TBM's: Killer blow to the Book of Mormon?

[_Coggins7]

What this looks more to me like is that Joseph is making it up as he goes along. That's the "Joseph asks a question of the Lord" part that you'd mention. He doesn't so much ask the question of the Lord as recognize something he'd like to "reveal" in the name of the Lord, and then do so.

It could also be the case Seth that you don't have the slightest idea what Joseph was doing? Is that a possibility?

[_Sethbag]

Any of the "other authors than Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, et al" has to account for the production of the Book of Mormon. For at least most of it, Joseph had his head in a hat, NOT reading off anything, as attested to by many, many people.

No. There were people who testified of seeing Joseph translate. I know of nobody who testified that their description applied to the entire time period of the translation, ie: that what they saw and described is all that ever happened.

As TD mentions, there are parts of the Book of Mormon which appear to be essentially verbatim out of the King James version of the Bible. Either Joseph Smith memorized those parts verbatim, in which case he's got a much stronger memorization ability than you'd like credit him with, or else at one point or another he cracked open a Bible and read from it during the translation process. And as my immediate predecessors in this thread pointed out, if Joseph could crack a Bible during the translation process, there's no reason he couldn't have read from any other materials either.

If he was not reading off manuscript pages he must have memorized this "book" which was written by Rigdon, or whoever. The feat of memorizing at least 8 pages of manuscript every night for 60 days, and then repeating them from memory in the manner described by Emma, is an impossible one.

Before anyone goes off on any "but Rigdon wrote it" flight of fancy, they have to account for the production. I haven't heard one single person even attempt to do that.

Sure you have. You just don't agree with what they proposed, because it doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notion that the Book of Mormon is a miracle of the Lord through Joseph.

Joseph Smith had his entire life previous to those 60 days during which he could have been working on the concepts behind the Book of Mormon. If Rigdon or anyone else were involved, then it wouldn't have been his entire life, but could well have been months or even years. Just take the time from the vision of Nephi, I mean Moroni, where he's first told about the plates, and when he actually is supposed to have gotten the plates. It's years. Don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that Joseph's mind wasn't churning over the whole concept of this history of the native Americans this entire time. Lucy Mack Smith would beg to differ. According to her, Joseph amused the family with tales of the ancient Americans long before the Book of Mormon's production.

So you can forget about this silly "he only had 60 days" notion. It doesn't help you, because it's transparently obvious that Joseph Smith had a lot more than 60 days to think about and mull over what he was going to write in this book. Potentially years more.

[_charity]

No. There were people who testified of seeing Joseph translate. I know of nobody who testified that their description applied to the entire time period of the translation, ie: that what they saw and described is all that ever happened.

And if you think that at other times he was reading off a manuscript written by whoever else, how do you account for this times he was translating as described?

As TD mentions, there are parts of the Book of Mormon which appear to be essentially verbatim out of the King James version of the Bible. Either Joseph Smith memorized those parts verbatim, in which case he's got a much stronger memorization ability than you'd like credit him with, or else at one point or another he cracked open a Bible and read from it during the translation process.

Emma specifically stated he did not use a Bible. And why do you think God can't quote the Book of Isaiah? His memorization skills must be "out of thise world."

Before anyone goes off on any "but Rigdon wrote it" flight of fancy, they have to account for the production. I haven't heard one single person even attempt to do that.

Sure you have. You just don't agree with what they proposed, because it doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notion that the Book of Mormon is a miracle of the Lord through Joseph.

Joseph Smith had his entire life previous to those 60 days during which he could have been working on the concepts behind the Book of Mormon. If Rigdon or anyone else were involved, then it wouldn't have been his entire life, but could well have been months or even years. Just take the time from the vision of Nephi, I mean Moroni, where he's first told about the plates, and when he actually is supposed to have gotten the plates. It's years. Don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that Joseph's mind wasn't churning over the whole concept of this history of the native Americans this entire time. Lucy Mack Smith would beg to differ. According to her, Joseph amused the family with tales of the ancient Americans long before the Book of Mormon's production. [/quote]

You missed the point. Even if there had been a written mansucript, there is no way it could have become the Book of Mormon because everyone who saw the process stated Joseph was NOT reading off anything. And you have ignored the production method--he was not reading off anything, he would immediately begin to translate from the word he left off and not have to have anything read back to him to know where his place was, the entire Book of Mormon as dictated to Oliver Cowdery was done in about 60 days.

So you can forget about this silly "he only had 60 days" notion. It doesn't help you, because it's transparently obvious that Joseph Smith had a lot more than 60 days to think about and mull over what he was going to write in this book. Potentially years more.

It doesn't matter how long he had to "think up" things." Getting 500 pages worth onto paper could not have been spontaneously dictated with a stream of consciousness method. So again, your argument is ignoring a lot of major facts.

[_skippy the dead]

<snip>

It doesn't matter how long he had to "think up" things." Getting 500 pages worth onto paper could not have been spontaneously dictated with a stream of consciousness method. So again, your argument is ignoring a lot of major facts.

