Yes BOM is difficult to dismiss it as a inspired book. But then how do You, Fair, work around the ugly things Joseph Smith did, the lies, the things that don't make sense, like the angel with a sword and happiness letter, for example. How do You?
It always puzzles me how people who have 1) Never read the Book of Mormon 2) Never written a book themselves tell you just how easy and natural it would have been for Joseph to have composed all of the words of the Book of Mormon in three months.
@@dr33776 Fine. For the sake of argument, let's say "It wasn't composed in three months." When then, was it composed? Did he maintain the entire text in his head? Both sympathetic and antagonistic historical witnesses to the process of translation mentioned no papers, no notes. If he had his head in a hat, then there would not have been light to see papers anyway. So, if "composed" over the course of his life, did the body of text stay in his head? Or did he transcribe it into his cell phone and listen to it in his ear pods? But ultimately, you are right. It wasn't composed in "three months". It was composed over a millennium.
The "amusing recitals" anecdote would lead one to expect a lot more dazzling detail of culture and color in the Book of Mormon than there actually is. Above and beyond the question as Hales posed it, there are at least two other layers of complexity that an author would have to meet: 1. The framing of all the story as narration by the characters, with their different language styles, including quirks and moods (like Mormon's tendency to get ahead of himself and to editorialize... Mormon tried to lay down heads but was a bit clumsy at it. And the last time I read through I thought I could see him trying to hone his chiasm composition skills by copying Alma) 2. To convey it in Early Modern English filtered through 1820s vocabulary (implied in the clause about vocabulary and reading levels, but I think this deserves more explicit attention). To imagine that any author could cope with that kind of cognitive load to produce a work like the Book of Mormon in a single draft is audacious enough. To imagine that an author like Joseph Smith, with limitations of age, time, and available attention, could handle all of that is no less than an act of faith: a fanatical dedication to believe anything but the simple claims of Joseph and the Book of Mormon themselves. I have a bit more patience with theories trying to explain the Book of Mormon as a product of automatic writing, since that at least shows an open mind to uncanny psychic phenomena that are difficult to explain. Thinking in something like a Jungian framework, you could hold a politely curious agnostic regard of the Book of Mormon as a product of archetypes or the Collective Unconscious. If you were honest, you would have to follow up with a few questions: Has any automatic/channeled text shown the same complexity, not of storyline or "content," but of conceptual framing? So far, my reading of channeled texts has found that they just speak with a kind of omniscent narrator voice. One of the crucial details in reading the Book of Mormon is to remember that none of its narrators are omniscient. Does any other automatic/channeled text consistently hold a tone congruent with a dialect or stage of the medium's native language which is otherwise unknown to the medium, and in opposition to the medium's preferred usage? And finally: Why would the Collective Unconscious and/or a bunch of psychic phenomena team together to produce a text of this complexity that has its overriding purpose to point us all to Christ, to seek a remission of our sins, to cultivate an inner Tree of Life, and to look for a restoration of God's authority to gather and protect His covenant people? At this point, if you're deep in the automatic writing theory, it would be dishonest to suddenly pull out and revert to the charge that Joseph Smith did all this to serve his selfish aim of becoming a cult leader.
I didn't notice that Brian mentioned how Joseph must've had a copy of the KJV bible as at least a reference. Isn't this the only explanation for KJV text found in the BOM?
@michaelhutchings6602 I understand all the translation witnesses stated he didn't use notes that they saw. However, why would 1769 KJV edition-specific errors and other text be present in the Book of Mormon? It is way more likely he used notes than some supernatural explanation, even with the witnesses' testimonies.
@@michaelhutchings6602Emma also said Joseph was ignorant about Jerusalem being walled and that he couldn’t write a letter. Highly unlikely from a guy that knew the Bible like him and the pre 1830 letter he wrote to Oliver cowdery. Their statements are not 100% reliable and I will believe my eyes rather than what his wife and other people invested in the BoM being true say. He had a Bible open and leaned into it.
