Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_why me]

Yes. He wasn't successful with the new scripture. He failed miserably. Without the Book of Mormon he would have been a great preacher, perhaps even a great Methodist preacher. Just look at the gifts the critics give Joseph Smith: Automatic writing, steady stream of consciouness writing without a manuscript, etc. This guy was gifted if I take the critics word for it. And he had an interest in religion since he prayed for guidance. And if he plagarized the King James and added new turns to doctrine in the Book of Mormon, he could have done marvelously in the pulpit. Plus the critics have him being very charismatic. Yep, he would have been successful without the Book of Mormon and new scripture.

He would have started out humbly and built his congregation slowly but he would have been a success. Mind you, not a huge public figure, but who knows?

But god called him to a different destiny, and hence here we are today....

Your idea that Joseph Smith failed somehow as a result of the Book of Mormon is preposterous. The Book of Mormon is one of the most important elements of the LDS religion. The process of 'translating' the text provided him with some of his strongest early supporters (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery). Other important early converts were brought in by the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon convinced people, by its very existence, that Smith had a special prophetic calling. He wasn't just any other preacher or prophet preaching repentance and the Second Coming.

Without the Book of Mormon, few would remember Joseph Smith. He would simply be a strange footnote in the local history of New York, at most. The Book of Mormon is the single most important document of the LDS faith by virtue of its historical role as proof of Smith's calling. I guess you can redefine "success" in order to make it appear that the Book of Mormon was a real liability or a failure, but there are much stronger arguments to be made for the centrality of the Book of Mormon for Mormonism.

Well lets put it this way: the Book of Mormon gave Joseph Smith nothing but trouble. He failed in his mission if the book is a fraud. He died for that darn book, not to mentioned the fact, he rattled the religious bigots of his day. Joseph was not a success at all, if he is a fraudster. This 'fraud' brought him and his family nothing but pain and emotional hardship. Certainly it wasn't a success. It cost some of Joseph Smith's children their lives, his brother Hyrum lost his life and Joseph Smith lost his life, leaving his mother devastated. And Emma a widow. Where is the personal success in this story? No where.

What I implied is that without the Book of Mormon Joseph could have been a successful preacher. True, he would not reach world fame but he would have been a success. Do you really believe that Joseph Smith thought that the Book of Mormon would bring him fame and fortune? If so, he should have given up the thought during the first month. Most of the townspeople who got the book, burned the book in the fireplace.

No, Joseph Smith was a failure as fraudster but a success as prophet.

[_why me]

Yeah and? the styleguy wasn't saying the Book of Mormon was conceived of as a novel, his point is that some others may draw that conclusion from the "proprietor" and copyright business.

You however have been acting like some people...uh, me...have been claiming this. Thus my point that you aren't reading with a great deal of comprehension. Now if you'd said "Non-fiction novel" instead of "fictional novel" then you might have had a potentially interesting literary line to develop: the Book of Mormon as precursor to The Executioner's Song?

No, the styleguy was implicit in the meaning. Some would say that the book was conceived as a novel.

Now, blixa, lets not get picky with wordings. For me, non-fiction novel and fictional novel are just nitpicking.

[_Trevor]

No, Joseph Smith was a failure as fraudster but a success as prophet.

Testimony poorly disguised as an argument. The fact that you spend so much time defending him may be evidence of his success as a fraud. The fact that I spend so much time criticizing him may be proof that he was a prophet. Or, these things could mean precisely the opposite. In other words, this is empty rhetoric.

[_ludwigm]

... there are more kinds of evidence than archeological. Hebrew rituals not well understood in Joseph's day appear in the Book of Mormon.

Hebrew rituals was not well understood even by Joseph.
The expression of "Law of Moses", OK, mentioned many times. And where are its wording, its plot?
A little wordsearch:
- - - expression - - - occurence in Old Testament - - - in New Testament - - - in Book of Mormon
"feast of" any - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - 9 - - - - - - none
"seventh day" - - - - - - - -29 - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - 1
"unleavened" - - - - - - - - 25 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - - -none
"sabbath" - - - - - - - - - - 111- - - - - - - - - - 60 - - - - - - - 6
Do appear they more than sporadic? The sabbath is known by everything, by nonjews too.
The jews live with the laws, according the laws, by the laws etc.
They mention them frequently, even the nonorthodox ones, but not to "goys" (or goyim, if You want.)
So, the Book of Mormon was written by a goy. We know his name.
___ Ludwig from Hungary

[_why me]

No, Joseph Smith was a failure as fraudster but a success as prophet.

Testimony poorly disguised as an argument. The fact that you spend so much time defending him may be evidence of his success as a fraud. The fact that I spend so much time criticizing him may be proof that he was a prophet. Or, these things could mean precisely the opposite. In other words, this is empty rhetoric.

No, it is empty speculation. The most that we can do is too speculate now. Nothing more. There will be no manucript discovered. All is left up to faith and speculation. And such speculations will either make or break us.

[_why me]

... there are more kinds of evidence than archeological. Hebrew rituals not well understood in Joseph's day appear in the Book of Mormon.

