Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_harmony]

Does anyone wonder why I love cinepro's posts so much?

To be fair, I think Joseph had all but exhausted his capacity for public revelations by 1843. The last year of his life there were no revelations. So, BY et al. were just continuing in Joseph's prophetic silence.

I mean really... when did he have time? He was busy hiding his multiple wives, sending his friends on missions, running for president, destroying printing presses...when did the man have time to receive more revelations?

[Guest]

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?

No, the styleguy was implicit in the meaning. Some would say that the book was conceived as a novel.

Now, blixa, lets not get picky with wordings. For me, non-fiction novel and fictional novel are just nitpicking.

I can't remember now where I read that it started out as a book, I'm sorry, I don't really know the difference between a non-fiction book and a novel. It might have been Joseph Smith and the origens of the Book of Mormon, by David Persuitte. I'll go back and check. I think also I was thinking about Pearl Curran's The Sorry Tale - where people are saying Joseph Smith was inspired well, that book, was sort-of dictated the same way, got a good review on the New York times and my guess is the Book of Mormon did not. But I'm reading so many peoples thoughts in American Apocrypha that I'm not sure who wrote that a non-fiction book was the first plan...likely not even in those essays. But why go to Canada to sell the copyright. I think the person that thought that Joseph Smith was trying to make some money so he could get Emma's dad off his back and so he would be proud of him and the scripture thingy came on maybe with a flash in Joseph's mind, thinking - wow, you know - maybe, but then I guess he was talking about seeing an angel for a few years so it likely wouldn't have been a new Gone with the Wind. sorry for being scattered on this post.


edit in: I think it was David Persuitte's book. He said the very first printing had Joseph as Author and Proprietor and then he took out Proprietor in the next printing.

[_karl61]

For me, one of the strongest arguments against the divine theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon is the suddenness with which the heavens closed after Joseph's death.

From 1829, God was ebulliently bringing forth new scripture, whether it was new translation (Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham), redaction of existing scriptures (JST), or modern revelation (BoC/D&C). It just came from everywhere.

Then, right around the time Joseph dies...it stops. Finis. Nada. We LDS love Joseph's successors, and revere them as Prophets with spiritual gifts equal to Joseph's. Yet in the ensuing 163 years, not a single LDS prophet (out of 14) has been able to translate, redact, or reveal a single paragraph even close to what Joseph came up with. Not one!

Even those few post-Joseph canonized passages bear not a single similarity to Joseph's work. D&C 138 reads like my grandfathers description of a recent fishing trip to Big Bear with not a single "thee" or "thou" to distinguish it. The Official Declarations are canonized press releases. And whatever happened to the Book of Joseph?

My surprise at this complete lack of post-Joseph "scripture" is matched only by my incredulity at the rationalizations LDS reflexively make up to explain God's silence. Each seems more inane (inaner?) than the previous, with hardly a second's thought given to whether they make sense or not.

I can only imagine the wonderful scripture Joseph could have dictated had a few years of peace given him rest in Nauvoo. But sadly, he was gone before his time, and with him also went those scriptures which were promised us.

The only General Authority who might be remotely prepared for the task would have to be Gerald Lund. I pray that he lives long enough, and rises fast enough, that he may be in a position to dictate some new scripture. Even if the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon turns out to be the multi-generational story of a family that just happened to escape with Lehi and live throughout Book of Mormon times, it would be more than I expected.

Yea, BY's revelation - picking captains and dividing them into groups showed he really didn't have the nack for some serious booty-kicking dialogue with God.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

For me, one of the strongest arguments against the divine theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon is the suddenness with which the heavens closed after Joseph's death.

From 1829, God was ebulliently bringing forth new scripture, whether it was new translation (Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham), redaction of existing scriptures (JST), or modern revelation (BoC/D&C). It just came from everywhere.

Then, right around the time Joseph dies...it stops. Finis. Nada. We LDS love Joseph's successors, and revere them as Prophets with spiritual gifts equal to Joseph's. Yet in the ensuing 163 years, not a single LDS prophet (out of 14) has been able to translate, redact, or reveal a single paragraph even close to what Joseph came up with. Not one!

Even those few post-Joseph canonized passages bear not a single similarity to Joseph's work. D&C 138 reads like my grandfathers description of a recent fishing trip to Big Bear with not a single "thee" or "thou" to distinguish it. The Official Declarations are canonized press releases. And whatever happened to the Book of Joseph?

My surprise at this complete lack of post-Joseph "scripture" is matched only by my incredulity at the rationalizations LDS reflexively make up to explain God's silence. Each seems more inane (inaner?) than the previous, with hardly a second's thought given to whether they make sense or not.

I can only imagine the wonderful scripture Joseph could have dictated had a few years of peace given him rest in Nauvoo. But sadly, he was gone before his time, and with him also went those scriptures which were promised us.

The only General Authority who might be remotely prepared for the task would have to be Gerald Lund. I pray that he lives long enough, and rises fast enough, that he may be in a position to dictate some new scripture. Even if the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon turns out to be the multi-generational story of a family that just happened to escape with Lehi and live throughout Book of Mormon times, it would be more than I expected.

