventually Oliver left his law practice and journeyed to Kanesville, Iowa, with his wife and daughter and finally reunited with the Church in 1848. Before he was baptized he bore his testimony to the congregation that had gathered for a conference.
I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high.7
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/B ... sses_2.pdf

How do we know that, once free from the church, Oliver faced any real pressure to issue a public denial?

See above.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Is the evidence overwhelming for a 19th century production of the Book of Mormon?

Overwhelming? I dunno. I do think however the evidence pointing to a 19th century origin is extremely compelling.

Grant Palmer broke down the 19th sources for the Book of Mormon in podcasts etc and came up with (If I recall correctly) 75-80% from identifiable or likely 19th century sources. (1760s KJV, evangelical protestant preaching and camp meetings, other books etc...wish I remembered more). The other 25...22..20% or so he couldn't account for.

But how did Joseph Smith get all this stuff into a hat? I mean, this is the ultimate hat trick, isn't it? A rabbit out of a hat pales in comparison.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

MG - do you have the original source for the court story? Do you imagine that Oliver would have done well to admit himself a liar during a trial? Do you imagine that Oliver would have done anything but reaffirm his witness while seeking to rejoin the saints?

ETA - Here's a link. Not for nothing, but I seriously doubt this is true recounting of an actual event - but rather a little wishful thinking by a member of the church recounted in 1910. The facts don't really make sense and the recollection of the actual words spoken seems unlikely unless it was recorded.

http://www.moroni10.com/witnesses/Oliver_Cowdery.html

[_mentalgymnast]

For me it all comes down to context. The Book of Mormon claims a specific cultural, linguistic, and historical context. The question is: Does the Book of Mormon fit in that context? I would answer that it fails it just about every possible way. Because it fails to fit into the claimed contexts, it can't be seen as originating from them.

I see this as holding for both the Old World and the New World contexts.

Now ask the question: Does the Book of Mormon fit into a 19th century context? I think the answer is, "yes."

And others think the answer is arguably "no". But notwithstanding this, you still have to overcome the obstacle of the hat trick and the magic spectacles and the witnesses to the method of translation.

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

Yes, the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century production. Believing otherwise requires a pre-existing belief based on something other than facts and evidence.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG - do you have the original source for the court story?

All the sources that I've seen refer to JofD and an address given by G.Q. Cannon.

Do you imagine that Oliver would have done well to admit himself a liar during a trial? Do you imagine that Oliver would have done anything but reaffirm his witness while seeking to rejoin the saints?

His was a consistent pattern of sticking to his testimony. Not just one or two isolated instances.

"It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that the other two witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that Book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I was present at the death bed of Oliver Cowdery, and his last words were, "Brother David, be true to your testimony to the Book of Mormon.'' He died here in Richmond, Mo., on March 3d, 1850. Many witnesses yet live in Richmond, who will testify to the truth of these facts, as well as to the good character of Oliver Cowdery."

David Whitmer in An Address To All Believers In Christ.

Regards,
MG