@@dr33776you have to then say that everyone was lying. That's your choice of course, but you're ignoring the historical record in order to do so. Not one person actually present said he had a Bible
@@jonny6manyou are ignoring the historical record to support your assertion. Totally your choice to believe what you want (whether easier to believe it's natural vs supernatural), but not supported by the record that he had a Bible with him. Not one person actually present said he had a Bible with him. You have to insert your own narrative and negotiate with documentation to come to a different conclusion.
The thing that gets me too--if he was writing it himself, he would have had no need to fabricate a situation where there were no reference materials. Why not lean into being a translator, having the Bible, language manuals, ancient writings all open to him
@@-tikla because Emma said so? That’s your source? Same interview in which she lied about Joseph being monogamous? Let’s say you are grading a paper, do you need a bookstore receipt or library card to prove your student plagiarized some book? The text speaks for itself. Either Joseph had his Bible open when he dictated the Isaiah (and others) chapters or god gave him an anachronistic and incorrect translation.
I have 2 Master's, and a PhD and have studied the Biblical scriptures for close to 40-50 years, a good amount of early Christian history, and decent swaths of other fields. There is no way I could put a book like the Book of Mormon. If an educated person, such as myself and others in similar situations, couldn't write a complex book like the Book of Mormon in sixty-five days with no materials and never having the last sentence dictated read back before continuing dictation, there is no way a person like Joseph Smith with approximately a third grade education and minimal to moderate exposure to the Biblical scriptures and much of knowledge related to early Judaic, Christian, and World history and information in most other fields of knowledge awaiting discovery (and to have many elements of the text continue to be validated as knowledge continues to be discovered) continue to do so without the direct revelation from our Heavenly Father and our Lord, Jesus Christ. We are still waiting for the antichrists and the people that they dupe to create such a document. It is very easy to theorize, but hard to put their money where their mouth is.
You just gave it away, an educated person would not make up a story about anachronistic metal codices, submarines, transoceanic vessels built by non seafarers, and non existing people that preach of Christ centuries before he was born with 19th century Protestant theology.
@@dr33776 the constant teetering between "Joseph was an idiot" and "Joseph was a genius" by antagonists is hilarious and embarrassing. funny enough, you fall in the minority position on that.
None of us know or can ever be in the same situation Joseph was when he dictated the BOM so just because you or anyone else hasn't replicated the same or similar scenario doesn't mean that without a doubt it was divinely inspired. I would hope your belief is based on more than this understanding. I've heard Muslims say similar things about the Quran, yet most Mormons wouldn't say it was divinely inspired. As I started losing my belief in Joseph being a prophet the harder it was for me to read the BOM due to how fake and made up it is and how it conflicts with my understanding of the world. I started avoiding reading it just so I wouldn't have to think about the problems with it being man made and not divinely inspired.
@jonny6man Boy. You are missing much of the research on the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon then. I love all of the scriptures for their divine origins and the blessings they provide with the continued guidance from the Lord through His apostles and prophets. 38 years and counting, the evidences keep coming.
@JD-pr1et What you are telling me is you are in an echo chamber and love reading things you already agree with and believe. Have you had a chance to study other religions and beliefs? It really is eye-opening to talk or listen to others talk about their beliefs the same way you do about your own. Have you looked into the RLDS, FLDS, Strangites, JWs, or Heavens gate?
The supposed ninteenth century connections strike me as vacuous. I've never seen anything that was the least bit convincing. Yes, people of the time may have speculated about the origin of the American Indians and given the ubiquity of The Bible in the cultural context, sure they may have concluded these people arose from the Ten Tribes. So what? Where are the details that the BoM has? And what about the Jaradites? I'm not convinced that constitutes an iimportant "source."
Try reading any scholarship on it. I'm not a trained historian but can see why scholars say the BOM is an 19th century production. You can read Rough Stone Rolling or find quotes from Bushman saying this as well.
No. He did not write it. He dictated it.
If Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon he is the greatest author in history.
Yes BOM is difficult to dismiss it as a inspired book. But then how do You, Fair, work around the ugly things Joseph Smith did, the lies, the things that don't make sense, like the angel with a sword and happiness letter, for example. How do You?
