“And it came to pass that on the morrow, when the multitude was gathered together, behold, Nephi and his brother whom he had raised from the dead, whose name was Timothy, and also his son, whose name was Jonas, and also Mathoni, and Mathonihah, his brother, and Kumen, and Kumenonhi, and Jeremiah, and Shemnon, and Jonas, and Zedekiah, and Isaiah—now these were the names of the disciples whom Jesus had chosen—and it came to pass that they went forth and stood in the midst of the multitude.”
These guys aren’t ancient.
They are the companions of Joseph “translated” into an ancient setting.
It appears you are turning Joseph Smith into a theological savant gifted with the ability of improvisational genius. Some folks would argue that the Book of Mormon's complexity with interwoven narratives, literary structures (Hebraisms), and theological depth exceeds what Joseph Smith could have produced on his own with his limited formal education.
The Book of Mormon shows significant examples/evidence of doctrinal coherence. Themes like agency, atonement, covenant theology are sustained in a formuliac pattern throughout the book. Quite an accomplishment.
Quite a dilemma, huh? Choosing between Joseph the farmboy who exceeded expectations in an almost miraculous way. Or choosing Joseph Smith the savant.
I think it's important to reiterate now and then that conservative, traditional, "true-believing" Mormonism really doesn't have any chance at all of being true. The Book of Mormon absolutely does not hold up to scrutiny, let alone the Book of Abraham, and the behaviours of the early Mormon Prophets completely rule out any possibility that they might have been guided by any God worth the name. So picking apart Mormon apologetics is just a game. There is no chance at all that the apologists can really tip any needles. They're trying to shift pebbles on scales that are weighed down with anvils.
Yet on the other hand I don't think it's smart or wise to write off all of unique Mormon culture as nothing but nonsense. It came from an interesting time and place, when modernity was just about to take off. Even just as a hoax, it was unusually successful. And a lot of sincere people have managed to invest it with meaning.
Life is too short for everyone to learn everything that could be worth learning, so if anyone wants to just forget all about Mormonism and focus on other things, that might well be a wise triage. Investing some time and effort in trying to figure out Mormonism isn't silly, however. It doesn't have to be the Only True and Living Church in order to be worthy of study.
Well said.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
The evidence points to Joseph (alone or with others) drawing on material from around them. The witnesses, upon whom certain apologists so heavily rely, are simply those people planted in the crowd by the snake oil salesman, or the plants in the crowd picked out by the magician. When you consider those witnesses were all family and close friends of Smith…well, it’s obvious to those who have eyes to see.
Yes I understand. I just like the challenge of piecing it all together. Or I did. But there really isn’t anyone in my real life that cares about the challenge. In fact I don’t even share with people that I post here.
But, examples like this keep bringing me back: If Mormon and Nephi are Joseph then who is Moroni? I recently learned that Parley P Pratt’s code name from the Kirtland Revelation Book is Alam. That’s too close to Alma for me to ignore.
Moroni could also be Joseph. I’d be interested in knowing more about that Parley P Pratt codename, is there a source?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
“And it came to pass that on the morrow, when the multitude was gathered together, behold, Nephi and his brother whom he had raised from the dead, whose name was Timothy, and also his son, whose name was Jonas, and also Mathoni, and Mathonihah, his brother, and Kumen, and Kumenonhi, and Jeremiah, and Shemnon, and Jonas, and Zedekiah, and Isaiah—now these were the names of the disciples whom Jesus had chosen—and it came to pass that they went forth and stood in the midst of the multitude.”
These guys aren’t ancient.
They are the companions of Joseph “translated” into an ancient setting.
It appears you are turning Joseph Smith into a theological savant gifted with the ability of improvisational genius. Some folks would argue that the Book of Mormon's complexity with interwoven narratives, literary structures (Hebraisms), and theological depth exceeds what Joseph Smith could have produced on his own with his limited formal education.
The Book of Mormon shows significant examples/evidence of doctrinal coherence. Themes like agency, atonement, covenant theology are sustained in a formuliac pattern throughout the book. Quite an accomplishment.
Quite a dilemma, huh? Choosing between Joseph the farmboy who exceeded expectations in an almost miraculous way. Or choosing Joseph Smith the savant.
Do you choose Joseph the savant?
Regards,
MG
Joseph was noted as a gifted storyteller. There is no dilemma. Someone who works on his parents' farm is not barred from being a gifted storyteller simply because he works on his parents' farm. It’s also noted that Joseph was an avid studier of the Bible and of other religions.
Here is an example of a farmer writing a successful book.
A farmer's tale of family and life on the Cumbrian fells has won high praise from the New York Times.
Internationally renowned and notoriously tough critic Michiku Kakutani described it as ‘captivating’ - a review author James Rebanks has said he will cherish.
After nine weeks in The Times best-seller list in Britain with four of those weeks at number one and the remaining weeks at spots two and three, he now hopes the book will capture people’s imaginations across the Atlantic.
John Bunyan, author of The Pilgrim’s Progress, was raised as a tinker like his father. His book wasn’t bad.
So your point that Joseph Smith couldn’t write a book because he was a farmer and because he lacked significant formal schooling is just ridiculous. It’s been shown to be a false premise many times over. You know that, so why do you still trot it out? It’s as if you’re incapable of learning, or have a wilfully closed mind.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I don’t understand why you’d think it would be critical of others to tell them they don’t have the same temple experiences.
Those things that are sacred to you are considered, well, weird, to the world outside yours. Not trying to insult. It’s just that knowing that those rituals are part of the system are actually a deterrent to me, especially when added to the other oddities that scream “cult.” I mean why the secrecy? That makes little sense to me. I’d think if the “truth” of those rituals were so you’d want to shout it from the rooftops.
