Book of Mormon

[Rejoice]

Doc: Well so much for my attempts at keeping this thread on subject.

I haven't read the Book of Mormon, but I am aware that it involves the story of a group of Jews who immigrated to America, where they grew and built vast civilizations. From what I was told, it reads somewhat like a history of these people. If the Book of Mormon were actually true, then it seems logical that there would be evidence of some sort to support it; enough to confirm that the places in it existed and that events written in it occurred. After all, much older evidence exists of places and events from the OT. Other than classes sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, where is the Book of Mormon actually taught as history? Is it accepted as history anywhere outside of the CoJCoLDS?

 

[baker]

I haven't read the Book of Mormon, but I am aware that it involves the story of a group of Jews who immigrated to America, where they grew and built vast civilizations. From what I was told, it reads somewhat like a history of these people. If the Book of Mormon were actually true, then it seems logical that there would be evidence of some sort to support it; enough to confirm that the places in it existed and that events written in it occurred. After all, much older evidence exists of places and events from the OT. Other than classes sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, where is the Book of Mormon actually taught as history? Is it accepted as history anywhere outside of the CoJCoLDS?

Actually, from a purely historic point of view, I would find this thought by Rejoice very thought provoking. I mean think about it, is there any self proclaimed history of over 1000 years that is not discussed in our academic institutions such as this.

I have not read any of the scholarship, whether or not promoted by the lds posters, discussing the historocity of these writings in the BOM, but Rejoice makes a very valid point: is it supported by our academic institutions? I had not thought about in this manner before, but I guess it now just sticks out to me --- why isn't it taught in our schools or university? Does it lack in validity of scholarship?

Please, I mean no disrespect to the lds posters here, but can you offer any insight here?

Rejoice, thanks for raising a very academic point that I had totally missed!!

 

[Doc T]

Thank you Rejoice and Baker for returning this tread to its original topic. I do want to discuss the other issues, but would prefer they be done on other threads.

Rejoice: I haven't read the Book of Mormon, but I am aware that it involves the story of a group of Jews who immigrated to America, where they grew and built vast civilizations. From what I was told, it reads somewhat like a history of these people.

Doc: Yes, and no. There were great civilizations built and they are mentioned in the BofM, but I do not believe that the BofM supports the idea that all of the civilizations that were built up were the direct decendants of those who came over from Jerusalem. The BofM is after all a family history or what is called a "linage history". As such its focus is quite narrow.

Rejoice: If the Book of Mormon were actually true, then it seems logical that there would be evidence of some sort to support it; enough to confirm that the places in it existed and that events written in it occurred. After all, much older evidence exists of places and events from the OT.

Doc: Given that archaeological investigation in the Middle East is done at a pace over 10 times more intensely than in Mesoamerica, where I and most LDS scholars, (not that I consider myself a scholar by any streach of the imagination) and has been done for about 10 times as long, we should not be surprised that much more has been found relevant to the Bible than to the Book of Mormon, which is as I indicated, largely the history of a particular family line in what may have been a sea of other lines and even other peoples.

For example, we talk about the Aztecs as one people - overlooking the mind-boggling complexity of the fact that there were over 20 different cultural groups living in the Aztec capital (now Mexico city) when the Spaniards came, with multiple languages, customs, etc. Yet the dominant culture, the Aztecs, is about all we hear of. The details of the many peoples of Mesoamerica are a long way from being understood, and basic assumptions about the most dominant, and well documented groups are in a state of turmoil. It honestly is too early to expect mountains of specific confirming data, but the general picture looks promising (have you read An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon?). There is much which points to the PLAUSIBILITY of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.

Rejoice: Other than classes sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, where is the Book of Mormon actually taught as history? Is it accepted as history anywhere outside of the CoJCoLDS?

Doc: No where. You see there is a lot more "baggage" with accepting the BofM as describing historical events than there is with the Bible. There are many "Bible" scholars who accept the Bible as a historical document, without accepting its "truth claims." The BofM, on the other hand, comes with angels, revelation and other such baggage that most scholars are not willing to accept.

