Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_charity]

My responses in bold.

Well, even if there are Angels, it doesn't make Mormonism true, but it does make Joseph's claim of communicating with Angels more believable.

Thank you.

One of the main problem with the claim of Joseph Smith being tutored by Moroni is how much he got wrong regarding Book of Mormon history.

Such as?

You would think, being tutored by an actual Nephite over a period of several years, he would know what he was talking about. Why did Joseph Believe the Book of Mormon took place throughout North America, including upstate New York, when in fact it only took place in a tiny section of Mesoamerica? Didn't Moroni ever get around to telling him where he (Moroni) actually lived during his mortal life?

Evidently not. The "why didn't Moroni get around to mentioning. . . ." is a pretty silly question.

If Joseph entertained his family about ancient inhabitants of America, including their culture, dress, modes of travel, etc. and these things were taught to him by Moroni, it seems Joseph's version would be the most accurate. If the Book of Mormon really took place in Mesoamerica, and Moroni walked thousands of miles to bury the plates in NY, why didn't he tell Joseph Smith about it?

Same silly question.

Surely he must have known that Joseph was spreading lies about the Nephites and Lamanites living throughout North America, why didn't Moroni correct him during the tutoring sessions? The bottom line is, why didn't Moroni tutor Joseph Smith on the Limited Geography Theory?

You keep asking the same silly question.

[_Pokatator]

I think I know every anti-argument there is out there. I have read them, gone through their evidence, evaluated sources, and held them up to the light of day. A lot of them were like cockroaches, scurried for their dark little corners. Some of them have a whiff of crediblity to them, but they are based on incomplete information and there can't be a conclusion at this time. So, instead of jumping to a premature conclusion as the anti's have, it seems the more prudent course to adopt a wait and see.

If you are happier out of the Church, good for you. And if you decide at some future time you aren't, you can always come back.

Charity, I left the church 19 years ago at 36 years old. I went church hopping for about 6 years. I studied everything I could about Mormonism and about every other major religion and denomination that caught even a little of my interest. This was before the internet but I read everything Mormon I could get my hands on prior to leaving. When I left, I too, researched and became aware of every anti-argument that is out there. I have read them, gone through their evidence, evaluated sources, and held them up to the light of day and compared them to Mormonism. Mormonism is the one with the "whiff of credibility" to it, no more. I didn't and can't take your advice of a "more prudent course to adopt a wait and see" option. You see I did that for 36 years, I have had this same type of conversation with you before. You would have me rely on some one else's testimony until I got my own, forever, that doesn't make anything true.

Left and finally became a Lutheran, could have been one of many other Christian denominations but it is where I settled. I didn't leave Mormonism because I got my feelings hurt, or wanted to sin, etc. etc. I have always believed in Jesus as my savior all my life and I have always hung on to that even in spite of Mormonism. If you viewed me from the outside looking in, I'd still look like a Mormon. I pay my 10% tithing like before, I don't smoke, morally I could get a TR, I don't have any tatoos, no piercings, I could go on and on. The only thing I can think of other than just not believing a lie any more is that I have been known to have a couple of beers a couple of times a year at a Lutheran retreat in the Sawtooth Mtns. I think not enough to use the normal Mormon excuses on me.

I came to these boards about 4 years ago. I have restudied the Mormon and Anti issues that are available on web. I have studied and read the stuff at FAIR and FARMS. My view is they are weak like you view the Anti stuff. I gave both sides a second chance. So we are at an impasse.

Charity wrote:

I have asked myself that question. And I have gotten an answer to the question. I have been looking for an article I read titled "The Lightning of Heaven" by Dr. Terryl Givens. I think I can quote him accurately. He said, "There is evidence enough on either side for a life of credible belief or of dismissive denial. The choice we make is based more on who we are than on the quality of the evidence."

You see the evidence and choose the life of dismissive denial. I see the same evidence and choose the life of credible belief.

I guess we have both reviewed the same information and have came to different conclusions. I assure you that I know who I am and my life is not a life of dismissive denial. I also believe the quality of the evidence and my beliefs are credible.

I do thank you for your invitation to come back to the church. I have always known that to be an option but it will never happen.

