Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Roger]

Lucy:

Smith and Co. If they knew that the Book of Mormon was an original translation of a previously unavailable work, why did they look into the Spalding papers which Hurlbut had recovered?

Not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that if Joseph and his followers knew the Book of Mormon was an authentic translation given by God of a genuinely ancient manuscript, then why were they concerned about the Spalding manuscript?

Assuming that is the question I suppose one answer could be that they were curious about the manuscript and how similar it was to the Book of Mormon. My own theory allows for them to believe that Spalding's original manuscript was an authentic translation and gave a true history of the ancient inhabitants of this continent. They may also have genuinely believed that both Sidney Rigdon as well as Joseph Smith were ordained by God to add additional revelation to the work. I do not see it as necessary that they had to believe they were perpetuating a fraud.

I have looked at View of the Hebrews and, although B.H. Roberts was concerned about them, I don't find the parallels very convincing. In a broad sense, as Roberts points out, there are overlapping themes, but in terms of specific parallels there seems to be very little. What is interesting to me is that Spalding, Ethan Smith and Hyrum Smith all attended Dartmouth - with Hyrum attending at the private secondary level and all of them presumably taking similar classes while being taught by the same instructors.

[_grindael]

In February, 1826, the sons of Mr. Stowell, who lived with their father, were greatly incensed against Smith, as they plainly saw their father squandering his property in the fruitless search for hidden treasures, and saw that the youthful seer had unlimited control over the illusions of their sire. They made up their minds that "patience had ceased to be a virtue," and resolved to rid themselves and their family from this incubus, who, as they believed, was eating up their substance, and depriving them of their anticipated patrimony. They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood. The trial came on in the above mentioned month, before Albert Neeley, Esq., the father of Bishop Neeley of the State of Maine. I was an intimate friend of the Justice, and was invited to take notes of the trial, which I did. There was a large collection of persons in attendance, and the proceedings attracted much attention.

The affidavits of the sons were read, and Mr. Smith was fully examined by the Court. It elicited little but a history of his life from early boyhood, but this is so unique in character, and so much of a key-note to his subsequent career in the world, I am tempted to give it somewhat in extenso. He said when he was a lad, he heard of a neighboring girl some three miles from him, who could look into a glass and see anything however hidden from others; that he was seized with a strong desire to see her and her glass; that after much effort he induced his parents to let him visit her. He did so, and was permitted to look in the glass, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light. He was greatly surprised to see but one thing, which was a small stone, a great way off. It soon became luminous, and dazzeled his eyes, and after a short time it became as intense as the midday sun. He said that the stone was under the roots of a tree or shrub as large as his arm, situated about a mile up a small stream that puts in on the South side of Lake Erie, not far from the New York and Pennsylvania line. He often had an opportunity to look in the glass, and with the same result. The luminous stone alone attracted his attention. This singular circumstance occupied his mind for some years, when he left his father's house, and with his youthful zeal traveled west in search of this luminous stone.

He took a few shillings in money and some provisions with him. He stopped on the road with a farmer, and worked three days, and replenished his means of support. After travelling some one hundred and fifty miles he found himself at the mouth of the creek. He did not have the glass with him, but he knew its exact location. He borrowed an old ax and a hoe, and repaired to the tree. With some labor and exertion he found the stone, carried it to the creek, washed and wiped it dry, sat down on the bank, placed it in his hat, and discovered that time, place and distance were annihilated; that all the intervening obstacles were removed, and that he possessed one of the attributes of Deity, an All-Seeing-Eye. He arose with a thankful heart, carried his tools to their owner, turned his feet towards the rising sun, and sought with weary limbs his long deserted home.

On the request of the Court, he exhibited the stone. It was about the size of a small hen's egg, in the shape of a high-instepped shoe. It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it. It was very hard and smooth, perhaps by being carried in the pocket.

Joseph Smith, Sr., was present, and sworn as a witness. He confirmed, at great length all that his son had said in his examination. He delineated his characteristics in his youthful days--his vision of the luminous stone in the glass--his visit to Lake Erie in search of the stone--and his wonderful triumphs as a seer. He described very many instances of his finding hidden and stolen goods. He swore that both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre, or its equivalent in earthly treasures, and with a long-faced, "sanctimonious seeming," he said his constant prayer to his Heavenly Father was to manifest His will concerning this marvelous power. He trusted that the Son of Righteousness would some day illumine the heart of the boy, and enable him to see His will concerning him. These words have ever had a strong impression on my mind. They seemed to contain a prophetic vision of the future history of that mighty delusion of the present century, Mormonism. The "old man eloquent," with his lank and haggard vissage--his form very poorly clad--indicating a wandering vagabond rather than an oracle of future events, has, in view of those events, excited my wonder, if not my admiration. (W. D. Purple, 1877, taken from trial notes)