It is interesting to note, however, the number of scholars that are investigating the BofM as a historical document as well as things Mormon and are willing to come out and publish articles. Some of those include, David Winston of the University of California (Berkeley), Krister Stendahl of the Harvard Divinity School, Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College (Hartford, Connecticut), John Dillenberger, President of Hartford Seminary Foundation, Ernst W. Benz of the University of Marburg, James H. Charlesworth of Duke University presented a paper entitled "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon."

Other non-LDS scholars include Yehuda T. Radday of the University of Haifa, Bezalel Porten and Jonah Fraenkel of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and Wilfred G. E. Watson of Trinity College, University of Dublin, the late Raphael Patai of Princeton University. Another Jewish scholar who has dealt with LDS topics is Jacob Neusner. His article, "Conversations in Nauvoo on the Corporeality of God," appeared in BYU Studies 36/1 (1996-97). In 1975, he earned a PhD from the University of Michigan, with a dissertation entitled "Comparative Coherency of Mormon (finitistic) and Classical Theism."

Sometimes, LDS scholars have gained the respect of non-LDS scholars with whom they have worked or studied. I can't help but think that Stephen E. Robinson and John W. Welch made a good impression on James H. Charlesworth while they were studying at Duke University, since Charlesworth has come to speak several times on the BYU campus, even on Book of Mormon topics. Donald W. Parry, an LDS scholar was invited by Jewish Bible scholar Immanual Tov to work on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Parry and others have clearly had a positive effect on a number of non-LDS scholars working on the Dead Sea Scrolls. At least two professors that LDS scholar John Tvedtnes knew while he was a student at the Hebrew University were so impressed with the Book of Mormon that, while they didn't become members of the Church, they became convinced that the Nephite record was an authentic ancient text.

 

[Doc T]

Actually, from a purely historic point of view, I would find this thought by Rejoice very thought provoking. I mean think about it, is there any self proclaimed history of over 1000 years that is not discussed in our academic institutions such as this.

I have not read any of the scholarship, whether or not promoted by the lds posters, discussing the historocity of these writings in the BOM, but Rejoice makes a very valid point: is it supported by our academic institutions? I had not thought about in this manner before, but I guess it now just sticks out to me --- why isn't it taught in our schools or university? Does it lack in validity of scholarship?

Please, I mean no disrespect to the lds posters here, but can you offer any insight here?

Rejoice, thanks for raising a very academic point that I had totally missed!!

Doc: I hope that my reply to Rejoice answers your questions, particularly your question about whether the BofM lacks in validity of scholarship. That was my hope of this thread. I wanted to discuss some of the BofM scholarship and its findings.

~

 

[Rejoice]

On a different thread, TWhite claimed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in 70 working days. Whether the book is true or fiction, I find this claim remarkable. When I attempted to verify this information, I read the following. I am interested in the Mormon response to this. If this information is true, then there was a period of time from April 12, 1828 to shortly before June 11, 1829, in which he could have written this book. What is more logical time period for writing a book of this length, 70 working days, or 14 months? I would appreciate your comments.

Translation Time

Joseph Smith began to translate the B. of M. on April 12, 1828, with Martin Harris acting as scribe (D.H.C., Vol. I, pp. 20-21). They worked until June 14, 1828, when Harris took the translation home with him. Somehow it disappeared and has never been found. Many assume that Harris' wife destroyed the translation because she did not want him to invest in it. Smith kept no copy and claimed if he re-translated the same section his enemies would alter the missing copy, and then they would produce it after he had re-translated that section in order to prove he could not re-translate it exactly as before. But, an altered copy could easily be detected, so this could have been an excellent opportunity for Smith to prove the book was really being translated by the gift and power of God!

Furthermore, Harris had already taken a copy of some of the "caractors" found on the gold plates to Professor Anthon, who "stated that the translation was correct," according to the LDS story. In order for Anthon to pronounce Smith's translation correct, he had to be able to read the original. Thus, if the translation taken home by Harris had been altered, Professor Anthon should have been able to verify the correct copy. Professor Anthon, however, also wrote about Harris' visit, and called the "gold plates" story a hoax to cheat Harris out of his money (letter to E.D. Howe, a Painsville, Ohio, newspaper editor).