He did not necessarily have to dictate it with stream-of-consciousness. He had time to plan what he'd like to say, and then dictate it to his scribe. Are you familiar with the experience of Jean-Dominque Bauby (short entry on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Dominique_Bauby). He would compose and edit his book in his head, and then laboriously "dictate" it to his scribe. At least Joseph Smith could use actual words to convey his tale. And it's not like the manuscript was perfect when he was done - much editing was done prior to publishing and after.

[_harmony]

... there is no way it could have become the Book of Mormon because everyone who saw the process stated Joseph was NOT reading off anything. And you have ignored the production method--he was not reading off anything, he would immediately begin to translate from the word he left off and not have to have anything read back to him to know where his place was, the entire Book of Mormon as dictated to Oliver Cowdery was done in about 60 days.

Emphasis added.

And you believe them?

[_charity]

He did not necessarily have to dictate it with stream-of-consciousness. He had time to plan what he'd like to say, and then dictate it to his scribe.

He didn't dictate 8 pages a day.

Are you familiar with the experience of Jean-Dominque Bauby (short entry on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Dominique_Bauby). He would compose and edit his book in his head, and then laboriously "dictate" it to his scribe. At least Joseph Smith could use actual words to convey his tale. And it's not like the manuscript was perfect when he was done - much editing was done prior to publishing and after.

NOthing aobut the Bauby experience parallels what Joseph did.

By the way that is the way I write most of my novels. I compose entire paragraphs in my head while I am doing something else, and then go to the computer and write them down. I don't manage to get 8 pages a day of complicated theoloyg and epic saga done in a day, though.

[_beastie]

The world is full of human beings who are able to do feats that the rest of us find unimaginable, charity.

[_skippy the dead]

He did not necessarily have to dictate it with stream-of-consciousness. He had time to plan what he'd like to say, and then dictate it to his scribe.

He didn't dictate 8 pages a day.

Duh. Joseph Smith didn't have to blink letter-by-letter to convey his thoughts. It's entirely possible, though, to plan out in advance what the day's writings will consist of and go from there. If Joseph Smith had an affinity for that type of thing, then it's not even a superhuman feat to do so. He'd been telling stories about the "original inhabitants" of the Americas for years to his family. He'd already had the 116 pages he'd worked on with Martin Harris. It's not unreasonable.

Are you familiar with the experience of Jean-Dominque Bauby (short entry on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Dominique_Bauby). He would compose and edit his book in his head, and then laboriously "dictate" it to his scribe. At least Joseph Smith could use actual words to convey his tale. And it's not like the manuscript was perfect when he was done - much editing was done prior to publishing and after.

NOthing aobut the Bauby experience parallels what Joseph did.

By the way that is the way I write most of my novels. I compose entire paragraphs in my head while I am doing something else, and then go to the computer and write them down. I don't manage to get 8 pages a day of complicated theoloyg and epic saga done in a day, though.

Using your 8 pages a day average - take into account that much of the Book of Mormon is copied from the KJV, so those days would likely generate more pages than other days, leaving plenty of time other days for him to weave his tale. And the theology isn't complicated - it's reflective of the theories of the day. The Book of Mormon isn't even particularly well written. Again, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the book was a product of a man's mind.

Besides, I don't know if you want to use you as a baseline in evaluating Joseph Smith, do you?

[_charity]

Duh. Joseph Smith didn't have to blink letter-by-letter to convey his thoughts. It's entirely possible, though, to plan out in advance what the day's writings will consist of and go from there. If Joseph Smith had an affinity for that type of thing, then it's not even a superhuman feat to do so. He'd been telling stories about the "original inhabitants" of the Americas for years to his family. He'd already had the 116 pages he'd worked on with Martin Harris. It's not unreasonable.

Just try it. Make up a book, memorize it, dictate it to a scribe in 60 some days. Then come back and tell us what a snap it was.

Using your 8 pages a day average - take into account that much of the Book of Mormon is copied from the KJV, so those days would likely generate more pages than other days, leaving plenty of time other days for him to weave his tale. And the theology isn't complicated - it's reflective of the theories of the day. The Book of Mormon isn't even particularly well written. Again, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the book was a product of a man's mind.

This is where you really should have done your homework. There are about 25,000 words from the KJV, in a book which contains 270,745 words. That is roughly 11%. That is not "much" by any standard. PLUS the fact that all the witnesses day that Joseph did not have a Bible with him when the translation was going on.

Oh, since you keep saying things are so easy. Memorize 8 pages of the Book of Isaiah over night, and then dictate it the next day. We will be waiting to hear what a nothing task this was.

Besides, I don't know if you want to use you as a baseline in evaluating Joseph Smith, do you?[/quote]

[_charity]

This statement may apply well to the apologists, but do you really think that hubris is the right word for the average believer who has simply been taught to use the word "know" in this way? For them the whole thing is about divine witness, and they generally don't study ancient history to verify or challenge their position.

No, I don't think hubris is the right term for the average believer. I have slowly grown to conclude, over the years, that the real True Believers (in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word) aren't the average LDS sitting in the pews, but rather the apologists who are aware of all this information, and still continue to believe, and constructs ways to render their claims unfalsifiable.

This post about hubris has underneath it this sign line:

If you don't visit my fabulous new mormonmesoamerica.com website, you are a LOOOOOSER.

Hmmmmmm.