This is a good point. One of the problems is Brigham Young was the last young (pardon the pun) prophet. He didn't seem to be as interested in creating scripture as he was in building a kingdom. After Brigham Young, all the prophets were too old to care.

[_Blixa]

I'm sorry, I don't really know the difference between a non-fiction book and a novel.

Don't worry. I was making a joke over why me's head: I countered his empty construction "fictional novel" with an actual literay term, "the nonfiction novel." "Fiction novel" also reminded me of the pompous reptetitive nouns employed by L. Ron Hubbard in his religious novels/Dianetics scripture: "they ate the nutrition food and washed it down with the liquid water. Then they walked down the highway road to the metropolis city..."

But then I realized that it actualy could make sense to talk about the Book of Mormon as a kind of ur-nonfiction novel, and in fact that might be an interesting literary historical line to pursue.

All in all, even given that my comment started as a joke, one has to be fairly unaware of issues of rhetoric, genre and literary history to reduce my post to nitpicking over words. The non fiction novel is a rather important moment in the cultural history of narrative, a moment we are currently enmeshed in.

[_karl61]

If I recall correctly at first the Book of Mormon said Joseph Smith was the author and proprietor and then he changed it to author and translator which makes me think that it was more of a business type thingy at the beginning and I think that's what the author of Joseph Smith and the origins of the Book of Mormon thought too.

regards,

thestyleguy

[_charity]

If I recall correctly at first the Book of Mormon said Joseph Smith was the author and proprietor and then he changed it to author and translator which makes me think that it was more of a business type thingy at the beginning and I think that's what the author of Joseph Smith and the origins of the Book of Mormon thought too.

regards,

thestyleguy

When the copyright was registered, there was no box to check that said translator. However, the title page of the Book of Mormon was submitted with the copyright application, which clearly stated that Joseph was the translator.

[_ludwigm]

"why me" wrote:

Actually, Ludwigm, the critics have Joseph Smith knowing his Bible quite well, especially the Old Testament. Now what you are saying that he didn't actually know the Bible quite well. Let me put it this way: if the Book of Mormon did list the words in the Old Testament, would that have convinced you? I don't think so. You would just say that Joseph Smith copied the Bible quite well. In other words, it would not matter at all.
How did Joseph Smith write the book? What is your theory?

No, he didn't actually know the Bible quite well.
Yes, he copied chapters and verses.
For example, he copied Isa. 14: 12 to 2 Ne. 24: 12.
And he did't know that Lucifer is one of the many errors of KJV, originated from the latin Bible, produced by St. Jerome (Hyeronimus) about 300 A.C.
And he didn't know that Elijah and Elias IS the same person. ( +Isaiah/Esaias, +Jeremiah/Jeremy). So Elias, another error of the KJV, appeared him. (D&C 110) And Elias, that translation error "... committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham ... " which is an expression without any sense (this is not about Book of Mormon, this is about knowing the Bible).
He didn't copied expressions he didn't understand. For example jewish feasts, which have high importance for jews.
And he didn't copied the expression "in other words" from the Bible because there is no such expression in the Old Testament and New Testament.
In the D&C we can find it 21 times. It is his work.
In the JST, which is relative short text, there are 4 occurences. It is his work, too.
In the Book of Mormon there are 11. Who did write it?
And You did use it one times.

How did Joseph Smith write the book? What is my theory?

I have no theory. He may have been a good storyteller. Was he? Have we information about this? I think, we have.
It is said, I am a good storyteller, too. But I don't found churh/sect/denomination. I'm working.
How did Joseph Smith write the book? I don't know. And don't care.
There are things I know.
- No such real thing as angel. Long-dead persons can not appear, even never-existing ones. Then where did the plates come from?
- One can not translate with stones. Not with urim-thummim or "seer" ones. Then how did he "translated" the (nonexisting) plates?
(OK, we have special stones made out of silicium, but they have to put in "microprocessor sockets" instead into hats.)

After this start, I don't care with horse(=tapir), steel, silk, bee or barley. They all prove me that I DID decide well at the beginning, when I DID NOT joined.
(Don't forget my favourites: curelom, cumom, ziff, neas, seum and Mahonri Moriancumer)

___ Ludwig from Hungary[/i]

[_beastie]

When the copyright was registered, there was no box to check that said translator. However, the title page of the Book of Mormon was submitted with the copyright application, which clearly stated that Joseph was the translator.

What changed to allow him to do so on the second printing?

[_Doctor Steuss]

When the copyright was registered, there was no box to check that said translator. However, the title page of the Book of Mormon was submitted with the copyright application, which clearly stated that Joseph was the translator.

What changed to allow him to do so on the second printing?

If I recall correctly, it wasn't until 1870 when the protective rights of derivative works were addressed (i.e. translations, adaptations, etc.). I’m not sure of all the ins-and-outs, but I think that until that time, translations of texts/books weren’t protected under copyright law.

I’ve been wrong before, and I’m only going by memory here, so be forewarned.