Instead of re-translating the 116 pages lost by Harris, Smith translated an "abridgment" of the same material. It was certainly convenient for Smith that there was an abridgment of exactly the same material Harris had lost! This abridgment is mentioned in The Words of Mormon 1:3-6.

Smith began to translate this abridgment of the B. of M. on April 7, 1829, with Oliver Cowdery, one of the three witnesses of the B. of M., acting as scribe (D.H.C., Vol. I, p. 32). By May 15, 1829, 38 days later, he had completed 69 pages. That was excellent speed considering the fact that only about six pages of the King James Bible had been copied in that section. But, the Wayne County, New York, records show that the B. of M. was registered on June 11, 1829. If a week is allowed to process the application (and it would be difficult to do it in less time), then Smith translated the remaining 519 pages in 20 days! Just to hand-copy p. 69 to p. 588 in the original 1830 B. of M. would be an exhausting, if not impossible job in 20 days!

But, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and others claimed that Joseph Smith read God's translation to Cowdery who wrote it down and then read it back to check it - and that takes time! Of course, if LDS reject that method, as B.H. Roberts and others have, then they are left with the method mentioned in D. & C. 9:7-10 which was to "study it out in your mind," and if the translation was correct, "your bosom shall burn," otherwise "you shall have stupor of thought." If Smith translated this way it may explain the poor grammar in the 1830 B. of M. But, translating that way would be so time consuming that it would be impossible to translate 519 pages in 20 days!

Something must have happened between Smith's translation of the 116 pages that Harris lost and when he translated the entire B. of M. It took 63 days to translate the 116 pages, but only 58 days to translate all 588 pages! The translating was done by the gift and power of God both times, but the last time it operated five times faster! Apparently there were no more abridgments of the B. of M., since Joseph had a duplicate copy made of the entire manuscript prior to taking it to the printer (D.H.C., Vol. I, p. 75).

 

[Rejoice]

No where. You see there is a lot more "baggage" with accepting the BofM as describing historical events than there is with the Bible. There are many "Bible" scholars who accept the Bible as a historical document, without accepting its "truth claims." The BofM, on the other hand, comes with angels, revelation and other such baggage that most scholars are not willing to accept.

The Bible has its share of revelation and angels as well!

Do these scholars that you mentions accept the Book of Mormon as actual history? Do they also accept the angels and revelation?

What I was really looking at was if there was any sort of concensus about the Book of Mormon as history in the academic community. A handful of names does not lend as much credence as actually offering an academic class on the subject on the Book of Mormon as history. However, I appreciate the information.

 

[Serapha]

One of the problems I have with some of these discussions is we are dealing with what I call peripheral issues such as did Joseph Smith plagiarize the Book of Mormon? These are important issues and need to be discussed, but to me, the more interesting issues relate to the text of the Book of Mormon itself.

Hi there!




I appreciate that you want to discuss the book of mormon, but since the biggest question pertain to the validity of the book itself, the content of the book needs to be set aside until there is some sort of evidence that the book should be introduced as a revelation from God.


People outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't want to hear everything in the book when they feel the book is a plagiarized work or that it isn't truly from God, or that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet.


There is no credibility for the book or the author....

I believe I will stay out of the discussion ON the book until the book is established as truth, and that the true author is God.




Now... if you want to discuss evidences of the book, or more importantly, the lack of evidences, then send me a pm that you are opening a thread.







~malaka~

 

[Serapha]

Doc: Given that archaeological investigation in the Middle East is done at a pace over 10 times more intensely than in Mesoamerica, where I and most LDS scholars, (not that I consider myself a scholar by any streach of the imagination) and has been done for about 10 times as long, we should not be surprised that much more has been found relevant to the Bible than to the Book of Mormon, which is as I indicated, largely the history of a particular family line in what may have been a sea of other lines and even other peoples.

Hi there!





Exactly "what" has been found that substantiates the book of mormon?


You reference "the history of a particlar family line", and for goodness sakes, according to the book of mormon, there were millions of people in that family line. Where are the evidences that any of those millions of people lived or died?

