Is the Book of Mormon a 19th century production?

[_Buffalo]

I'd appreciate it if someone could pick apart my logic in this post. I think that, as I said, the arguments for 19th century production of the Book of Mormon would have to run through the filter of translation procedures (and all that this entails) to hold any water. Buffalo's post with a zillion scriptures using the word "or" doesn't quite cut it for me.

Regards,
MG

It demonstrates that it was composed on the fly, rather than translated from a carefully engraved record.

It's not just the use of the word "or." It's the use of or to correct the previous phrase. It happens over and over and over again.

[_Equality]

takes us into the realms of super memory capabilities

Didn't Truman Madsen in those tapes about Joseph Smith argue just that--Joseph had a miraculously acute memory. Why, yes, he did, to wit:

We find evidence of his remarkable memory near the other end of his life, when he sat down with William Clayton and his brother Hyrum and dictated the revelation we now call section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is a long revelation-sixty-six verses, many of which are themselves long. Verse 19, for example, is over two hundred words. Some of the verses describe the conditions of the everlasting covenant in such terms as an attorney might use who had spent days thinking up every possible synonym, nuance, and contingency so that no loophole would remain. For example: "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and…." That's the subject of the sentence. Then there's the verb. Then a very long predicate. To have written that after patient winnowing of the dictionary would be an achievement. Joseph Smith dictated it straight and, apparently, without a change. That is amazing enough. But then we learn from William Clayton that the Prophet declared that "he knew the revelation perfectly, and could rewrite it at any time if necessary." Now, that is staggering! He had the essential core of that involved revelation so clearly in mind that he had full confidence he could restate it. He may have meant that he could dictate it in the exact words, and if this is so he was indeed gifted in that respect beyond normal mortal ability. But I think he meant only that the content was clear to him and it would not be lost if the written version were lost. That shows a remarkable memory.

If he could recite D&C 132 from memory, and boast that he could reproduce it if destroyed, I don't really see why, blessed with such a memory, he could not dictate the less-involved genealogies found in the book of Ether.

[_Themis]

Themis mentioned that I seem to be hung up on the actual translation procedure, including the time line in regards to how long and when events happened. Well, yes, I suppose that I am.

Actually you are hung up a few witnesses that would only comprise a tiny fractions of the events here. You want to ignore some of the other important details. You still did not answer how magicians and conartists do their tricks.

The peripheral issues that seem to place the Book of Mormon squarely in the category of being a 19th century production conceived through the mind of Joseph Smith&Co.

They are not peripheral, but core issues, becuase you or I cannot know enough of the deatils to have any reasonable knowledge of what or how it went on. There really is just to little information, and some of it may not be true. Certainly if they were making ip up they would also be influencing witnesses. This is why we have to look at these core issues to evaluate the claims Joseph and other are making here.

Reason being, the Book of Mormon can both be read as a 19th century product in some respects and an ancient document/artifact in other respects. You don't have to go through many clicks of the mouse to see that this is so.

Actually it's the 19th cenbtury contexts and reading that are devasting here. Ancients readings can be had simply because it borrows so much from ancient sources avaialble to 19th century America.

I think that we can agree that Oliver Cowdery is a key player in the translation of the Book of Mormon. He was directly in cahoots with Joseph Smith in whatever occurred during the translation and publication period. It is useful to look at examples of the "nuts and bolts" of the translation procedure in order to get a snapshot of what was going on.

You are talking about a snapshot that gives so little to make any reasonable conclusions of how it was done.

Themis and others would like to expand the timeline for the production of the Book of Mormon text beyond the 90 day period and also take Joseph's head out of the hat, other than to have him insert it at times to put on a show for those who were purportedly being duped.

I only gave possibilites. I am not sold on any, nor can we be reasonably sure at this moment on any of them including the ones you like.

To put the actual translation period within a small window of time vs. an expanded window of time and to put Joseph's head in a hat reading words on a seerstone sets the stage for asking the simple question, "How in the heck did he do it?"

