By comparing the Nephi-Joseph Smith parallels to the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels, you seem to be implying that they're on the same footing--that the Nephi-JS parallels aren't meaningful because we find similarly strong, but meaningless, parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy. This strikes me as quite odd.
Whether such parallels are meaningful depends in part on whether there is a plausible causal connection between them. Outside of very arcane conjectures, there is no causal pathway from the details of Lincoln's life to the details of Kennedy's. Is the case the same with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? Smith is the one who dictated the book, which would have allowed him to consciously or unconsciously place himself within its narrative. The baseline probability of an author (or even unconventional translator) sneaking bits of himself into a text is quite high, while the baseline probability of one person's life being magically duplicated in another's much later life seems quite low. You're comparing very different things.
Don
It only works if Joseph was writing the book, not if he was translating it.
If you are saying that Joseph Smith wrote it because of parallels that are seen, this must mean that you reject the Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding theories? What would be their motivation to write in elements of Joseph's life?
charity wrote:It only works if Joseph was writing the book, not if he was translating it.
If you are saying that Joseph Smith wrote it because of parallels that are seen, this must mean that you reject the Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding theories? What would be their motivation to write in elements of Joseph's life?
The only person I know who posits a Rigdon/Spaulding theory is Dale Broadhurst. You seem to view us critics as an unthinking, monolithic group who all get the same talking points.
For the record, I believe Joseph Smith could and did write the Book of Mormon.
charity wrote:It only works if Joseph was writing the book, not if he was translating it.
If you are saying that Joseph Smith wrote it because of parallels that are seen, this must mean that you reject the Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding theories? What would be their motivation to write in elements of Joseph's life?
The only person I know who posits a Rigdon/Spaulding theory is Dale Broadhurst. You seem to view us critics as an unthinking, monolithic group who all get the same talking points.
For the record, I believe Joseph Smith could and did write the Book of Mormon.
I asked that as a question.
So how do you account for Emma's statement that at the time of the "translating" of the Book of Mormon Joseph could not compose a letter?
It has to be borne in mind too that Joseph Smith was 23 years old when he "wrote" the Book of Mormon. This is barely beyond the age of your average missionary. If he did write it, then he would have to be a genius.
Ray A wrote:It has to be borne in mind too that Joseph Smith was 23 years old when he "wrote" the Book of Mormon. This is barely beyond the age of your average missionary. If he did write it, then he would have to be a genius.
Mormon was named after his father Mormon (Mormon 1:5) as Joseph Smith was named after his father Joseph Smith.
Ammaron, the record guardian, "hid up the records unto the Lord" (Mormon 1:2) as Moroni "hid up unto the Lord" plates that were initially in Ammaron's charge (Book of Mormon Title Page).
Ammaron visits Mormon at the age of ten and instructs him that he will eventually acquire the plates (Mormon 1:2); Moroni visits Joseph at age 17 and informs Smith that he will eventually receive Mormon's plates.
Mormon begins inscribing the plates at age 24; Smith translates the bulk of the Book of Mormon at age 23.
At age 11 Mormon was relocated to Zarahemla (Mormon 1:6) as Joseph (approximately age 10) was moved from Vermont to New York.
Mormon is "visited of the Lord" at age 15 (Mormon 1:15); at around the same age Joseph Smith is visited by the Lord.
In their youth both Mormon and Joseph were "large in stature" (Mormon 2:1).
Between Mormon's theophany and his acquisition of Ammaron's plates Mormon says that "Gadianton robbers ... infested the land" (Mormon 1:18), "treasures in the earth ... had become ... slippery" (Morm. 1:18), and "sorceries, and witchcrafts, and magics" were rife (Mormon 1:19); after Joseph's theophany, yet prior to acquiring Mormon's plates, Masons were thought to conspire in secret combinations, Smith failed at money-digging because of slippery treasures, and village scryers challenged Smith with their magical prowess.
Runtu wrote:I respectfully disagree. No genius was required.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. One of the things that swayed my opinion (when in the early '90s I was considering Smith authorship) was talking to an Australian LDS historian (who has a doctorate in history) and her describing to me the time, enormous research, writing, and re-writing that it takes to produce one book. Most authors will realise this (even those who believe in Smith authorship). She said that this convinced her that it was impossible for someone to write the Book of Mormon under the conditions Joseph did.
charity wrote:Oh, Native Americans had theocracies and a system of judges? I took a class in Native American History. There wasn't anything aobut theocracies and judges.
I would say it's more likely that he was trying to mirror the Bible with his accounts of kings, judges and prophets. After all, they supposedly came from Jerusalem.
By the way, Charity, Lincoln never had a secretary named Kennedy. That's an oft-repeated myth.
Personally I see it as the evolution of church government among the early leaders, eventually leading to the establishment of a prophet as leader.
Ironically, this trend was reversed with the crowning of Joseph...
Runtu wrote:I respectfully disagree. No genius was required.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. One of the things that swayed my opinion (when in the early '90s I was considering Smith authorship) was talking to an Australian LDS historian (who has a doctorate in history) and her describing to me the time, enormous research, writing, and re-writing that it takes to produce one book. Most authors will realise this (even those who believe in Smith authorship). She said that this convinced her that it was impossible for someone to write the Book of Mormon under the conditions Joseph did.
Again, that was her opinion.
Where I differ from your expert is that I don't believe he wrote it in the 60-day window LDS believers posit. I think he had at the very least the outline and major sections done before the scribes ever put pen to paper. That would explain the panic when Harris lost the 116 pages. He knew he had to rewrite it from memory, and it wasn't until he came up with the idea of the small plates that he could pick up where he left off.
If he wrote it, as people assert, in 60 days, without notes, while peering into a hat, that would indeed require genius.