For example, we talk about the Aztecs as one people - overlooking the mind-boggling complexity of the fact that there were over 20 different cultural groups living in the Aztec capital (now Mexico city) when the Spaniards came, with multiple languages, customs, etc. Yet the dominant culture, the Aztecs, is about all we hear of. The details of the many peoples of Mesoamerica are a long way from being understood, and basic assumptions about the most dominant, and well documented groups are in a state of turmoil. It honestly is too early to expect mountains of specific confirming data, but the general picture looks promising (have you read An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon?). There is much which points to the PLAUSIBILITY of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.

(have you read An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon?).



Hi there!



It's out of print.




~malaka~


Hi there!




Okay, I'll take the bait... I have a copy of


"Book of Mormon Evidences in ancient America" by Dewey Farmsworth, exactly where in that book might I find something to support your statement that the general picture looks promising.



You do have a copy of that reference book in your personal library, don't you?

 

[twhite982]

On a different thread, TWhite claimed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in 70 working days. Whether the book is true or fiction, I find this claim remarkable. When I attempted to verify this information, I read the following. I am interested in the Mormon response to this. If this information is true, then there was a period of time from April 12, 1828 to shortly before June 11, 1829, in which he could have written this book. What is more logical time period for writing a book of this length, 70 working days, or 14 months? I would appreciate your comments.

This is the second time I'm writing this, so this time it'll be very brief. The computer keeps "eating" my work.

When I said 70 working days I did not mean that they were in consecutive order. Joseph Smith's family was very poor and many times had to hire themselves out to make ends meet. This of course did not pay well. Joseph brother Alvin died, which meant one less bread winner. Just before Joseph recieved the plates he married Emma Hale and needed to support her as well as help with his family. These things take very much time as well as other issues that arose, which required his attention.

If you would like a more deatiled account on the translation time, I can find a link for you to look into.

TW

 

[twhite982]

I believe I will stay out of the discussion ON the book until the book is established as truth, and that the true author is God.







~malaka~

This will never happen. It won't work for the Book of Mormon nor the Bible. The truth of it is not manifested in physical evidences.

There are of course physical evidences for both, but they only mean something to that person if they are willing to listen.

From your post it seems to me that your mind is already made up regarding the Book of Mormon. You're welcome to post, but as far as me or any other person "proving" anything to you, it won't happen. And that is NOT our responsibility. We can only present what we believe and why. Its up to you to do what you want to do with that information.

I don't want to be insulting to you at all, so I apologize if I am.

We can discuss what we believe as facts and what you feel are problems and try to do this in an orginized manner. Fair Enough?

TW

 

[twhite982]

Hi there!





Exactly "what" has been found that substantiates the book of mormon?


You reference "the history of a particlar family line", and for goodness sakes, according to the book of mormon, there were millions of people in that family line. Where are the evidences that any of those millions of people lived or died?

C'mon you can't be serious? Millions?

What would you expect in population growth from say 30 travelers in 1000 years, knowing what you know about the central american environment and the large numbers of wars, famine, and plagues they had?

TW

 

[baker]

C'mon you can't be serious? Millions?

What would you expect in population growth from say 30 travelers in 1000 years, knowing what you know about the central american environment and the large numbers of wars, famine, and plagues they had?

TW

Twhite,

I think I agree with you here. It sounds sorta hokey to me as well.

That's why when I read it in Ether 15:2, I gotta question the whole book of mormon thing!!!

 

[Rejoice]

This is the second time I'm writing this, so this time it'll be very brief. The computer keeps "eating" my work.

When I said 70 working days I did not mean that they were in consecutive order. Joseph Smith's family was very poor and many times had to hire themselves out to make ends meet. This of course did not pay well. Joseph brother Alvin died, which meant one less bread winner. Just before Joseph recieved the plates he married Emma Hale and needed to support her as well as help with his family. These things take very much time as well as other issues that arose, which required his attention.

If you would like a more deatiled account on the translation time, I can find a link for you to look into.

TW

Thank you, I appreciate your offer of finding more detailed information about this.

I was hoping that you could comment on the facts that were presented in the article. I don't expect that you agree with the conclusions, but are the general facts true?

Did Joseph Smith presumably translated 588 pages in approximately 63 days; 519 pages in 20 days? Was there a gap in time of almost a year in translating it? I would like to verify if this claim is true.