Hebrew rituals was not well understood even by Joseph.
The expression of "Law of Moses", OK, mentioned many times. And where are its wording, its plot?
A little wordsearch:
- - - expression - - - occurence in Old Testament - - - in New Testament - - - in Book of Mormon
"feast of" any - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - 9 - - - - - - none
"seventh day" - - - - - - - -29 - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - 1
"unleavened" - - - - - - - - 25 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - - -none
"sabbath" - - - - - - - - - - 111- - - - - - - - - - 60 - - - - - - - 6
Do appear they more than sporadic? The sabbath is known by everything, by nonjews too.
The jews live with the laws, according the laws, by the laws etc.

They mention them frequently, even the nonorthodox ones, but not to "goys" (or goyim, if You want.)
So, the Book of Mormon was written by a goy. We know his name.
___ Ludwig from Hungary

Actually, Ludwigm, the critics have Joseph Smith knowing his Bible quite well, especially the Old Testament. Now what you are saying that he didn't actually know the Bible quite well. Let me put it this way: if the Book of Mormon did list the words in the Old Testament, would that have convinced you? I don't think so. You would just say that Joseph Smith copied the Bible quite well. In other words, it would not matter at all.

How did Joseph Smith write the book? What is your theory?

[_Runtu]

No, it is empty speculation. The most that we can do is too speculate now. Nothing more. There will be no manucript discovered. All is left up to faith and speculation. And such speculations will either make or break us.

I can't tell you how tired I am of your "it's all speculation" mantra. The evidence that the Book of Mormon is a clear 19th-century creation is overwhelming, except to those who refuse to see the obvious. I would think the folks who are doing the "speculating" are those who think angels and gold plates were involved.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Hammer and blixa, cozy twosome. ;)

And yes, I know that makes you throw up a little in your mouth.

Just don't tell Doctor Steuss. He'll hulk out over it!

This board is going to drive me to drink.

[_cinepro]

For me, one of the strongest arguments against the divine theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon is the suddenness with which the heavens closed after Joseph's death.

From 1829, God was ebulliently bringing forth new scripture, whether it was new translation (Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham), redaction of existing scriptures (JST), or modern revelation (BoC/D&C). It just came from everywhere.

Then, right around the time Joseph dies...it stops. Finis. Nada. We LDS love Joseph's successors, and revere them as Prophets with spiritual gifts equal to Joseph's. Yet in the ensuing 163 years, not a single LDS prophet (out of 14) has been able to translate, redact, or reveal a single paragraph even close to what Joseph came up with. Not one!

Even those few post-Joseph canonized passages bear not a single similarity to Joseph's work. D&C 138 reads like my grandfathers description of a recent fishing trip to Big Bear with not a single "thee" or "thou" to distinguish it. The Official Declarations are canonized press releases. And whatever happened to the Book of Joseph?

My surprise at this complete lack of post-Joseph "scripture" is matched only by my incredulity at the rationalizations LDS reflexively make up to explain God's silence. Each seems more inane (inaner?) than the previous, with hardly a second's thought given to whether they make sense or not.

I can only imagine the wonderful scripture Joseph could have dictated had a few years of peace given him rest in Nauvoo. But sadly, he was gone before his time, and with him also went those scriptures which were promised us.

The only General Authority who might be remotely prepared for the task would have to be Gerald Lund. I pray that he lives long enough, and rises fast enough, that he may be in a position to dictate some new scripture. Even if the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon turns out to be the multi-generational story of a family that just happened to escape with Lehi and live throughout Book of Mormon times, it would be more than I expected.

[_Runtu]

For me, one of the strongest arguments against the divine theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon is the suddenness with which the heavens closed after Joseph's death.

From 1829, God was ebulliently bringing forth new scripture, whether it was new translation (Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham), redaction of existing scriptures (JST), or modern revelation (BoC/D&C). It just came from everywhere.

Then, right around the time Joseph dies...it stops. Finis. Nada. We LDS love Joseph's successors, and revere them as Prophets with spiritual gifts equal to Joseph's. Yet in the ensuing 163 years, not a single LDS prophet (out of 14) has been able to translate, redact, or reveal a single paragraph even close to what Joseph came up with. Not one!

Even those few post-Joseph canonized passages bear not a single similarity to Joseph's work. D&C 138 reads like my grandfathers description of a recent fishing trip to Big Bear with not a single "thee" or "thou" to distinguish it. The Official Declarations are canonized press releases. And whatever happened to the Book of Joseph?

My surprise at this complete lack of post-Joseph "scripture" is matched only by my incredulity at the rationalizations LDS reflexively make up to explain God's silence. Each seems more inane (inaner?) than the previous, with hardly a second's thought given to whether they make sense or not.

I can only imagine the wonderful scripture Joseph could have dictated had a few years of peace given him rest in Nauvoo. But sadly, he was gone before his time, and with him also went those scriptures which were promised us.

The only General Authority who might be remotely prepared for the task would have to be Gerald Lund. I pray that he lives long enough, and rises fast enough, that he may be in a position to dictate some new scripture. Even if the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon turns out to be the multi-generational story of a family that just happened to escape with Lehi and live throughout Book of Mormon times, it would be more than I expected.

Does anyone wonder why I love cinepro's posts so much?

To be fair, I think Joseph had all but exhausted his capacity for public revelations by 1843. The last year of his life there were no revelations. So, BY et al. were just continuing in Joseph's prophetic silence.