[_Jersey Girl]

So here goes:

Was the Book of Mormon a consequence of Joe stringing everyone along for years? imagine you are joe. You swear up and down the white indian teleporting into your room every so often wants you to have this weighty gold brick with a record on it. You get married, people think your a scam artist and then you start realizing that if you don't produce the book the gullible saps will even lose faith in you. So you swear the towel covering the brick is said gold plates and stick your head in a hat, relying on the saps to transcribe your colorful rantings.

Was the Book of Mormon just an end to a continual tall tale that helped joe learn how to spin even bigger tales?

Mercury, I would suggest that you read the Book of Mormon, paying particular attention to the complexity of the "plot," the doctrine taught, and the desription of the social and cultural structures. Then read the eye witness accounts of the way it was produced.

Then see if you can figure out how a 3rd grade educated farmer could have produced the text in about a 9 week period of time.

Then come back and we can talk about whether or not it was a slapped together attempt to shore up a failing following.

charity, you act as though Joseph Smith was illiterate. Do you think he was? If so, why?

[_Runtu]

charity, you act as though Joseph Smith was illiterate. Do you think he was? If so, why?

That seems to be part of the "there's no way he could have come up with it himself" story. I'm as baffled as you are as to why people think that.

[_Jersey Girl]

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

On the Hebraic side of the question, there are some points that seem compelling to believers, like Nahom and chiasmus. Of course, there are possible nonsupernatural explanations for these points as well.

On the New World side of the equation, you don't even have that, although some apologists are very good at convincing people without adequate background knowledge that you do.

Beastie, there are more kinds of evidence than archeological. Hebrew rituals not well understood in Joseph's day appear in the Book of Mormon. Hebraisisms. MesoAmerican war styles described in the Book of Mormon. Complete consistency throughout the book.

And the detailed study of the Book of Mormon by Dr. Skousen, et al, show much more about Hebrew writing styles and grammar than the later "cleaned up" editions.

It really is a ocmplicated field of knowledge which cannot be written off as easily as is being done h ere.

What Hebrew rituals? Could you supply examples?

[_Jersey Girl]

Setbag, I would be one of the last people on earth to say that the Book of Mormon can be PROVEN to be true by any means other than a spiritual witness.

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

Hey can I go over the top and spin out of control, too?

I find nothing compelling in the form of any evidences. The spiritual witness business is bunk too. Moroni's promise doesn't work either.

By the way, welcome to the board, Charity.

Thanks for the welcome, Pokator. You can spin all you want. You do it a lot! :)

(Does this board have smilies availalbe? I haven't found them.)

EVen if you don't find the evidence compelling, you do see it. Correct?

You have to fabricate your own smilies, charity.

:-)
;-)
:-D
;-P

[_Jersey Girl]

charity, you act as though Joseph Smith was illiterate. Do you think he was? If so, why?

That seems to be part of the "there's no way he could have come up with it himself" story. I'm as baffled as you are as to why people think that.

Not that I have a dog in this fight but, I don't believe for a second that he came up with it himself. However, the evidence related to him having been illiterate is against that assumption. Unless someone has information that I haven't got. That's why I'm asking charity.

[_Runtu]

Not that I have a dog in this fight but, I don't believe for a second that he came up with it himself. However, the evidence related to him having been illiterate is against that assumption. Unless someone has information that I haven't got. That's why I'm asking charity.

Just out of curiosity, why do you find it improbable that he wrote it himself?

[_Jersey Girl]

Not that I have a dog in this fight but, I don't believe for a second that he came up with it himself. However, the evidence related to him having been illiterate is against that assumption. Unless someone has information that I haven't got. That's why I'm asking charity.

Just out of curiosity, why do you find it improbable that he wrote it himself?

Because I think he had a little help from his friends, Runtu.

[_Runtu]

Because I think he had a little help from his friends, Runtu.

Why am I humming the Beatles? :)

I don't know one way or the other whether there was one author or many authors. What is clear is that the book is a 19th-century fabrication, not an ancient record. Unless you can think of a reason why an ancient record is textually dependent on a later document.