An intriguing treatment, not so much about seer stones, but about Smith's knowledge and use of 19th century composition techniques.

Davis: Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon

A (another) book on how a conman copied, wrote, composed filthy religious fiction.

Oh great!

Thanks

Anything about Joseph’s knowledge of Fanny Alger?

.....and the Book Of MORmON is still unbelievably bad garbage.....

I testify that rarely has so much been written about nineteenth century pulp fiction.

? Is your Right Arm to the square?

I posted this because this book apparently takes a completely different approach to how Smith produced the BoM.

I tried to post a link to the review for AML, but it contained a banned word.

I appreciate your post, Richard. The book sounds interesting. Thank you.

Thanks Richard. I found this review.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-46965-566-6

Also found this link that the book can be read online, chapter by chapter.
https://muse.jhu.edu/book/74160

Hi Richard:

I'm your old HS debate partner's brother. How are you?

Re: topic of BofM construction. I'm curious about why Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews (1823)" has never (to my knowledge) been mentioned on this group. Apparently the belief that Natives were descendants of the Lost 10 Tribes (who had somehow found their way to North America) was widely believed in early 19th century American. A number of the ideas for the BofM could have come from that book. Certainly possible that Smith had access to Ethan Smith's book. I think that Brodie mentions it in her biography. This is the most common explanation.

Got into a heated argument with the local LDS Institute director about this some years ago. He later attacked me obliquely in a sacrament meeting talk about the dangers of apostasy --- stared directly at me during his entire talk. He soon after left for a position in Salt Lake. Probably moved up the ladder.

I have always believed that Ethan Smith liberally borrowed from 'View of the Hebrews' in constructing the BoM. Joe Smith was the front man/marketing/sales director of the enterprise but Ethan was the 'brains'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2020 11:18AM by Perdition.

WestofButte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm curious about
> why Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews (1823)" has
> never (to my knowledge) been mentioned on this
> group.


A Google search of this site for "View of the Hebrews" produces pages of hits. It's been discussed quite a bit.

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An intriguing treatment, not so much about seer
> stones, but about Smith's knowledge and use of
> 19th century composition techniques.
>
> Davis: Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and
> the Making of the Book of Mormon


https://www.amazon.com/Visions-Seer-Stone-Joseph-Making/dp/1469655667

Responding to several comments:

AML is the Association for Mormon Letters, whose members review all books on Mormonism (pro and con) and post the reviews on their website. I tried to post a link to the review by Andrew Hamilton, but apparently something in the link is a banned word. The reviews are also sent to subscribers to the Yahoo mailing list MormonLibrary, which you can subscribe to by sending a blank email to Mormon-Library-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

"View of the Hebrews" as a source has been discussed widely on this forum, and elsewhere. B.H.Roberts in his "Studies in the Book of Mormon" (published posthumously) made extensive comparisons between "View" and the BoM, and acknowledged that Smith probably used it as a source. Also, David Persuitte in his book "Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon" emphasized the role that "View" must have played in producing the BoM.

The Publisher's Weekly review is a different review (and much shorter) than the review by Hamilton for AML.

And thanks very much for the link to the online readable version of the entire book!

There maybe something to this idea of view of the Hebrews, I haven't researched that book, But one thing seems pretty sure and that there are phrases and lines in the BOM that are above and beyond what a 22 year old without an education would write. Take for instance the line: "Oh that I were an angel and had the wish of my heart... why should I harrow up in my desires the firm decrees of a just god...."

A 22 year old wouldn't even know what the word harrow means, I didn't at that age. Then there are the chapters written backwards and forwards at the same time, when this Jewish style of writing hadn't even been discovered yet, Alma 38.

Joe had to have had some help from someone who had an English degree, and Hebrew degree, someone who was Jewish. And there weren't many around in those days.

> Then there are
> the chapters written backwards and forwards at the
> same time, when this Jewish style of writing
> hadn't even been discovered yet, Alma 38.

Maybe he read Dr. Seuss.

Stop drinking the Mormon Koolaid, macaromney:

1. Chiasmus is not a Jewish poetry form. It's a rhetorical device found in sources as varied as Beowulf and the Dutch national anthem.

