Explaining the Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

My scribe must have made that mistake. : )

[_cafe crema]

But that this "God" is more like a shorthand way of referring to the virtuous and potential of mankind for positive not some logos consciously acting in the universe. Perhaps collectively as humans we form the logos of God, maybe. Maybe. I don't really care for that kind of speculative stuff, though. It's not my kind of thing.

A shame, this hints that you'd be an interesting participant in these kind of conversations

[_canpakes]

I view the good aspects of the LDS Church - it's principal strength - as the product of the individual members doing their best to live by what are arguably good, moral guidelines, in spite of the leadership of the Church...

Without going on to derail this thread from its intended purpose, let me simply say that I think that you're 'up in the night' with this statement. No offense intended. The leadership of a worldwide church cannot interact with each and every individual to express their support and love EXCEPT during Conference twice a year. At this time they teach correct principles to the best of their ability. They express their love and support. They teach to THE ONE. I don't really understand why you're pointing at the leadership of the church as purposefully discouraging or actively showing non-support of members in their personal desires to live, as you say, "good, moral [lives]".

I should elaborate. I don't mean, "in spite of", to indicate that Church Leadership is working against good, moral principles, rather that they seem to be indifferent to that quest unless reinforcing it will employ crafting a message that hitches some aspect of that path to behaviors that will act to financially or numerically perpetuate the formal existence of the bureaucracy of the CoJCoLDS, and via the threat of losing your eternal family or somesuch.

The rest of your post was worth the read and I appreciate your thoughts although obviously we differ in some our views.

Regards,
MG

Thanks, MG. Likewise I find you to be quite an agreeable soul, not that my opinion matters much in the grand scheme of things, : )

[_Roger]

Well, we will have to wait and see how it all plays out, won't we?

Might be a long wait.

It seems as if Joseph Smith was clueless about the content of the Book of Mormon and what he was dictating.

Clueless? Where do you get that idea? I think he was likely more familiar with portions of it than others, but I wouldn't characterize that as clueless - unless you're going to trust every word the witnesses tell you. Lehi's dream has remarkable similarities to one of Joseph Sr.'s dreams, so I think he was pretty familiar with that part. Being "clueless" with other parts, however, fits nicely within the S/R model since it specifically postulates that Joseph would not have contributed a fair amount of the content.

I suspect you give him way too much credit for his active participation and how he may have manipulated things. But that is just my feeling.

What makes you think that? If anything, Dan Vogel, with whom you seem to agree, gives Joseph much more credit for manipulating things than I do. I put a decent amount of responsibility on Joseph's accomplices and the witnesses, every one of which Dan sees as completely believable dupes.

I would add #4 the Book of Mormon is a channeled text as a possibility, although admittedly not a very popular one on either side of the issue.

And what evidence would you cite in support of that?

Followup: If you're going to go with a metaphysical explanation, what reason do you have for not simply accepting the official metaphysical explanation?

All the best.

[_Roger]

Hi MG:

OK. So all we have from Joseph Smith is that the Book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of God". All the theories of translation except for the "gift and power of God" declaration by Joseph entail 'intent to deceive' on his part.

Not necessarily. It's possible he really believed he received revelations from God. I doubt it, but it's possible.

So let's go with the intent to deceive option. We have the scripture found in the New Testament that says something to the effect that a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. We have Joseph teaching doctrines and principles throughout his life that point towards a love of God, a love of humanity, the expansiveness of the human spirit, etc. Think of all of the stuff we find in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The letters to Emma. The beautiful 'revelation' on priesthood, three degrees of glory, the eternal and progressive nature of the human spirit...just to name a few. What do we do with all of that?

I think you're using the New Testament to the extreme. I don't take it to mean that a generally bad person can't do good things or vice versa. If that's what it meant it would clearly be absurd. On the contrary, the New Testament also talks about Satan disguising himself as an angel of light. It also talks about the elect being deceived by false prophets. So bad guys are clearly capable of doing good things and making themselves look good. What it means is that eventually you should be able to tell a bad person because the bad fruit they will inevitably produce will eventually become obvious. As the pirate-dude says in Pirates of the Carribean, it's more like a guideline than a rule.

Why would a wicked and deceptive man teach and promulgate such expansive and beautiful doctrines out on the branches and yet the roots are corrupt and loathsome?

Maybe because it could be difficult to gain followers if you say "follow me and together we'll corrupt the earth with our evil deeds"?

I would guess that for many of us, that is an important question. Yes, other examples in regards to other individuals/churches can be given that might displace or make the corrupt tree bringing forth good fruit comparison somewhat a misdirection or inapplicable. I get that. But we still have the results of Joseph Smith's works/doctrines as the 'roots' of a church that is viable, growing, and provides an expansive and eternal view of mankind. More so in the marketplace of religions than many, if not most, others.

Islam could make the same claim. So could the Christian charismatic movement. I don't necessarily think "viable, growing and provides and expansive and eternal view of mankind" is sufficient to say whoever founded it must not have been a con-man.

So I am of the opinion that there are many members of the church that look at the 'pearl' and realize that a pearl is not produced in a pristine/pretty environment. There is messiness involved in its production. But there is nothing else like a pearl. It is unique and beautiful. Active LDS members of the church are more often than not willing to look at the product rather than the messiness of the process and ask themselves "Is this of God?"

Granted, these same sorts of inquiries (Is this of God?) and parallels (so called truths that exalt and bring mankind to a better place) could be made in regards to other religious systems that are viable, growing, and create/maintain decent and honorable people in the wake of their operations and doings. The fruits and the roots of various systems can be argued to be better or worse than the other. The race issues and LGBT issues currently in the spotlight are at least two areas in which the CofJCofLDS is not immune from potential litigation in the market place of ideas that purportedly bring mankind to a better place.

You seem to be saying that the COJCOLDS must be what it claims to be because of all the good it does, so forget all the problems surrounding it's founder.

So, when it comes to the Book of Mormon and how it got here...I don't know that we can ever really know for sure. We have the three options that Roger gave us. I think that when all is said and done, those that are willing to go with the "gift and power of God" route are going to be those that look at the fruits of the LDS church and see those fruits as being not only good but unique in the market place of ideas/religions. And for that reason they are willing to 'put on the shelf', so to speak, the unknowns...until further light and knowledge is made available.

Regards,
MG

Agreed. The topic of this thread, however, was not whether the COJCOLDS does good things but Explaining the Book of Mormon.

All the best.

[_Roger]

I don't see as many holes in the 'human production' scenario. The biggest wildcard is that we don't know a thing about the manuscript's disposition outside of descriptions of events during 'translation'. We can quibble about the various differing accounts of what transpired between Joseph, his scribe of the moment and any witnesses allowed, but we have no record or idea of what happened at any time before or after a daily stint of translation and we do not know the disposition of the manuscript between the completion of translation and the point that the printer was given the completed product. That isn't so much of a 'hole' as an opportunity, and a large one at that.

I agree that the "human production" scenario is not as full of holes as proponents of the "metaphysical production" scenario would like us to believe. We hear things like: how could an uneducated farm boy pull this off in such a short time? But as others have pointed out, Joseph Smith wasn't completely uneducated - he obviously knew how to read and write, although with a lot of mistakes - and he was certainly no dummy. Similarly, the alleged short time frame is also a bit disingenuous. Yes, the final product came together in a few months, but there had already been 116 pages that were written and lost, so reproducing the content of those pages is not like starting from scratch. Basic ideas were still in existence. Not only that, but we have clues that Joseph (and I suspect others) had been developing a large part of the content for years before the "translation" process had even begun.

All the best.

[_malkie]

I don't see as many holes in the 'human production' scenario. The biggest wildcard is that we don't know a thing about the manuscript's disposition outside of descriptions of events during 'translation'. We can quibble about the various differing accounts of what transpired between Joseph, his scribe of the moment and any witnesses allowed, but we have no record or idea of what happened at any time before or after a daily stint of translation and we do not know the disposition of the manuscript between the completion of translation and the point that the printer was given the completed product. That isn't so much of a 'hole' as an opportunity, and a large one at that.

I agree that the "human production" scenario is not as full of holes as proponents of the "metaphysical production" scenario would like us to believe. We hear things like: how could an uneducated farm boy pull this off in such a short time? But as others have pointed out, Joseph Smith wasn't completely uneducated - he obviously knew how to read and write, although with a lot of mistakes - and he was certainly no dummy. Similarly, the alleged short time frame is also a bit disingenuous. Yes, the final product came together in a few months, but there had already been 116 pages that were written and lost, so reproducing the content of those pages is not like starting from scratch. Basic ideas were still in existence. Not only that, but we have clues that Joseph (and I suspect others) had been developing a large part of the content for years before the "translation" process had even begun.

All the best.

If the scenario that I suggested a couple of pages ago is anywhere near the truth, the loss of the 116 pages could actually have been a stroke of luck for Jo and co: now, with a "pilot project" or "dry run" under their belt, they were in a much better position to proceed to a successful conclusion with the main project. The 116 pages could have allowed them to shake bugs out of the process.

Most explanations I've seen of the Book of Mormon focus on whether Joseph Smith could have produced the text with his head in the hat. I believe (with others) that we need to look more carefully at the document(s) under the control of Jo and the scribes, before, during, and after the "translation", including the one that they were "producing" during that translation session.

Too bad that there is no way to compare the Book of Mormon, as originally published, with the words that fell from the lips of the "translator".

Edit to clarify "document(s) under the control of Jo and the scribes".

[_tld]

Well, we will have to wait and see how it all plays out, won't we?

Might be a long wait.

It seems as if Joseph Smith was clueless about the content of the Book of Mormon and what he was dictating.

Clueless? Where do you get that idea? I think he was likely more familiar with portions of it than others, but I wouldn't characterize that as clueless - unless you're going to trust every word the witnesses tell you. Lehi's dream has remarkable similarities to one of Joseph Sr.'s dreams, so I think he was pretty familiar with that part. Being "clueless" with other parts, however, fits nicely within the S/R model since it specifically postulates that Joseph would not have contributed a fair amount of the content.

I suspect you give him way too much credit for his active participation and how he may have manipulated things. But that is just my feeling.

What makes you think that? If anything, Dan Vogel, with whom you seem to agree, gives Joseph much more credit for manipulating things than I do. I put a decent amount of responsibility on Joseph's accomplices and the witnesses, every one of which Dan sees as completely believable dupes.

I would add #4 the Book of Mormon is a channeled text as a possibility, although admittedly not a very popular one on either side of the issue.

And what evidence would you cite in support of that?

Followup: If you're going to go with a metaphysical explanation, what reason do you have for not simply accepting the official metaphysical explanation?

All the best.

My gosh, I thought this thread had expired until I woke up this morning and saw that posts were still being made.

Apparently I am wrong, but my impression has been that the Book of Mormon really didn't mean that much to Joseph Smith. Once it was published, my understanding is that he more or less ignored it. It was never treated by him, again according to my understanding, as his creation. It seems as if it was a task that he carried out, for whatever reason, and then he moved on, promoting ideas that seemed to totally contradict what is contained in the Book of Mormon. I doubt that Joseph Smith was aware of the complexity of the Book of Mormon, the use of 17th century vocabulary, although this has probably been explained, and grammatical, shall I say idiosyncrasies, that Skousen seemed to identify. My feeling is that all of this was beyond Joseph Smith's comprehension before and during the time that he was "translating" the Book of Mormon. Obviously, you are of a different opinion and probably, because you apparently know more about this than I do, right.

Regarding the possibility that the Book of Mormon is a channeled text, I have already gone over this. Throughout his life, Joseph Smith seemed to be playing the role of a medium (someone who was able to communicate with the spirit world). This ability, that he apparently felt he had, seemed to develop at an early age and involved primarily scrying rather than automatic writing or going into an unconscious trance (although the latter may have at times been going on). I do not believe that Joseph Smith was communicating directly with God, therefore, if he was communicating with the spirit world, it was with spirit beings of varying capability and individuality as evidenced by the variety of "revelations" that he received. Yes, he could have made all of this up, but I personally doubt it. I have studied medumship quite closely, and, from my perspective, Joseph Smith was a medium. Obviously, my opinion on this does not go over very well on this forum. But that is all right. I realize that materialists are unable to accept this possibility and others see human authorship as more likely.

[_Runtu]

My gosh, I thought this thread had expired until I woke up this morning and saw that posts were still being made.