Great presentation. I always feel I can discuss issues like these with others with confidence after watching presentations like this.
All right! I've been waiting for this.
It always puzzles me how people who have
1) Never read the Book of Mormon
2) Never written a book themselves
tell you just how easy and natural it would have been for Joseph to have composed all of the words of the Book of Mormon in three months.
It wasn’t composed in three months
@@dr33776 Fine. For the sake of argument, let's say "It wasn't composed in three months." When then, was it composed? Did he maintain the entire text in his head? Both sympathetic and antagonistic historical witnesses to the process of translation mentioned no papers, no notes. If he had his head in a hat, then there would not have been light to see papers anyway. So, if "composed" over the course of his life, did the body of text stay in his head?
Or did he transcribe it into his cell phone and listen to it in his ear pods?
But ultimately, you are right. It wasn't composed in "three months". It was composed over a millennium.
The "amusing recitals" anecdote would lead one to expect a lot more dazzling detail of culture and color in the Book of Mormon than there actually is.
Above and beyond the question as Hales posed it, there are at least two other layers of complexity that an author would have to meet:
1. The framing of all the story as narration by the characters, with their different language styles, including quirks and moods (like Mormon's tendency to get ahead of himself and to editorialize... Mormon tried to lay down heads but was a bit clumsy at it. And the last time I read through I thought I could see him trying to hone his chiasm composition skills by copying Alma)
2. To convey it in Early Modern English filtered through 1820s vocabulary (implied in the clause about vocabulary and reading levels, but I think this deserves more explicit attention).
To imagine that any author could cope with that kind of cognitive load to produce a work like the Book of Mormon in a single draft is audacious enough. To imagine that an author like Joseph Smith, with limitations of age, time, and available attention, could handle all of that is no less than an act of faith: a fanatical dedication to believe anything but the simple claims of Joseph and the Book of Mormon themselves.
I have a bit more patience with theories trying to explain the Book of Mormon as a product of automatic writing, since that at least shows an open mind to uncanny psychic phenomena that are difficult to explain. Thinking in something like a Jungian framework, you could hold a politely curious agnostic regard of the Book of Mormon as a product of archetypes or the Collective Unconscious. If you were honest, you would have to follow up with a few questions:
Has any automatic/channeled text shown the same complexity, not of storyline or "content," but of conceptual framing? So far, my reading of channeled texts has found that they just speak with a kind of omniscent narrator voice. One of the crucial details in reading the Book of Mormon is to remember that none of its narrators are omniscient.
Does any other automatic/channeled text consistently hold a tone congruent with a dialect or stage of the medium's native language which is otherwise unknown to the medium, and in opposition to the medium's preferred usage?
And finally: Why would the Collective Unconscious and/or a bunch of psychic phenomena team together to produce a text of this complexity that has its overriding purpose to point us all to Christ, to seek a remission of our sins, to cultivate an inner Tree of Life, and to look for a restoration of God's authority to gather and protect His covenant people?
At this point, if you're deep in the automatic writing theory, it would be dishonest to suddenly pull out and revert to the charge that Joseph Smith did all this to serve his selfish aim of becoming a cult leader.
I didn't notice that Brian mentioned how Joseph must've had a copy of the KJV bible as at least a reference. Isn't this the only explanation for KJV text found in the BOM?
That doesn't line up with the historical record indicating there was no bible present during the dictation.
@michaelhutchings6602 I understand all the translation witnesses stated he didn't use notes that they saw. However, why would 1769 KJV edition-specific errors and other text be present in the Book of Mormon? It is way more likely he used notes than some supernatural explanation, even with the witnesses' testimonies.
@@michaelhutchings6602Emma also said Joseph was ignorant about Jerusalem being walled and that he couldn’t write a letter. Highly unlikely from a guy that knew the Bible like him and the pre 1830 letter he wrote to Oliver cowdery. Their statements are not 100% reliable and I will believe my eyes rather than what his wife and other people invested in the BoM being true say. He had a Bible open and leaned into it.
