Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_Runtu]

Yep. Chiasmus is not the silver bullet that proves the Book of Mormon. It is interesting, however, that Joseph Smith and Co. would go to such efforts in constructing and using this literary device, along with other purported use of Hebraisms, so that they could convert all the farmers, shop keepers, coal miners, and other common people of the time. Although it may well be that they had the future sophisticates and intellectuals in mind.

Regards,
MG

You really aren't understanding my position. Chiasmus does not have to be intentional, and it doesn't require a great deal of skill or sophistication. It's used all the time. Honestly, I don't understand why you guys feel it necessary to construct such an untenable argument and then act all condescending to those of us who disagree.

[_Blixa]

I hate to sound so snippy, why me, but can you read? I never said Joseph Smith was writing a NOVEL. I said a BOOK.

Anyway, let me just say this. The origins of the Book of Mormon were quite different than you think they were.

[_Trevor]

He only needed to open his mouth and start preaching. Success would follow.

You actually believe that without new scripture Joseph Smith would have been more successful?

[_why me]

You have to remember the cultural climate of Joseph Smith' period. People were fascinated by the ancient history of their new country, and wanted to find evidence of a history equally as glorious as that of the Old World. The new America was trying to find its own history, its own identity. This was part of the process. This is why stories telling about ancient Americans were popular at the time period. This is the climate that engendered the Book of Mormon.

I am not certain the author of the Book of Mormon intended it to be viewed as a fictional novel. There was too much talk of real ancient American records for me to believe that. But I do not believe that Joseph Smith originally envisioned the Book of Mormon as the means to create a church. The Book of Mormon sounds like part and parcel of the Christian primitivist movement in Christianity during tha ttime period. The idea of an actual organized church came later, in my opinion - maybe as a result of Joseph Smith realizing how seriously people were taking him and this book.

Well, the problem with this theory is rather simple: the book was rejected by the local community and Joseph Smith was mocked and ridiculed. And one reason for this was because Joseph Smith made it into a religious text, hence, the golden Bible as description for the Book of Mormon by the locals.

As I have said, it absolutely makes no sense for him to write such a book and turn it into something religious. The reaction was negative and the local people began their persecutions. But he continued on. And least we forget, the poor guy with emma's help was carrying around this heavy box claiming that the plates were inside that box. Sorry, no cigar on that theory you are pushing. Carrying around a heavy box for a fictional novel just doesn't make any sense at all.

Now as a novel, who knows it could have been successful, if he wrote it. But he didn't publish it as a novel.

[_why me]

He only needed to open his mouth and start preaching. Success would follow.

You actually believe that without new scripture Joseph Smith would have been more successful?

Yes. He wasn't successful with the new scripture. He failed miserably. Without the Book of Mormon he would have been a great preacher, perhaps even a great Methodist preacher. Just look at the gifts the critics give Joseph Smith: Automatic writing, steady stream of consciouness writing without a manuscript, etc. This guy was gifted if I take the critics word for it. And he had an interest in religion since he prayed for guidance. And if he plagarized the King James and added new turns to doctrine in the Book of Mormon, he could have done marvelously in the pulpit. Plus the critics have him being very charismatic. Yep, he would have been successful without the Book of Mormon and new scripture.

He would have started out humbly and built his congregation slowly but he would have been a success. Mind you, not a huge public figure, but who knows?

But god called him to a different destiny, and hence here we are today....

[_Trevor]

Yes. He wasn't successful with the new scripture. He failed miserably. Without the Book of Mormon he would have been a great preacher, perhaps even a great Methodist preacher. Just look at the gifts the critics give Joseph Smith: Automatic writing, steady stream of consciouness writing without a manuscript, etc. This guy was gifted if I take the critics word for it. And he had an interest in religion since he prayed for guidance. And if he plagarized the King James and added new turns to doctrine in the Book of Mormon, he could have done marvelously in the pulpit. Plus the critics have him being very charismatic. Yep, he would have been successful without the Book of Mormon and new scripture.

He would have started out humbly and built his congregation slowly but he would have been a success. Mind you, not a huge public figure, but who knows?

But god called him to a different destiny, and hence here we are today....

This is perhaps one of the stupidest arguments in favor of the Book of Mormon I have ever read. I guess it is intended to accentuate the miraculous nature of the overall success of Mormonism. That whole bit of God's destiny for Joseph is just precious. It reminds me of the whole argument that Joseph Smith, without God's help, was an unlettered moron who could not even tie his shoelaces, ergo the Book of Mormon is miraculous. Now you have simply taken it a step further by saying the Book of Mormon itself was a giant flop and a hindrance to Joseph Smith's success, ergo only God's miracles could salvage such a debacle.

STUPID!

Your idea that Joseph Smith failed somehow as a result of the Book of Mormon is preposterous. The Book of Mormon is one of the most important elements of the LDS religion. The process of 'translating' the text provided him with some of his strongest early supporters (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery). Other important early converts were brought in by the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon convinced people, by its very existence, that Smith had a special prophetic calling. He wasn't just any other preacher or prophet preaching repentance and the Second Coming.

Without the Book of Mormon, few would remember Joseph Smith. He would simply be a strange footnote in the local history of New York, at most. The Book of Mormon is the single most important document of the LDS faith by virtue of its historical role as proof of Smith's calling. I guess you can redefine "success" in order to make it appear that the Book of Mormon was a real liability or a failure, but there are much stronger arguments to be made for the centrality of the Book of Mormon for Mormonism.

[_Blixa]

Yeah, me too, Trev. I'm completely gobsmacked by this novel twist on JS-the-unlettered-halfwit story. That damn Book of Mormon sure was a millstone around that poor kid's neck! And imagine "the poor guy with emma's help was carrying around this heavy box claiming that the plates were inside that box!"

why me is right, though, that, "Carrying around a heavy box for a fictional novel just doesn't make any sense at all."

Of course another thing that doesn't make any sense at all is why me's insistence that someone here has implied the Book of Mormon was written as a novel, or to use his phrase, a "fictional novel."

[_Trevor]

why me is right, though, that, "Carrying around a heavy box for a fictional novel just doesn't make any sense at all."

Of course another thing that doesn't make any sense at all is why me's insistence that someone here has implied the Book of Mormon was written as a novel, or to use his phrase, a "fictional novel."

The Book of Mormon shows every appearance of having been intended as a book of scripture comparable with the Bible. After all, the author cribbed the Bible with wreckless abandon and otherwise alluded to its language and narratives extensively.

And remember, if you make a big deal over something, it is more likely that others will take it seriously too, whether it is deserving of that attention or not.

[_why me]

Of course another thing that doesn't make any sense at all is why me's insistence that someone here has implied the Book of Mormon was written as a novel, or to use his phrase, a "fictional novel."

Read it and weep....

thestyleguy wrote:


I think some would say Joseph was trying to write a novel: the first printing has him as proprietor. And read my post on automatic writing and then come back and read your last sentence. AND LOL as LOP if subsribing to Dan Vogel's thoughts.

This is where the idea came up.

[_Blixa]

Yeah and? the styleguy wasn't saying the Book of Mormon was conceived of as a novel, his point is that some others may draw that conclusion from the "proprietor" and copyright business.

You however have been acting like some people...uh, me...have been claiming this. Thus my point that you aren't reading with a great deal of comprehension. Now if you'd said "Non-fiction novel" instead of "fictional novel" then you might have had a potentially interesting literary line to develop: the Book of Mormon as precursor to The Executioner's Song?