Apparently I am wrong, but my impression has been that the Book of Mormon really didn't mean that much to Joseph Smith. Once it was published, my understanding is that he more or less ignored it. It was never treated by him, again according to my understanding, as his creation. It seems as if it was a task that he carried out, for whatever reason, and then he moved on, promoting ideas that seemed to totally contradict what is contained in the Book of Mormon. I doubt that Joseph Smith was aware of the complexity of the Book of Mormon, the use of 17th century vocabulary, although this has probably been explained, and grammatical, shall I say idiosyncrasies, that Skousen seemed to identify. My feeling is that all of this was beyond Joseph Smith's comprehension before and during the time that he was "translating" the Book of Mormon. Obviously, you are of a different opinion and probably, because you apparently know more about this than I do, right.

You seem to take our disagreement as a sort of insult. If I have said anything to give you that impression, I'm sorry. I am genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from, as your perspective is quite foreign to me.

As for the above, I think I get what you're saying, that Joseph basically ignored the Book of Mormon once it was finished. I don't know what I'd go that far, but he certainly didn't use it much as a source of doctrine and didn't preach from it much at all. He didn't abandon it entirely, however, as he went back through the manuscripts in 1837 and 1840 and made pretty substantial revisions. Someone who was "clueless" about the book would not have done that.

If I were a believer, I would say that the book's apparently lesser importance (at least compared to today) reflects how the Book of Mormon was seen in the early church as a witness to the truth of the Bible, not as supplanting or enhancing it. My wretched unbeliever self sees it more as the church's (and Joseph's) claim to revelation and authority; its existence, not really its content, was what supported Joseph's role as leader and prophet, so it's not surprising that he ignored the contents somewhat thereafter.

The other thing to remember is that Joseph Smith always had a project going, whether building a city or creating new scriptures. These projects--the here and now of his life--occupied his time, and there's a pretty good track record of him losing interest and moving on to the next project. The Book of Abraham was pretty much forgotten for 7 years or so, but he went back to it in Nauvoo for whatever reason.

Regarding the possibility that the Book of Mormon is a channeled text, I have already gone over this. Throughout his life, Joseph Smith seemed to be playing the role of a medium (someone who was able to communicate with the spirit world). This ability, that he apparently felt he had, seemed to develop at an early age and involved primarily scrying rather than automatic writing or going into an unconscious trance (although the latter may have at times been going on). I do not believe that Joseph Smith was communicating directly with God, therefore, if he was communicating with the spirit world, it was with spirit beings of varying capability and individuality as evidenced by the variety of "revelations" that he received. Yes, he could have made all of this up, but I personally doubt it. I have studied medumship quite closely, and, from my perspective, Joseph Smith was a medium. Obviously, my opinion on this does not go over very well on this forum. But that is all right. I realize that materialists are unable to accept this possibility and others see human authorship as more likely.

I'm skeptical of claims to contact a "spirit world," but I can't rule out that such things happen. But that's really not of interest to me, as the book speaks for itself. I am, however, deeply skeptical of someone who uses a particular "supernatural" method for one task (say, finding treasure) and fails utterly, but then turns around and claims to use the same method successfully for another task (say, translating gold plates). The text would have to be pretty damn compelling for me to give that person the time of day.

[_canpakes]

Apparently I am wrong, but my impression has been that the Book of Mormon really didn't mean that much to Joseph Smith. Once it was published, my understanding is that he more or less ignored it. It was never treated by him, again according to my understanding, as his creation. It seems as if it was a task that he carried out, for whatever reason, and then he moved on, promoting ideas that seemed to totally contradict what is contained in the Book of Mormon...

Regarding the possibility that the Book of Mormon is a channeled text... I do not believe that Joseph Smith was communicating directly with God, therefore, if he was communicating with the spirit world, it was with spirit beings of varying capability and individuality as evidenced by the variety of "revelations" that he received. Yes, he could have made all of this up, but I personally doubt it.

tld -

I've edited your response to bring these two thoughts to the fore.

If Smith channeled the text, and knew that he was doing so - having created a document that was, in his mind, presumably laden with some authenticity or truth - then why would he have ignored it after completion and started promoting ideas that were contradictory?

I agree with you that Smith deviated substantially from the Book of Mormon path, but I am curious as to why you think he did so. It would seem that if he was actually channeling an external source, i.e., something greater or more powerful than anything mortal - and was aware of it - then deviating from the Book of Mormon would be perceived as irrational or counterproductive in relation to the source, as far as Smith might regard the consequences.

If he was not channeling an outside source, but was himself the author, then he might not have any qualms about going in any direction that he believed would serve his own purpose, whatever that may have been.