@@dr33776you have to then say that everyone was lying. That's your choice of course, but you're ignoring the historical record in order to do so. Not one person actually present said he had a Bible
@@jonny6manyou are ignoring the historical record to support your assertion. Totally your choice to believe what you want (whether easier to believe it's natural vs supernatural), but not supported by the record that he had a Bible with him. Not one person actually present said he had a Bible with him. You have to insert your own narrative and negotiate with documentation to come to a different conclusion.
The thing that gets me too--if he was writing it himself, he would have had no need to fabricate a situation where there were no reference materials. Why not lean into being a translator, having the Bible, language manuals, ancient writings all open to him
He did have the Bible open, what are you talking about?
@@dr33776 not while dictating the Book of Mormon
Unless you have a source I've missed?
@@-tikla because Emma said so? That’s your source? Same interview in which she lied about Joseph being monogamous?
Let’s say you are grading a paper, do you need a bookstore receipt or library card to prove your student plagiarized some book? The text speaks for itself. Either Joseph had his Bible open when he dictated the Isaiah (and others) chapters or god gave him an anachronistic and incorrect translation.
I have 2 Master's, and a PhD and have studied the Biblical scriptures for close to 40-50 years, a good amount of early Christian history, and decent swaths of other fields. There is no way I could put a book like the Book of Mormon. If an educated person, such as myself and others in similar situations, couldn't write a complex book like the Book of Mormon in sixty-five days with no materials and never having the last sentence dictated read back before continuing dictation, there is no way a person like Joseph Smith with approximately a third grade education and minimal to moderate exposure to the Biblical scriptures and much of knowledge related to early Judaic, Christian, and World history and information in most other fields of knowledge awaiting discovery (and to have many elements of the text continue to be validated as knowledge continues to be discovered) continue to do so without the direct revelation from our Heavenly Father and our Lord, Jesus Christ.
We are still waiting for the antichrists and the people that they dupe to create such a document. It is very easy to theorize, but hard to put their money where their mouth is.
You just gave it away, an educated person would not make up a story about anachronistic metal codices, submarines, transoceanic vessels built by non seafarers, and non existing people that preach of Christ centuries before he was born with 19th century Protestant theology.
@@dr33776 the constant teetering between "Joseph was an idiot" and "Joseph was a genius" by antagonists is hilarious and embarrassing. funny enough, you fall in the minority position on that.
None of us know or can ever be in the same situation Joseph was when he dictated the BOM so just because you or anyone else hasn't replicated the same or similar scenario doesn't mean that without a doubt it was divinely inspired. I would hope your belief is based on more than this understanding.
I've heard Muslims say similar things about the Quran, yet most Mormons wouldn't say it was divinely inspired.
As I started losing my belief in Joseph being a prophet the harder it was for me to read the BOM due to how fake and made up it is and how it conflicts with my understanding of the world. I started avoiding reading it just so I wouldn't have to think about the problems with it being man made and not divinely inspired.
@jonny6man Boy. You are missing much of the research on the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon then. I love all of the scriptures for their divine origins and the blessings they provide with the continued guidance from the Lord through His apostles and prophets. 38 years and counting, the evidences keep coming.
@JD-pr1et What you are telling me is you are in an echo chamber and love reading things you already agree with and believe. Have you had a chance to study other religions and beliefs? It really is eye-opening to talk or listen to others talk about their beliefs the same way you do about your own. Have you looked into the RLDS, FLDS, Strangites, JWs, or Heavens gate?
The supposed ninteenth century connections strike me as vacuous. I've never seen anything that was the least bit convincing. Yes, people of the time may have speculated about the origin of the American Indians and given the ubiquity of The Bible in the cultural context, sure they may have concluded these people arose from the Ten Tribes. So what? Where are the details that the BoM has? And what about the Jaradites? I'm not convinced that constitutes an iimportant "source."
Try reading any scholarship on it. I'm not a trained historian but can see why scholars say the BOM is an 19th century production. You can read Rough Stone Rolling or find quotes from Bushman saying this as well.