Previously I wrote: So I agree with the Church that Smith didn’t indicate he had what it would take to write such a complicated storyline all by himself. I just don’t agree with their conclusion ..that this is good reasoning for divine intervention. Dale doesn’t rule out other possibilities of co-conspirator writers besides Spalding's manuscript and Rigdon ..such as perhaps Cowdery helping out with the contents. But the most implausible theory of all given all the evidence is Dan’s. Dan's theory not only ignores the evidence which exists for the Rigdon/Spalding but as well his theory is extremely weak. It isn't likely given what was known of Smith at the time that he would have written the Book of Mormon.
Dan wrote:I don't see how you are in a position to make this kind of assessment with such authority. You don't know what Joseph Smith was capable of doing. He seems perfectly capable right after the Book of Mormon was dictated by continuing his production without skipping a beat.
Well it's from various bits and pieces of information which I've read here and there over the last 6 years, all of which I can’t remember but I’ll give you some examples.
There is Hugh Nibley’s challenge to the students in which he describes the complex plot in the Book of Mormon and I find what Nibley says compelling. @
http://www.josephsmith.com/---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since Joseph Smith was younger than most of you and not nearly so experienced or well-educated as any of you at the time he copyrighted the Book of Mormon, it should not be too much to ask you to hand in by the end of the semester (which will give you more time than he had) a paper of, say, five to six hundred pages in length. Call it a sacred book if you will, and give it the form of a history. Tell of a community of wandering Jews in ancient times; have all sorts of characters in your story, and involve them in all sorts of public and private vicissitudes; give them names--hundreds of them--pretending that they are real Hebrew and Egyptian names of circa 600 b.c.; be lavish with cultural and technical details--manners and customs, arts and industries, political and religious institutions, rites, and traditions, include long and complicated military and economic histories; have your narrative cover a thousand years without any large gaps; keep a number of interrelated local histories going at once; feel free to introduce religious controversy and philosophical discussion, but always in a plausible setting; observe the appropriate literary conventions and explain the derivation and transmission of your varied historical materials.
Above all, do not ever contradict yourself! For now we come to the really hard part of this little assignment. You and I know that you are making this all up--we have our little joke--but just the same you are going to be required to have your paper published when you finish it, not as fiction or romance, but as a true history! After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon); what is more, you are to invite any and all scholars to read and criticize your work freely, explaining to them that it is a sacred book on a par with the Bible. If they seem over-skeptical, you might tell them that you translated the book from original records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim--they will love that! Further to allay their misgivings, you might tell them that the original manuscript was on golden plates, and that you got the plates from an angel. Now go to work and good luck!
To date no student has carried out this assignment, which, of course, was not meant seriously. But why not? If anybody could write the Book of Mormon, as we have been so often assured, it is high time that somebody, some devoted and learned minister of the gospel, let us say, performed the invaluable public service of showing the world that it can be done." - Hugh Nibley
---------------------------------------------------------------
H. Nibley also describes the complexity of the Book of Mormon
"Structure and Complexity of the Book of Mormon
First Nephi gives us first a clear and vivid look at the world of Lehi, a citizen of Jerusalem but much at home in the general world of the New East of 600 B.C. Then it takes us to the desert, where Lehi and his family wander for eight years, doing all the things that wandering families in the desert should do. The manner of their crossing the ocean is described, as is the first settlement and hard pioneer life in the New World dealt with.... The book of Mosiah describes a coronation rite in all its details and presents extensive religious and political histories mixed in with a complicated background of exploration and colonization. The book of Alma is marked by long eschatological discourses and a remarkably full and circumstantial military history. The main theme of the book of Helaman is the undermining of society by moral decay and criminal conspiracy; the powerful essay on crime is carried into the next book, where the ultimate dissolution of the Nephite government is described.