 

[twhite982]

Twhite,

I think I agree with you here. It sounds sorta hokey to me as well.

That's why when I read it in Ether 15:2, I gotta question the whole book of mormon thing!!!

Well actually Ether is in reference to the Jaredites who left from the tower of babel around 3000 bc. so they would have a little more time to populate themselves and I think also the Book of Mormon hints at others who came to the americas. Either way 2 million still seems a little steep for me, but I'll accept it as it stands.

On the other hand the nephites, I would assume may have climaxed around 1/4 of a million, but this is just my guess. I've read an article which does a much better job than my hypothesis.

Baker, Can I ask if you find anything right with the Book of Mormon?

TW

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

I like how the Book of Mormon teaches the Holy Trinity

 

[twhite982]

Thank you, I appreciate your offer of finding more detailed information about this.

I was hoping that you could comment on the facts that were presented in the article. I don't expect that you agree with the conclusions, but are the general facts true?

Did Joseph Smith presumably translated 588 pages in approximately 63 days; 519 pages in 20 days? Was there a gap in time of almost a year in translating it? I would like to verify if this claim is true.

When I find that article I'll post an overview. I tend to agree with the 63 days. I said 70 for a nice round number. The 70 days translation time I've heard from many many different people and I really didn't question it, so I didn't dig too deep on the subject. It would seem logical as well for Joseph or his family were very poor and he needed to provide support. Additionally, (this is off the top of my head) I believe that Joseph was commisioned to do the re-translation of the Bible during this time, so he held off on the translation of the Book of Mormon for a time. I'll have to confirm this with church history.

As I've heard a typical translation on a good day would produce 1 page per day. On average I think Joseph averaged 7 pages per day.

My memory is starting to get jogged and I think I recall Elder Jeffrey R. Holland giving a talk on the chronology of the translation.

I'll keep you posted,

TW

 

[twhite982]

I like how the Book of Mormon teaches the Holy Trinity

Hey Jeffrey, you just can't leave us hanging on that one, tell us how.

TW

 

[twhite982]

Here is an explanation of the time frame of translation, although it is not exactly what I was looking for it'll do:

HOW LONG DID IT TAKE TO TRANSLATE THE BOOK OF MORMON?