[_grindael]

I believe that Jo first mentioned the plates in 1823, then abandoned the idea. He then pursued peeping until after the 1826 examination. He then resurrected the idea of the plates. (That is why there is a three year gap and no mention of two visits to hill between 1823 & 1827) All of the accounts of the "angel" Moroni were later retro'ed to 1823, and that is why Cowdery and Smith wrote in 1834 that it was then, in 1823 (which was actually 1827) that Joseph prayed to know if a "Supreme Being" did exist.

[_Always Changing]

original manuscript was an authentic translation and gave a true history of the ancient inhabitants of this continent. They may also have genuinely believed that both Sidney Rigdon as well as Joseph Smith were ordained by God to add additional revelation to the work. I do not see it as necessary that they had to believe they were perpetuating a fraud.

Bingo. And Joseph Smith sincerely believed that the translation was inaccurate, and proceeded to adapt it according to his understanding.

[_beastie]

MG -

Have you checked any of Sorenson's cited sources?

[_Darth J]

Come back when you have a Nephite artifact, Water Dog.

[_Sethbag]

Come back when you can demonstrate that your "witness", whatever it was, was in fact a divine manifestation by Celestial beings to you of verifiable facts. You might want to define "Celestial" and prove that such beings exist, first.

Water Dog, I can't claim that you didn't experience anything. What I suggest is that what you experienced is almost certainly not what you think you experienced. Are you open to the idea that what you think you experienced actually has other, better explanations?

[_Kishkumen]

Waterdog,

My argument is not shallow; it is narrowly construed for a reason. The point, which you seem to have missed, is that there is insufficient evidence to begin to make the case for an ancient Book of Mormon outside of the context of the LDS faith. My statement about the angel and the plates gets at the very heart of the matter. Without the plates as evidence of their own antiquity, the non-LDS historian has little or no reason to pursue the question. Indeed, any non-LDS historian would rightly find Smith's claims regarding the plates, and the witnesses, highly dubious to the point of damning as "evidence" of the book's antiquity.

I don't begrudge the believing scholar the right and pleasure of speculating on the possible ancient context of the Book of Mormon, but everyone should clearly understand that, absent a testimony, there is no reason for a historian to take the claim that the Book of Mormon is ancient seriously, once he or she knows some basic facts about its provenance.

[_Darth J]

And again back to that burden of proof, not only can you not tear down the Book of Mormon, by your own admission, but you fail in erecting anything to stand in its place. How can you expect one to abandon one imperfect ship for another that is even worse, sinking, or absent altogether? Few critics are genuinely seeking truth, and this is reflected in their arguments and illegitimizes them. And some believers suffer from such bias as well, but they are far more likely to be honest about their bias, openly, and with themselves.

This is precisely why I maintain belief in the Easter Bunny, even though I quit believing in Santa Claus. After all, our Christmas present have to come from somewhere, and if you deny that one magical being brings them, it is incumbent upon you to come up with another magical being to take his place.

It's also similar to why I started going to a palm reader after I gave up on phrenology.

[_honorentheos]

What's even more compelling about this is that for so long this was a point of much ridicule. It has shifted from not being able to find a place such as Mesoamerica at all to not finding the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, which is a very different problem.

I believe this is an inaccurate statement.

In 1830 the evidence of mound builder culture and reports of findings in central America were popularly understood as archeological evidence regarding the previous inhabitants of the Americas that was assumed to be supportive of the underlying myth story that serves as the background for the theology of the Book of Mormon. A person not only didn't have to be a believer in Mormonism to accept this, it seems more likely the Book of Mormon was written specifically with these 19th century beliefs sewn into the story to make it more believable to those who shared these mistaken beliefs.

The advances in understanding the archeological record that have occurred since that time have made the previous beliefs antiquated. It's a point of ridicule now because the popular understanding has evolved with the evidence. The entanglement of the 19th century popular beliefs with Mormonism make it highly likely a modern person who retains something like the 19th century belief is also a Mormon.

The direction the archeological record has taken us is away from the original myth to a reinterpretation that is grappling with the loss of this early popular beliefs about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas to one better informed and unsupportive of the original mythology. The idea the advance in our understanding of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures is an advance in favor of Mormonism is itself revisionist.