Runtu wrote:From my experience as an author, my book was my "baby" while I was writing it and for a short period after I published it. Oddly enough, some readers have asked me about specific parts of the book, and I've had to reread it to remember what they're talking about. So, no, I don't think that an author necessarily obsesses on his baby or remembers the details. I suspect he was like I am, focused on my next project.
As for his "surprise," the only thing I can think of that Emma said he was surprised about was that Jerusalem was a walled city. If I take her word for it, it suggests that someone else may have written that part, but then that doesn't mean it was revealed or channeled.
But your book was for a time your baby.
What evidence is there that Joseph Smith was ever aware of and took an interest in the content of the Book of Mormon, until maybe later?
The problem is that we have multiple witnesses (and a court record) indicating that Joseph admitted he couldn't see anything in the hat and promised to stop doing it. But, as we know, he went back to it nonetheless.
This has been answered in a subsequent post.
This is unfortunately pure speculation based on no evidence.
What hypothesis is there that tries to explain how the Book of Mormon came into existence that does not involve at least some speculation.
How can we say what he "likely thought"?
Joseph Smith said that he did what he did "by the gift and power of God."
I am totally sincere. I don't give it much support for the reasons I've given. I don't see any reason to believe that Joseph thought and acted in a certain way because we imagine that's what happened.
Of course you don't, given your experience and belief. Given my experience and belief, I see it differently.
Key things for me:
1. Joseph's career as a treasure seeker was a complete failure.
2. Joseph admitted that he couldn't see anything in the stone and promised to give up the practice.
3. He used the same stone to translate gold plates that he said he had.
4. The translation turns out to be pretty obviously a 19th-century creation.
None of this requires anything supernatural and indeed it points away from the supernatural, in my opinion.
1 and 2 have been answered in subsequent posts.
3 You probably didn't mean to say it this way. He said he had gold plates, but he did not use his stone to translate from those plates. The stone could have been used to channel the text of the Book of Mormon.
4 This is true, although the Book of Mormon is not limited to this. This is, in my opinion, not evidence against the supernatural. Who says that a channeled text cannot contain information about the 19th century?