1Title Page "Translated by Joseph Smith"
1Long ago the Lord declared: "I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, yea, a marvelous work and a wonder" ("2 Ne. 27:262 Nephi 27:26; see "Isa. 29:14Isaiah 29:14). In Hebrew, this emphatic text repeats the word miracle</B> three times: "a miraculous miracle and a miracle." In this context, Isaiah prophesies of a book that will come forth in an extraordinary manner. That book is the Book of Mormon.</B></I>
1 The Title Page of the Book of Mormon declares that the book is a translation of an ancient set of records, "sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord . . . —To come forth by the gift and power of God." On many counts, it is no ordinary book. The mere existence of the Book of Mormon is one of the greatest miracles in history.
1 Among the many amazing facts about the Book of Mormon is how little time it took for Joseph Smith to translate it. Recent research has shown more clearly than ever before that the Book of Mormon as we now have it was translated in a stunningly short amount of time. There was no time for outside research, rewriting, or polishing. Many contemporaneous historical documents sustain and validate the accuracy of Joseph Smith's account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
1 The following historical details are well worth noting:
1 1. In the two months from April 12 to June 14, 1828, Martin Harris assisted Joseph Smith in the translation of what is referred to in the 1830 preface to the Book of Mormon as "The Book of Lehi." fn During that time, 116 pages of manuscript translation were written. But when those 116 pages, which Martin had borrowed to show members of his family, were lost, the "interpreters" were taken away from Joseph Smith and translation temporarily ceased (July 1828; see "D&C 3:1D&C 3).
2 2. Following the return of the "interpreters" on September 22, 1828, fn the translation was resumed and proceeded sporadically, with Emma acting as Joseph's scribe. In "D&C 5:30Doctrine and Covenants 5:30, which was given in March 1829, Joseph was commanded to translate "a few more pages" and then to "stop for a season." An examination of the fragmentary original manuscript shows no evidence of Emma's handwriting, which indicates that very little translation work was actually accomplished during this time.
2 3. The process of translating the Book of Mormon as we know it began in full earnest with the arrival of Oliver Cowdery on April 5, 1829. fn Two days later, Joseph and Oliver began translating and continued the process "uninterrupted" and "with little cessation" during the rest of April and May of that year. fn By May 15 (see "D&C 13:1D&C 13), they must have reached "3 Ne. 11:13 Nephi 11 since, according to Oliver's own account, "after writing the account given of the Savior's ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent, it was easily to be seen . . .that . . . none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel." fn It was this awareness that led to the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, 1829.
2 If their work began with 1 Nephi, this would mean that 430 pages (of the current edition) would have been written in thirty-eight days, or an amazing average of not less than eleven-and-a-half pages per day! If, on the other hand, Joseph's and Oliver's work together began with "Mosiah 1:1Mosiah 1, this would still represent 285 pages, an average of seven-and-a-half pages per day!
2 4. By about the middle of June, the Three Witnesses were shown the plates. According to the manuscripts of the History of the Church,</B> a scripture found on page 110 ("2 Ne. 27:12 Nephi 27) of the original edition of the Book of Mormon may have sparked this experience. Although this recently noticed detail in the manuscript of the History of the Church was not supplied until after 1852 (the 1842 publication of the History of the Church in the Times and Seasons left out the reference to page 110), it may well reflect an oral recollection concerning the immediate scriptural cause of the experience of the Three Witnesses.</B></I>
3 This would mean that only "2 Ne. 28:12 Nephi 28 to Words of Mormon remained, or about thirty-eight pages of text, to translate in late June. The manuscripts of the History of the Church</B> confirm that the translation continued following that manifestation fn and that the work was completed before the end of June. Another possibility is that the scripture in "Ether 5:1Ether 5 sparked the experience of the Three Witnesses, as later editions of the History of the Church indicate. If that were the case, there likewise remained thirty-seven pages to the end of Moroni to complete in late June.</B></I>
3 5. If Oliver began transcribing in April with "Mosiah 1:1Mosiah 1, then 212 pages would have been translated from the time of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15 ("3 Ne. 11:13 Nephi 11) until the manifestation to the Three Witnesses in late June ("2 Ne. 27:12 Nephi 27). This is a period of approximately thirty days (including the four days spent in transit from Harmony to the Whitmer farm in Fayette), or an average of about ten pages per working day.
3 If Joseph and Oliver began their work in April at 1 Nephi, which assumes that "Ether 5:1Ether 5 sparked the experience of the Three Witnesses, there would have been only sixty-five pages ("3 Ne. 11:13 Nephi 11 to "Ether 5:1Ether 5) translated during the same thirty-day period of time, or an average of about two pages per day.
3 In our view, the "Mosiah First" theory seems more likely. fn This supposition is strengthened by the fact that the Title Page, which stood at the end of the Plates of Mormon, was already translated before June 11, 1829. That is the date Joseph Smith applied for the copyright on the Book of Mormon and used the Title Page as the book's description on the application.
3 6. Under either theory, a span of no more than sixty-five to seventy-five total days was likely involved in translating the Book of Mormon as we now have it, for an overall average of about seven to eight pages per day, conservatively estimated. At such a pace, only about a week could have been taken to translate all of 1 Nephi; a day and half for King Benjamin's speech.
4 Moreover, Joseph and Oliver could not spend all of that time concentrating on the translation. They also took time to eat, to sleep, to seek employment (once, to work for money when supplies ran out), to receive the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, to make at least one (and possibly two) trips to Colesville thirty miles away, to convert and baptize Hyrum and Samuel Smith (who came to Harmony at that time), to receive and record thirteen revelations that are now sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, to move on buckboard from Harmony to Fayette, to acquire the Book of Mormon copyright, to preach a few days and baptize several people near Fayette, to experience manifestations with the Three and Eight Witnesses, and to begin making arrangements for the Book of Mormon's publication.
4 As Oliver Cowdery a few years afterward testified, "These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration</B> of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated . . . the record called 'The Book of Mormon.' " fn Considering the Book of Mormon's theological depth, historical complexity, consistency, clarity, artistry, accuracy, and profundity, the Prophet Joseph's translation is a phenomenal achievement—even a miraculous feat.</B></I>
4Based on research by John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone, February 1986. This Update was followed by the publication of an extensive day-by-day chronological study: John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone, "The Translation of the Book of Mormon: Basic Historical Information" (Provo: F.A.R.M.S., 1986). A concise statement of that research appeared in the Church magazines: John W. Welch, "How long did it take Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon?" </B></I>Ensign 18 (January 1988): 46-47.</B>
Events Surrounding the Translation of the Book of Mormon
Date Events
1827 Sep Joseph obtains the plates from the angel Moroni
Oct
Nov
Dec Joseph and Emma move to Harmony, Pennsylvania
1828 Jan Joseph translates some of the characters
Feb Martin Harris visits Professor Charles Anthon in New York
City
Mar
Apr 12-
June 14 Book of Lehi is translated
June 15 Joseph and Emma s first child is born and dies
Martin Harris loses 116 pages
July Joseph travels to Manchester, New York
Aug
Sep 22 Interpreters and plates reobtained
Oct
Nov
Dec David Whimer makes a business trip to Palmyra, where
he meets Oliver Cowdery
1829 Jan
Feb Joseph's parents come from New York to Harmony
Joseph receives Doctrine and Covenants 4
Lord appears to Oliver Cowdery
Mar A few pages translated
Martin Harris visits Joseph from Palmyra
Apr 5 Oliver Cowdery arrives in Harmony
Apr 7-
Late June Book of Mormon translated
July E. B. Grandin and T. Weed decline to print
Aug E. B. Grandin agrees to print
Martin Harris mortgages his farm
Typesetting commences
Sep
Oct
Nov Oliver Cowdery s preparation of the Printer's
Manuscript reaches Alma 36
Dec
1830 Jan
Feb
Mar 26 Printing finished
The Translation of the Book of Mormon, April to June 1829
[This table shows where Joseph and Oliver were in the translation if they began with Mosiah 1 or 1 Nephi 1 and how many days into the translation they were.]
Footnotes
1. History of the Church, 1:20-21.</I>
<A name="RM-CHAPTER 1-2">2. Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), 134-35; compare "D&C 10:1"D&C 10:2"D&C 10:3D&C 10:1-3.</I>
3. History of the Church, 1:32-33.</I>
4. History of the Church, 1:35; Oliver Cowdery, ''Letter 1,'' Messenger and Advocate 1 (October 1834): 14.</I>
5. Cowdery, "Letter 1,'' 15.
6. History of the Church, 1:26.</I>
7. See Stan Larson, "A Most Sacred Possession,'' Ensign 7 (September 1977): 87.</I>
8. Joseph Smith- History 1:71 note; italics added. See Cowdery, "Letter 1.''