Then comes the account of the great storm and earthquakes, in which the writer, ignoring a splendid opportunity for exaggeration, has as accurately depicted the typical behavior of the elements on such occasions as if he were copying out of a modern textbook on seismology.... [Soon] after the catastrophe, Jesus Christ appeared to the most pious sectaries who had gathered at the temple.
...Can anyone now imagine the terrifying prospect of confronting the Christian world of 1830 with the very words of Christ? ...
But the boldness of the thing is matched by the directness and nobility with which the preaching of the Savior and the organization of the church are described. After this comes a happy history and then the usual signs of decline and demoralization. The death-struggle of the Nephite civilization is described with due attention to all the complex factors that make up an exceedingly complicated but perfectly consistent picture of decline and fall. Only one who attempts to make a full outline of Book of Mormon history can begin to appreciate its immense complexity; and never once does the author get lost (as the student repeatedly does, picking his way out of one maze after another only with the greatest effort), and never once does he contradict himself. We should be glad to learn of any other like performance in the history of literature." - Hugh Nibley, Collected Works Vol. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
Then there are witnesses who you have suggested to me are credible Emma S. and David Whitmer who described Smith asking a question whether Jerusalem had walls surrounding it. Then there’s Emma’s claim in response to her son’s question of “Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, O. Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having read it out of some book? And her response was “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon”. Am I supposed to assume she lied to this question but is honest in whether or not Smith used a manuscript? Smith may have been a quick study, may have developed writing skills, but it’s not something he was noted for at the time the Book of Mormon was being written. He was only 25 years, I don’t think he had much schooling, wasn’t noted for reading or writing. Whereas, both Spalding and Ridgon were educated to be ministers. They were older and others observed them to be well educated.
---------------------------------------------------------------
As you appreciate I pick up information from message boards and just recently a post dealt with this very topic on mormondiscussions.. @
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1242 well actually the original came from MAD.
Beastie writes: “ The thread (from MAD) is called "Joseph as Apologist" by Her Amun, whose basic point was that Joseph Smith was an ignorant fool who could never have possessed all the advanced knowledge within the Book of Mormon. He stated, in regards to Joseph Smith (in response to silly things like "Mormon" meaning "more good"):
Im not sure he was joking, though it might be possible.
I think he is being serious, and showing what an ignoramous he was. Hardly the kind of man that could have known Enochic traditions, egyptian names, pre-islamic arabian geography, 1st temple goddess theology,olive cultivation,ancient priesthood initiation rights,non-biblical Abraham traditions,ancient jewish coronation rights,ancient jewish poetic forms, the mesoamerican pattern of using invervals of 400 for cyclical calendar prophecy, ancient egyptian associations of Abraham and the lion couch, ancient hebrew adaption/redaction of egyptian funerary motifs or mesoamerican warefare.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember reading Charlotte Haven’s assessment of Rigdon and Smith in her letters, and she struck me as being extremely intelligent, perceptive, credible and objective.
http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1880 ... vn1890.htm
Charlotte Haven (1843 part 1)
Mrs. R. when I go for the mail always invites me to stop and rest, which after a cold, long walk I am glad to do, thus opening an acquaintance with Elder Sidney Rigdon, the most learned man among the Latter Day Saints. He is past fifty and is somewhat bald and his dark hair slightly gray. He has an intelligent countenance, a courteous manner, and speaks grammatically. He talks very pleasantly about his travels in this country and Europe, but is very reticent about his religion. I have heard it stated that he was Smith's chief aid in getting up the Book of Mormon and creed. He is so far above Smith in intellect; education, and secretiveness, that there is scarcely a doubt that he is at the head in compiling it. I looked over his library -- on some bookshelves in the kitchen. It was a very good student's collection, -- Hebrew, Greek, and Latin lexicons and readers, stray volumes of Shakespeare, Scott, Irving's works, and a number of other valuable books. He studied for the ministry in his youth, then was employed in a newspaper office.
So the above is some of the information I've used in reaching a conclusion that Smith with high probability did not write the Book of Mormon himself. I’ll continue with my response later and address the rest of your post.