DiscussMormonism.com

Book of Mormon critics often point to the "unrealistically specific" prophecies in the Book of Mormon as proof that the book is an obvious creation of Joseph Smith. The specific prophecies always refer to events that happened either prior to the translation of the Book of Mormon (Columbus, the Pilgrims, the Revolutionary War) or during the translation period (the Anthon incident, Freemasonry, and the three witnesses). Clearly, critics argue, Joseph Smith used known events to bolster Book of Mormon claims of divine origin. They compare Book of Mormon prophecies to the much less detailed Bible prophecies to show that God does not reveal such details to His prophets.

Members of the church most commonly respond that God has known all things since the beginning and has shared these truths with His prophets. This view is nicely summarized by Gordon Irving:

"Mormons naturally developed a view of the past which held that the gospel of Christ as preached in the New Testament had been preached to all men since the beginning of the world and that whenever God's church had existed on earth, it had enjoyed the same gifts as the apostolic church. The order set up in Jesus' day was thus projected both backward to Adam and forward in time to the Mormons themselves and on beyond to the Millennium. This much was accepted by all Mormons, although individuals might differ somewhat as to details and implications of the idea" ("Mormonism and the Bible, 1832-1838," Senior Honors Project Summary, University of Utah, Aug. 1972, 4-5).

This view finds support in latter-day scripture, which asserts that in all dispensations, the Lord has revealed "all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory" (3 Nephi 26:3). Thus it is natural that the details of coming events would be known to ancient prophets.

A more recent theory is Blake Ostler's idea "of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith's expansion of an ancient work by building on the work of earlier prophets to answer the nagging problems of his day. In so doing, he provided unrestricted and authoritative commentary, interpretation, explanation, and clarifications based on insights from the ancient Book of Mormon text and the King James Bible (KJV). The result is a modern world view and theological understanding superimposed on the Book of Mormon text from the plates" ("The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue, Spring 1987, 66). Ostler's ideas free us from a rigid, chronological view of textual construction and allow us to view the Book of Mormon in a more expansive way.

Such a view gives us a better perspective on the Book of Mormon prophecies that are so widely ridiculed, particularly by "Christian" critics. These prophecies can be seen as examples of what Irving calls "backward projection" and Ostler terms "modern expansion." Quite possibly, the original prophecies by the ancient prophets were not detailed, but resembled the looser prophecies of Biblical prophets like Isaiah (who not coincidentally features prominently in the Book of Mormon). Presumably, Joseph Smith, recognizing the fulfillment of these prophecies in his and prior days, backfilled the details to make the prophecies and their fulfillment clearer to a modern audience.

Functionally Joseph is doing what the apostles did in writing their Gospels: pointing out to their audience where and how prophecy was fulfilled. An example is found in Acts 3:22-24: "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A aprophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days." Here Peter spells out to his audience how and why Christ has fulfilled specific prophecy.

In a like manner, 2 Nephi 27:15-22 gives specific details of Martin Harris's giving of the Book of Mormon characters to Professor Charles Anthon and uses the episode to illustrate that only the Lord's anointed can translate the record. This scripture is a good example of the process of backward projection I am suggesting. We can compare the account in 2 Nephi with the earlier, far more nebulous prophecy in Isaiah 29:11-12. These two verses have traditionally been interpreted as saying that "God seals up the truth so that even the learned, because they lack believing docility, cannot discern it" (Robert Jamieson, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible). The Nephites clearly had the words of Isaiah, which we can safely assume were similar to what we have now in the Bible. It is not unlikely that Joseph thus backfilled the details of the Anthon episode to a less-developed Nephite text in order to elucidate this otherwise obscure passage.

I intend to develop these ideas further with more examples; however, these musings are enough to get an idea of where I'm going. I'd appreciate your opinion and advice.

Dr. Shades wrote:What did you find interesting about it, Runtu? "Desperate" seems the more likely adjective.

He might be satisfied with his new paradigm, but the one who has worked most closely with the original manuscripts--Royal Skousen--is convinced of a "tight" translation, I.e. that Joseph Smith simply read the words which appeared on the seer stone and the scribe wrote them down verbatim.

Sort of like what all the original witnesses described.

Quite possibly, the original prophecies by the ancient prophets were not detailed, but resembled the looser prophecies of Biblical prophets like Isaiah (who not coincidentally features prominently in the Book of Mormon). Presumably, Joseph Smith, recognizing the fulfillment of these prophecies in his and prior days, backfilled the details to make the prophecies and their fulfillment clearer to a modern audience.

The Dude wrote:

Quite possibly, the original prophecies by the ancient prophets were not detailed, but resembled the looser prophecies of Biblical prophets like Isaiah (who not coincidentally features prominently in the Book of Mormon). Presumably, Joseph Smith, recognizing the fulfillment of these prophecies in his and prior days, backfilled the details to make the prophecies and their fulfillment clearer to a modern audience.

Yes, the "looser" prophecies of Isaiah.

Book of Mormon prophecies are backward projections, just like the critics always said. Now one apologist accepts that criticism, but insists the backward projections were part of the revelatory process? I have to ask, what would the "backward projections" look like if instead a scam artist brazenly took current events (or attested historical events) and inserted them into his fake ancient document to make it sound prophetic? Would there be any difference?

The answer, of course, is "no". It's a distinction without a difference, and a lot of hot air.

I just thought it was interesting that he is basically taking Ostler's theory to more or less its logical conclusion. I don't know how you do that and maintain a testimony, but he has.