By John W. Welch

 

[Isaiah 53]

I haven't read the Book of Mormon, but I am aware that it involves the story of a group of Jews who immigrated to America, where they grew and built vast civilizations. From what I was told, it reads somewhat like a history of these people. If the Book of Mormon were actually true, then it seems logical that there would be evidence of some sort to support it; enough to confirm that the places in it existed and that events written in it occurred. After all, much older evidence exists of places and events from the OT. Other than classes sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, where is the Book of Mormon actually taught as history? Is it accepted as history anywhere outside of the CoJCoLDS?

Here is what the National Geographic Society says about the BoM:
http://www.irr.org/mit/natgeo.html

or perhaps the Smithsonian Institutes views:

http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html

I think that pretty much covers the secular side of things.

PEACE IN CHRIST!!!

 

[Doc T]

Here is what the National Geographic Society says about the BoM:

or perhaps the Smithsonian Institutes views:


I think that pretty much covers the secular side of things.

PEACE IN CHRIST!!!

Doc: Hey Isaiah 53, we missed you yesterday.

Question for you. What makes the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonian Institute the experts in BofM or Pre-Classic Mesoamerican history/archaeology? From my understanding neither of these groups even have field archaeologist working in the Mesoamerican regions, nor do they have anyone with expertise in the area of Pre-Classic Mesoamerica.

I found it interesting to read that Congress when they saw the Statement on the BofM from the SI questioned the SI for even dabling in the area of religion.



~