Is the Book of Mormon a 19th century production?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I admit from the outset that this is speculative, but it seems to me that if the production of the Book of Mormon were a coordinated scam, it might be possible that they might of used some sort of death oath to guarantee no one reveals anything. It's not like Mormonism doesn't have a history with those sorts of things.

[_Baker]

Quite a thing to have written on one's tombstone if he were a fraudster. He was a religious man---not one to fool around with god's judgement.

And yet mistaken in his understanding of a divine revelatory experience at least once, according to you. Yup, screams credibility.

[_DarkHelmet]

Quite a thing to have written on one's tombstone if he were a fraudster. He was a religious man---not one to fool around with god's judgement.

I don't know why he put that on his tombstone. I have no idea what tricks the mind can play.

[_Yong Xi]

The question I ask myself is, "What would be necessary for the B of M to not be a 19th century production?" It seems that minimally, the following are required:


A divine creator of the universe and life exists.

The divine creator intervenes in mankind's affairs.

The divine creator is an exalted man.

The divine creator intervened via his son Jesus Christ.

Jesus set up churches requiring priesthood keys in Israel, the Americas and ???.

The keys were lost in all ancient churches for hundreds of years.

The church in the Americas kept a record on gold plates.

God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith.

An angel appeared to Joseph Smith and assisted him in locating the gold plates.

Joseph translated the plates with the assistance of rocks designed for that purpose by the divine creator/and or Jesus.

A person can know that the plates really existed and that Joseph did what he said he did.


How likely is all this?

[_Morley]

Quite a thing to have written on one's tombstone if he were a fraudster. He was a religious man---not one to fool around with god's judgement.

I don't know why he put that on his tombstone. I have no idea what tricks the mind can play.

I can assure you that he didn't put anything on his tombstone. He was dead. Someone else put it there.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG - the qualification is:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon, if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"

Do we know the full story?

Is [David Whitmer's] Book of Mormon testimony suspect because he later claimed that God told him to separate himself from the Mormons?

Shortly after David and other notable Mormons had been excommunicated Sidney Rigdon preached his “Salt Sermon” (which was later criticized by the Brethren) warning dissenters to leave town. Other radical Mormons, such as Sampson Avard, enforced expulsion of those who did not leave on their own. Joseph Smith and the Twelve criticized Rigdon’s aggressive speeches as well as the secret and unsanctioned actions of Avard. As Anderson noted, “David Whitmer could have received true spiritual comfort because of the unjust methods that his former associates were using against him….” Whitmer claims that God told him to separate himself from the Latter-day Saints. This could easily have been inspired direction. Confrontation with some of the more radical characters within the Church (such as Sampson) might have caused Whitmer serious harm (physical, emotional, or spiritual). However Whitmer understood this direction from God, it did not conflict with his testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/B ... sses_4.pdf

Possibility?

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

This is the crux of the matter. Along with one or more of the scribes being in cahoots with the scam. I haven't seen any clear evidence of either.

It's one of many possibilites. If Joseph made it up he would be trying to hide that kind of evidence and create evidence to support a translation claim.

Unless you want to travel down Spalding Lane.

Spalding is only one possibility involving a text written before the translation period.

The evidence that I've seen along the way points towards a 90 day translation period where things really got rolling after the short hiatus when the translation stopped.

This would be what Joseph would want people to think.

Oliver Cowdery was a major player during this time. He would have HAD to be in cahoots on the scheme.

It is a possibilty.

But the fact is that he never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon and its divine origin or spilled the beans on Joseph. He had plenty of reason to do so especially early on with the Fanny Alger affair and such.

I know many like to think this, but it makes no sense for Oliver to be involved and then later expose himself and his own part in any deception when he does not need to. It like a couple of bank robbers who get away with stealing 10 million dallors and one of them rips the other off by taking it all so his partner goes to the police and tells them how they both stole the money.

When Cowdery returned to the Church, he humbly expressed only the desire to be rebaptized and fellowshipped, and refused any position in the Church. Lack of funds and winter forced the family to stay in Missouri in 1849. Unfortunately, Oliver was suffering from a respiratory condition and died on March 3, 1850, before he was able to move to Utah with the rest of the Church. His last letter states that he accepted a call to lobby for the Church in Washington, though he was never able to fulfill this call. His wife recorded concerning him:

"From the hour when the glorious vision of the Holy Messenger revealed to mortal eyes the hidden prophecies which God had promised ... until the moment when he passed away from earth, he always without one doubt or shadow of turning affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon"

(Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, p.63).
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Oliver_Cowdery

Ever hear of a pious fraud?

Are you able to show that there was an extended Book of Mormon fabrication period previous to the 90 day time slot for translation that we're accustomed to hearing about and finding in the written record?

Why do I need to when we don't have to know what they clearly would have been trying to hide in order to have sufficient evidence for a 19th century production. I don't just look at the Book of Mormon to figure this stuff out.

[_Themis]

I've considered this but haven't seen any evidence for it unless, as I said before, you want to go the Spalding route.

It's not the only possibilty, but it is not needed to know this to know it was made up in the 19th century.

Throwing Oliver into the mix along with the short translation period along with the chronological complexity and interwoven nature of the text, I think you're making a long stretch to brush off the known translation narrative and punch it up to being a 19th century production.

It's not all that complex, and if Oliver is involved then we can't discount a text written before hand. I notice you want to stay on this topic and not some of the important evidence suggesting a 19th century production.

[_Themis]

But how did Joseph Smith get all this stuff into a hat? I mean, this is the ultimate hat trick, isn't it? A rabbit out of a hat pales in comparison.

Regards,
MG

How do all the magicians and con-artist do their tricks? Just becuase we don't know does not mean they used real magic. Like I said before. You want to depend on the favorable witness statements that would only really account, if accurate or truthful, a tiny faction of the time spent in these endeavors.

[_Chap]

MG - the qualification is:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon, if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"

Do we know the full story?

There is always room to know more about any sequence of events.

But we still know he said that.

'Utah Church' LDS are in the position that they have to believe that he was right about the first voice, but completely deluded about the second.

The rest of us have an easier time of it. We can simply place him in that ambiguous territory where we wonder whether a man who claims to hear from celestial voices has bothered to deceive himself before he sets out to deceive us - which makes him a nut-job - or whether he has skipped straight to deceiving others - which makes him a fraud.