We don't know for the same reason we don't know how most other conartists and magicians do their tricks. Are you ready to tell us. We only ask the question how did he do it, not that we need to, because we see important evidence suggesting it is not an ancient document.

That question then takes us into the realms of super memory capabilities, hole in the hat tricks...or translating through the gift and power of God in order to complete what would have been almost a super human task.

They are all possibilites, and many people can demonstate memory capabilites to remember large sections of text, and as buffalo has said with all the literary mistakes it is reasonable that he did not have something remembered word for word. AND again, we do not have to show how a fraud was actually commited i order to prove that a fraud occured. It would be nice, but for something that occured in the early 1800's and with so little information about, it is not likely, unless more evidence is forthcoming.

[_why me]

If they were in on the scam, why would they want to incriminate themselves? And if they were duped and never discovered it, why would they deny their initial experience?

Well, this is the sociopathic argument. What you are basically saying is that all 11 witnesses were sociopathic, so much so that they would let people suffer and experience death for their scam and yet, show no remorse because they were concerned about themselves. Amazing.

[_why me]

If you could manage to break the law of chastity as a Mormon and not feel guilty, Oliver could manage the same with his little problem.

Making out with a girl is breaking the law of chasity? However, lets look at oliver. Here is oliver who has a conflict with Joseph Smith and leaves the fold. Joseph seems to have no concern that oliver will have loose lips about the scam. Why? Because perhaps he didn't need to be concerned. Oliver leaves the church and sees the persecution people are experiencing because they are Mormons but does nothing about it. He also knows that believing Mormons are being murdered for his scam but does nothing about it.

And you compare this to me kissing a girl?

[_Buffalo]

If they were in on the scam, why would they want to incriminate themselves? And if they were duped and never discovered it, why would they deny their initial experience?

Well, this is the sociopathic argument. What you are basically saying is that all 11 witnesses were sociopathic, so much so that they would let people suffer and experience death for their scam and yet, show no remorse because they were concerned about themselves. Amazing.

I don't know of very many scam artists who would voluntarily incriminate themselves, unless they're already in trouble and trying to reduce their sentences.

But as far as I can tell, the witnesses were really sort of gullible dupes.

[_Buffalo]

If you could manage to break the law of chastity as a Mormon and not feel guilty, Oliver could manage the same with his little problem.

Making out with a girl is breaking the law of chasity?

No, but copping a feel and dry humping is.

Here is oliver who has a conflict with Joseph Smith and leaves the fold. Joseph seems to have no concern that oliver will have loose lips about the scam. Why? Because perhaps he didn't need to be concerned. Oliver leaves the church and sees the persecution people are experiencing because they are Mormons but does nothing about it. He also knows that believing Mormons are being murdered for his scam but does nothing about it.

Exactly. Either he didn't want to admit culpability and take responsibility for all that, or he was still duped.

The Mormons weren't being murdered for their beliefs, though.

[_Themis]

However, lets look at oliver. Here is oliver who has a conflict with Joseph Smith and leaves the fold. Joseph seems to have no concern that oliver will have loose lips about the scam. Why?

Better yet , why do you always make statements you can't possibily know.

[_beastie]

I'd appreciate it if someone could pick apart my logic in this post. I think that, as I said, the arguments for 19th century production of the Book of Mormon would have to run through the filter of translation procedures (and all that this entails) to hold any water. Buffalo's post with a zillion scriptures using the word "or" doesn't quite cut it for me.

Regards,
MG

Personally, I don't care how he "translated" the book, or what any witness said about it. The history of the world is full of people pulling scams, and equally full of dupes and liars. See my sig line.

Simply not knowing the details of how a "magic trick" was conducted is not justification for believing in real magic.

The only thing that I think needs to be seriously considered is whether or not the text that was produced could reasonably be assumed to be of ancient origin. Once again, the fact that one has to have a spiritual testimony to be convinced of that fact is damning.

[_why me]

Better yet , why do you always make statements you can't possibily know.

The same reason that you do.