LDS possible sources for BOM avilable to JS

[Daniel Marsh]

History of Windows

"The Romans were the first known to use glass for windows, a technology likely first produced in Roman Egypt. Namely, in Alexandria ca. 100 AD cast glass windows, albeit with poor optical properties, began to appear, but these were small thick productions, little more than blown glass jars (cylindrical shapes) flattened out into sheets with circular striation patterns throughout. It would be over a millennium before a window glass became transparent enough to see through clearly, as we think of it now."
Window - Wikipedia

"Moroni abridged the record of Ether between AD 400 and AD 421"
Introduction to the Book of Ether

History of glass - Wikipedia

The fact, that the idea of using glass windows on boats, puts that in the 1800s, not in Ancient Near Eastern History.

Someone, in the 1800's would think of "glass windows" on ships. We know that glass for portholes were used in 1820. There is no record that such a thing existed in the Ancient Near East. Both Rome and Egypt made glass objects, not glass portholes.

I remember reading the issue of age of accountability was contemporary with JS. Do you have non-lds proof that this was debated in Biblical times?

Through the Looking Glass: Maritime Glass as Sea Glass

Glass was expensive in the Ancient Near East.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

If you have really done your research you have to know the spaulding man. is not the source.

JS had a 3rd grade education, he did not write well. Even if he used the SM as a source he could not have written such a comprehensive 537 page book about people living in Jerusalem and sailing to the Americas in 590 bc and how they lived and their culture and wars and religion over about a 1000 years. It was impossible for JS to make up this story let alone write it.

Think again.

Hi Peter, his lack of education proves he is the author of the Book of Mormon because the grammar is very poor. When something is the length of a tree, how long is it in feet?

"and the length thereof was the length of a tree;" Ether 2:17

"20 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood."

Demonstrates that a poorly educated person wrote it.

 

[mmksparbud]

Hi Peter, his lack of education proves he is the author of the Book of Mormon because the grammar is very poor. When something is the length of a tree, how long is it in feet?

"and the length thereof was the length of a tree;" Ether 2:17

"20 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood."

Demonstrates that a poorly educated person wrote it.

The 1st thing I noticed, within the first couple of sentences, was how agaonizingly simple, childlike, it read. This was no biblical language, this was just something trying to sound biblical to make up or the fact they couldn't write. I struggled through it, but there was nothing lofty, of a deep spiritual meaning as with the bible.

 

[Ran77]

Ran it is funny you think the writing in complex. This is an example of how simplistic it is.

My forum handle is Ran77. Either use it correctly, or don't use it at all.

It's alright with me if you think it's funny. That's a second piece of evidence that supports the idea that the rules of literary structure are beyond the scope of your posts.

It also represents evidence that you are not addressing the complexity of the Book of Mormon in the manner in which I used the word. The Book of Mormon is complex because it incorporates many styles of writing in the same document. Author voice changes from chapter to chapter, while remaining consistent within each individual chapter. This represents literary complexity because it involves multiple styles and voice.

While you posted an excerpt from the Book of Mormon, your post contains only your opinion of how it simplistic. No explanation of how that might be so.

I feel that further discussion of the topic will be fruitless as long as your posts fail to incorporate an understanding of writing structure or the fundamentals of style. That is what I'm addressing and any effective rebuttal needs to do the same.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The 1st thing I noticed, within the first couple of sentences, was how agonizingly simple, childlike, it read. This was no biblical language, this was just something trying to sound biblical to make up or the fact they couldn't write. I struggled through it, but there was nothing lofty, of a deep spiritual meaning as with the bible.

When I can not sleep, it takes 30 Seconds reading it.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

My forum handle is Ran77. Either use it correctly, or don't use it at all.

It's alright with me if you think it's funny. That's a second piece of evidence that supports the idea that the rules of literary structure are beyond the scope of your posts.

It also represents evidence that you are not addressing the complexity of the Book of Mormon in the manner in which I used the word. The Book of Mormon is complex because it incorporates many styles of writing in the same document. Author voice changes from chapter to chapter, while remaining consistent within each individual chapter. This represents literary complexity because it involves multiple styles and voice.

While you posted an excerpt from the Book of Mormon, your post contains only your opinion of how it simplistic. No explanation of how that might be so.

I feel that further discussion of the topic will be fruitless as long as your posts fail to incorporate an understanding of writing structure or the fundamentals of style. That is what I'm addressing and any effective rebuttal needs to do the same.

There is nothing complex in the grammar of the BOM at all.

“All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the "elect" have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.”
― Mark Twain

 

[Albion]

The only church that talks about the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the priesthood of Jesus is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is only the Church of Jesus Christ that declares these things.

This point of yours is an interesting one, but it doesn't work towards exonerating the BOM. Indeed, it appears to work the other way.

The Book of Mormon (by one name or another) dates back to the early 19th century. That was a time when all things ancient were in vogue, American Indians included. Joseph Smith himself relates how he, as a youth, was put off by the competing claims of Apostolic correctness coming from the different Christian denominations--Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.

It is no surprise, therefore, that for all the ideas and historic events that are recounted in the BOM, the ones that treat of the most contentious and divisive issues separating Protestant Christians at that time make crystal clear what the right answer is. Those parts of the book are, in fact, redundant, so precise are the answers given in these cases.

To modern day Mormons, such entries in the BOM verify its authenticity whereas, to non-Mormons, they are all too convenient and show us that it was written at a time when those particular doctrinal issues were the "hot" topics, not the "hot" topics that troubled Christianity at other times in history, the time of the Apostolic church included..

Take the instructions given about baptism, for instance. This was an issue that separated Baptists from most other Christian denominations. Or the keys and the priesthood, which you referred to here.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

My forum handle is Ran77. Either use it correctly, or don't use it at all.

It's alright with me if you think it's funny. That's a second piece of evidence that supports the idea that the rules of literary structure are beyond the scope of your posts.

It also represents evidence that you are not addressing the complexity of the Book of Mormon in the manner in which I used the word. The Book of Mormon is complex because it incorporates many styles of writing in the same document. Author voice changes from chapter to chapter, while remaining consistent within each individual chapter. This represents literary complexity because it involves multiple styles and voice.

While you posted an excerpt from the Book of Mormon, your post contains only your opinion of how it simplistic. No explanation of how that might be so.

I feel that further discussion of the topic will be fruitless as long as your posts fail to incorporate an understanding of writing structure or the fundamentals of style. That is what I'm addressing and any effective rebuttal needs to do the same.

I posted examples from the BOM. Anyone unbiased reading the text will see it is simplistic. The grammar is that of an uneducated person.

I think the more likely explanation for the BOM is JS heard many stories of the Native Americans being of Jewish origins which was a common speculation in the newspapers and books of his time. He may even heard books like View of the Hebrews or others like it read in School.
I think JS had a good imagination. Based on the poor grammar and simplistic use of language including run on sentences, etc., I have no doubt JS is its author.

As you can see the first edition has JS as the author Ran.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

My forum handle is Ran77. Either use it correctly, or don't use it at all.

It's alright with me if you think it's funny. That's a second piece of evidence that supports the idea that the rules of literary structure are beyond the scope of your posts.

It also represents evidence that you are not addressing the complexity of the Book of Mormon in the manner in which I used the word. The Book of Mormon is complex because it incorporates many styles of writing in the same document. Author voice changes from chapter to chapter, while remaining consistent within each individual chapter. This represents literary complexity because it involves multiple styles and voice.

While you posted an excerpt from the Book of Mormon, your post contains only your opinion of how it simplistic. No explanation of how that might be so.

I feel that further discussion of the topic will be fruitless as long as your posts fail to incorporate an understanding of writing structure or the fundamentals of style. That is what I'm addressing and any effective rebuttal needs to do the same.

I thought Ran was part of your name like in Randel.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

IMHO, It is more honest to use one's real name in discussion forums like this.

 

[He is the way]

There is nothing complex in the grammar of the BOM at all.

“All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the "elect" have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.”
― Mark Twain

BIBLE
It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
- Letters from the Earth - Mark Twain

 

[Daniel Marsh]

BIBLE
It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
- Letters from the Earth - Mark Twain

At least the bible does not put me to sleep.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

When I can not sleep, it takes 30 Seconds reading it.

“All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the "elect" have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.”
― Mark Twain

 

[Ran77]

There is nothing complex in the grammar of the BOM at all.

You have offered an unsupported opinion. Based on the posts you have submitted so far, there is no reason for me to believe that your opinion, by itself, is a compelling argument for the point your are trying to make.

 

[Ran77]

The stylistic complexity and depth of messages in the Book of Mormon were beyond the ability of someone with Joseph Smith's education. Rather than be sidetracked by definitions and examples of complexity that I haven't indicated, I am going to directly addressed the material I mean.

1) The Book of Mormon uses an ancient literary structure known as chiasmus. A chiasmus uses two, or more, clauses which are then offset from one another by the reversal of their order. (This is a complex literary style.) It produces an artistic effect that gives greater weight to the statement in the middle of the chiasmus.

In addition to the reversed order, a chiasmus also works on using different terminology in the first half and the second half of the statement. Because the phrasing is changed between the two halves, this adds an even greater level of complexity to the writing.


An example of a chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is Helaman 6:10.

10 Now the land south was called Lehi, and the land north was called Mulek, which was after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south.

In this specific example, another layer of complexity is evident in the use of Zedekiah and Lord at the turning point of the chiasmus. Lord probably stands for the divine name Jehovah or Yahweh. The last part of Zedekiah, the -iah, is the first part of that divine name. The clever play on -iah and Lord is amazing.

That's just one verse in the Book of Mormon. There is no way that Joseph Smith would have been able to write in such a complex manner with his level of education. Let alone do it in the amount of time in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Unless, Joseph Smith was the greatest literary genius who ever lived.

 

[Ran77]

The literary complexity of the Book of Mormon.

2) The Book of Mormon was translated over the space of roughly 63 days. That's 7-9 pages a day. All testimonies of the people present agree that Joseph Smith did not pause to review anything he had already written. He had no notes or reference materials to draw from. And despite both of those being the case, he did not wander, include unnecessary repetition, no contradictions, no non-sequiturs, or pointless sections. The depth of themes, stories, characters, and events give the Book of Mormon an internal complexity that is well beyond the capability of anyone other than a literary prodigy.

 

[Ran77]

3) Complex elements within the Book of Mormon.

a) the Book of Mormon contains three complex dating systems that remain accurate throughout the book.

b) the Book of Mormon contains a complex system of religious teachings. What's truly amazing about this is that these teachings are presented in unique ways by the different prophets. Lehi has the vision of the tree of life (great symbolism and depth of message). Jacob talks about the allegory of the olive tree. Alma teaches that the word of God is a see.

c) the Book of Mormon refers to a complex set of source materials. Official records, sermons, journals, church records, and ancient Israelite scripture that wasn't known about at the time that Joseph translated the book.

d) complex political traditions are woven throughout the text. They take a variety of forms and are always logical and consistent. The complaints of Laman and Lemuel evolve into a national ideology.

e) the Book of Mormon keeps track of the ebb and flow of ethnic interaction. More complex than The Lord of the Rings, which took Tolkien around 17 years to write.

f) the Book of Mormon contains hundreds of character and place names that are accurately kept track of throughout the book.

g) incredibly diverse and complex geographical information is found throughout the text.


So . . . yeah. The Book of Mormon is complex in a literary way and carries a great depth of story and message.

 

[Ran77]

And my original point.

4) the Book of Mormon contains a tremendous complexity of style. Each book within the Book of Mormon has it's own unique voice. That means the way in which it is written sounds differently from the others. The choice of which words to use and the structure of sentences all determine voice.

More importantly, character voice wasn't as developed in literature during the time of Joseph Smith as it is today. Storytelling evolved. Storytelling has become more complex in style than it was during the days of Joseph Smith. Which is not to be confused with the complexity of story as we see with storytelling masters like William Shakespeare.

 

[mmksparbud]

I posted examples from the BOM. Anyone unbiased reading the text will see it is simplistic. The grammar is that of an uneducated person.

I think the more likely explanation for the BOM is JS heard many stories of the Native Americans being of Jewish origins which was a common speculation in the newspapers and books of his time. He may even heard books like View of the Hebrews or others like it read in School.
I think JS had a good imagination. Based on the poor grammar and simplistic use of language including run on sentences, etc., I have no doubt JS is its author.

As you can see the first edition has JS as the author Ran.

The LDS have a thing they call "the Mormon challange." Where you earnestly pray before you read the BOM for the Holy |Spirit to show you if it is frpm God. I did it---and so have many others on here---I know, without dout, the Holy Spirit said---"It is not from me."But they themselves will not take that same challange about anyone else's writtings. I have challanged them, to read Thje Great Controversey, or the Desire of Ages. Which even Billy Graham had in his library. They won't.

 

[He is the way]

The LDS have a thing they call "the Mormon challange." Where you earnestly pray before you read the BOM for the Holy |Spirit to show you if it is frpm God. I did it---and so have many others on here---I know, without dout, the Holy Spirit said---"It is not from me."But they themselves will not take that same challange about anyone else's writtings. I have challanged them, to read Thje Great Controversey, or the Desire of Ages. Which even Billy Graham had in his library. They won't.

Many people have taken the same challenge and the spirit told them that the Book of Mormon is indeed from God. In my case I believe in a fair and just God, one who gives EVERYONE the same opportunity to be saved, even those who died without being baptized. Baptism is a necessary ordinance:

(New Testament | John 3:3)

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29)

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?