What are the valid reasons to believe? Does it hinge on Joseph? The Book of Mormon? The sense of community?
If the foundation has cracks why would you believe it? I just don’t understand it. When Nelson or whoever put the rock in the hat to demonstrate the translation process wasn’t that a bit startling for a believer? It would be for me.
All that writ, my interest has less to do with why anyone believes and more in solving the puzzle of Book of Mormon origins. The rest has only a passing interest to me.
I appreciate your candor and honesty. I don’t think I can really do justice to trying to answer your concerns in one post on a message board. Yes, there are some things that seem “odd”. I went through a long period of “the dark night of the soul”. Years ago now. Honestly, I think I’ve seen just about everything. Do I have an answer for everything? No, I do not. I do, without going into all the reasons why, believe in Christianity and its message. Jesus being the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. That God(s) orchestrated the creation/building of this world that we inhabit. That there is purpose and meaning that goes beyond the here and now. That we can continue to progress and become more like God the Father. I could go on. Essentially, for me, the CofJCofLDS actually makes sense in its overall theology.
Let me suggest one thing when it comes to the Book of Mormon. I’ve spent a good amount of time looking into its origins and translation. At the end of the day a testimony (witness of the Spirit) will not be solely dependent on all the in’s and outs of translation/origin investigations. It will be found between the covers of the book itself. Think of it this way, if the Book of Mormon is a second witness of Christ and His divinity the witness of this being so/true can only be found through the witness of the Holy Ghost while immersing oneself IN the book with a prayer in your heart wanting to know if what it says is actually true…anachronisms and all.
I wish you well in your own search for that which has REAL meaning and Truth. It can only be found individually, NOT online or on a message board.
Regards,
MG
Limnor, MG is correct - don't take the word of someone on a message board about the Book of Mormon. Some of them have an agenda that may not align with your search for truth. /s
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
"Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon" is indeed a completely worthless argument. None of the apologetic claims about really extraordinary features in the Book hold up at all when you look at them. What remains is merely an impressive production for a poorly educated farm hand of Smith's place and time.
It may well be impressive enough to be interesting, as a piece of frontier literature, or a frontier hoax, or a psychological study, or a record of religious memes from 1830s New England, or something. But saying that the Book would be quite unusual for an author like Smith, and so he must be one of the very few Prophets that have ever been claimed to exist in world history, is literally saying that it's so unlikely for Smith to have been one in a hundred, that we have to believe he was one in a billion. It's like deciding a dollar is too much to pay, so instead you'll pay ten million dollars.
It would still be a ridiculous argument even if the Book of Mormon were a lot more remarkable than it actually is, because even very remarkable books are much more common than Prophets. And yet this utterly worthless argument is still the number one go-to line for Mormon apologists. They clearly have no better arguments than this one. So they have no arguments that are better than worthless.
“And it came to pass that on the morrow, when the multitude was gathered together, behold, Nephi and his brother whom he had raised from the dead, whose name was Timothy, and also his son, whose name was Jonas, and also Mathoni, and Mathonihah, his brother, and Kumen, and Kumenonhi, and Jeremiah, and Shemnon, and Jonas, and Zedekiah, and Isaiah—now these were the names of the disciples whom Jesus had chosen—and it came to pass that they went forth and stood in the midst of the multitude.”
These guys aren’t ancient.
They are the companions of Joseph “translated” into an ancient setting.
It appears you are turning Joseph Smith into a theological savant gifted with the ability of improvisational genius. Some folks would argue that the Book of Mormon's complexity with interwoven narratives, literary structures (Hebraisms), and theological depth exceeds what Joseph Smith could have produced on his own with his limited formal education.
The Book of Mormon shows significant examples/evidence of doctrinal coherence. Themes like agency, atonement, covenant theology are sustained in a formuliac pattern throughout the book. Quite an accomplishment.
Quite a dilemma, huh? Choosing between Joseph the farmboy who exceeded expectations in an almost miraculous way. Or choosing Joseph Smith the savant.
Do you choose Joseph the savant?
Regards,
MG
I choose more than Joseph. I choose Joseph had considerable input from others, all of whom were informed by the cultural milieu of their time.
I think you are missing a key part of my explanation: real-world people provided input to Joseph through letters and recording their experiences while spreading the message that an angel had appeared.
Why did they all keep silent about the origins? They were all implicated in the death of Alvin and one other - I think William Morgan. Bound through a blood oath.
So who is Seantum? I’ve settled on Oliver Cowdery.
Last edited by Limnor on Sat Sep 27, 2025 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Moroni could also be Joseph. I’d be interested in knowing more about that Parley P Pratt codename, is there a source?
Yes Moroni could be Joseph but it’s hard to ignore the specific theological arguments Rigdon had been having with Campbell - the answers found in the Book of Mormon conveniently support Rigdon’s arguments.
So yes, Joseph could represent every figure in the book, but it is hard to ignore those similarities.
Limnor, MG is correct - don't take the word of someone on a message board about the Book of Mormon. Some of them have an agenda that may not align with your search for truth. /s
I’d be interested in knowing more about that Parley P Pratt codename, is there a source?
This is exactly the kind of help and feedback I am looking for - it’s almost a peer review.
I have it in my head that Pratt is Alma, but source documents show that Alam = Edward Partridge.
Great catch, and I count on you to call me out if there are issues.
Please see below as one secondary source - there are primary source documents on the Joseph Smith Project site but this paper provides interest analysis:
