‘How did Joseph Smith make it up? How did he do it? Huh? You can’t explain that.’

I was not there while it was being composed. But I know, given the evidence, that it’s an ahistorical book. The Indians are not Jews that God turned brown after becoming displeased with them. The ancient Americans did not have the technology or the livestock described in the Book of Mormon. Nowhere is Hebrew still in use, nor is there any evidence of its influence at any point on native languages. Nowhere is clear evidence of precolumbian Jewish DNA.

And the book is not perfect at all. The thousands of changes were not merely ‘grammatical’. There were some doctrinal scrubs and corrections of inconsistencies. It contains block quotes of the King James Bible, errors and all. It doesn’t even match up with the JST versions of the same passages. Other corrections were made, because God doesn’t seem to know the rules of Jacobean English, or English generally.

The Book of Mormon is not a theological wonder, either. Much of what it teaches was superseded by later revelations of Smith. It teaches of one heaven and one hell. It teaches that there is one God, and that Jesus and the Father are the same person. Almost everything that makes Mormon doctrine unique is not to be found in the Book of Mormon. It’s only used as a teaser for Joseph Smith’s prophethood, and then it’s practically discarded. The most deceptive thing missionaries can do is give someone a Book of Mormon and say “read this and you’ll know what we believe.”

So, who cares if no one has a perfect theory about where the Book of Mormon comes from? What we know is that we have it now, and it appears to be little more than Bible fan fiction written circa late 1820s on the frontier of America. Maybe whoever wrote it thought they were doing a good deed. Maybe it was just to make some money. There’s nothing in the book that would have challenged anyone’s theological and speculative beliefs at the time. Everything that makes Mormonism weird came afterward. Mormon GAs say we give Joseph Smith too much credit to suggest he wrote it. I think that’s backwards. The Book of Mormon of 2017 is a polished product with a rich multinational corporation aggressively advertising it to their youth and sending them out into the world as an indoctrinated, naive young unpaid sales force. The actual book, especially the 1830 edition, is so terrible in every way, we give the book way too much credit to suggest a frontiersman with a known talent for deception and storytelling couldn’t have written it.

Wasnt it a copy of other books? From solomon spaulding for example.

It came from the way of Joe's ass.

Read Book of Mormon book of lies by author Sheets. Then verify books he claims BOM came from

I don't know how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon. Just like I don't know how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear. But I know they're both tricks.

******SPOILER ALERT***********

1. Slowly rotating stage
2. Wide proscenium sides
3. Profit.

1. Emanuel Swedenborg--Heaven and Hell and its Wonders (1785)

2. Ethan Smith(no relative) 1823

"Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon"

" view of the Hebrews" sounds the closest. Like Desertman said, it was written in 1823, and Joe just copied most of it as his own. He had no shame

That was a very lively intellectual era and area. Not nearly as isolated and ignorant as the farm-boy from upstate new york legend would have you believe.

There was all kinds of stuff floating around---I'll bet all of it can be documented for idea-sources.

Besides the books, newspapers, etc, among JS's friends and associates were individuals who had the kind of esoteric knowledge that shows up in the books he "translated."

For example, Martha Beck says that among her ancestors was a Jewish dentist who was JS's friend and close associate. So there's a possible source for some of the esoteric Jewish ideas. No doubt there are other similar resources.

When someone gives a stupid theory they always say, "well you
give a perfect theory then," when someone challenges them. The
"theory" that the Church gives is insane. It's cuckcoo. It's
bonkers. It's obviously false. The fact that we don't have a
provable, detailed explanation doesn't mean theirs holds any
water.

I like it when they dismiss your theory because parts of it are
"implausible." Yeah, as though angels and gold plates and
running from ruffians with 200 lbs tucked under your arm while
having a bad leg, and translating "with a rock in a hat" with the
plates nowhere to be seen is TOTALLY plausible.

I love it! Thank you. Well said!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2017 04:15AM by cnnbotha.

"If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right."

Yeah, no -- it doesn't work that way.
Your claims (the book of mormon is true!) are worthless until/if evidence shows them correct.
And guess what? Evidence doesn't show them correct. It shows them false in many case, and shows nothing about them in others. Which means we're right back where we started: your claims are worthless.

I don't have to "prove" how the BoM came to be.

How dismissive you all are of "feelings"!!!!

I'm winning close to 50% of my bets on college football, and I place my bets bases on "feelings", so I guess I've proved my point, you hosers!

And answer me this, when has a "feeling" that turned out to lead to a correct result ever been proven wrong? Aha! Gotcha!!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm winning close to 50% of my bets on college
> football, and I place my bets bases on "feelings",
> so I guess I've proved my point, you hosers!

You do realize that if you tossed a coin to decide your bets, you'd win around 50% of them too...right? :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You do realize that if you tossed a coin to decide
> your bets, you'd win around 50% of them
> too...right? :)

But only if his feelings agreed with the coin toss.

UCLA vs USC this year?

I think I can trust your feelings. . .you've been around here for a long time!!

Which one of them is call The Bears? That's where my money is going!!

I'd love to tell you but wouldn't my explanation be "ant-Mormon"???

"An uneducated farm boy could not have written that book."

1. JS wasn't a boy when the book was "translated."
2. The original has "uneducated" written all over it.

It's a whodunnit. We have the body, the smoking gun, and prime suspects. You can't say nothing happened.

This is something I’ve spent about 15 years working on. The results are available here: http://mormonleaks.com

Wow Craig, you guys HAVE been busy :-)

It's a very convincing and plausible narrative (for the moment ;-)

Impressive research and presentation.

Looking forward to the new episode.

Tom in Paris

Thank you Tom! We're now actively soliciting help with the review of our draft Episode 7. If you are interested in being a reviewer, I'd be happy to send you a copy (bomauthorship@mac.com). Craig

Thank you for your diligence Craig.

Where did the script for Star Wars come from? Or the novel Gone With the Wind? Or the Bible

American spiritualism, the interest in contacting the dead through mediums, took off in the mid 19th century, but had earlier roots (Mormonism is listed as one of the same branches, http://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/2000/06/american-spiritualism.aspx ). Channeled works supposedly from dead authors (but of an inferior quality, i.e., by spirits masquerading as great authors) were among its products. If Joseph Smith was in some way phlegmatic (susceptible as a medium), that would explain visions, oracular pronouncements, and channeled, maybe even automatic writing--errors and all.