2. Joseph Smith had more formal education than Abraham Lincoln.

Post deleted (applied to wrong post)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2021 03:27AM by seajay.

Did the biblical Egyptians use chiasmus in their writings?

EDIT: Sorry, I keep posting replies but instead of them going at the end of the thread, they seem to be applied to posts within that thread.

EDIT: Egyptian --> Egyptians



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2021 03:52AM by seajay.

What is "Biblical Egyptian?" The OT was written in Hebrew, not Egyptian.

And why does it matter? Chiasmus is a common technique in Hebrew literature as well as many other traditions with which JS was familiar.

The only claimed relationship between Mormon scripture and Egypt is the BoA. Is there evidence of Chiasmus in that volume? If there is, would that mean JS learned it from the Egyptian? It couldn't, for Joseph used Chiasmus in the BoM, which he wrote long before he saw the papyrus documents.

Hi Lot's wife

I was reading the debates you had with SL Cabbie the other day :)

Sorry, I am not quite sure what it is you are saying. Are you saying there are no chiasmus in the BoA?

I'm an ex-mormon (over 20 years) but I have a phobia about being a son of perdition (I am in therapy because of it). I keep reading secular material but chiasmus worries me. I've read a bit about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon but I am not really that convinced by the arguments. I have no axe to grind by the way, in fact, I actually don't want the chiasmus to be anything like evidence.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2021 04:53AM by seajay.

I haven't read the BoA in many years but do not think there are any chiasmi in it. Someone else may recall better than I.

But what would the presence of the literary technique prove in any case? It's everywhere in the Bible, the western literary tradition, etc. Even Dr. Seuss used it, for heaven's sake. So the presence of chiasmi in the BoA would not constitute evidence that JS actually translated the thing from the Egyptian.

What matters is that the BoA does not match the papyri. Period. Mormon apologists may think chiasmus is ancient but Dr. Seuss would not concur.

Sorry, I was drawing attention to the fact that there are chiasmus in the Book of Mormon but there might not be in the Book of Abraham.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2021 11:19AM by seajay.

I think the germane point is that the presence of chiasmus is in no way indicative of “truth.” Lies can be communicated in the same manner (and are in this case). Smith used old English because it sounded “Biblical.” The same for other techniques he employed. Chiasmus, if he even used it deliberately, is just one of these. He was a con man. A liar. There is no truth to Mormonism.

+1

Gordon B. Stinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the germane point is that the presence of chiasmus is in no way indicative of “truth.”

I think this is quite accurate and a good point when you get down to it. Just because a book has chiasmus, doesn't make the book true. I mean, any book might well be true in its claims, or not, but if I think about it, the presence of chiasmus isn't really an indicator either way.

I grew up on a farm. I've known what a harrow is since I was three. Joseph Smith also grew up on a farm. Your argument is terrible.

Indeed! An allegory that got lost in itself, much like what happens here every so often, but with the patina of divine revelation.

The olive tree alone is enough to discredit the BoM!

Thanks! I didn't grow up on a farm but have relatives who did. I consulted one who lived on a farm for only two years of her childhood. She said she used the term in written form with an illustration in her kindergarten journal.

Back in the 60s, I and my brother had a toy farm set which included a rather vicious metal harrow, which is how we learned its name.

If you had the Dinky Toys disc harrow, that heavy sucker could plow an actual field or dent your brother's skull. :-)

Re; "vineyard and olive trees....I live in a Mediterranean micro-climate where olives and grape do very well and are often planted near each other; however, JS screwed that imagery up in the BoM because he didn't understand the original biblical context very well.

Yes to both ;-)

The Dinky Toys disc harrow it was - and it would indeed have made a vicious weapon but my brother was bigger than me and, surprisingly, we have never fought. You're also right on the nail concerning the vineyards and olives. In the south of France, you often see plots side by side.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2021 03:58PM by Soft Machine.

Joseph Smith didn't have to be terribly smart to cobble Joseph's Myth together. I have students who try to use words they don't understand all the time. In fact, to plagiarize, one need not understand what's being copied at all. It's apparently enough to think it "sounds good".

Besides, the notion that JS was "too stupid" to put it together has been debunked repeatedly. Plus, it's not even necessary that he produced it alone. More likely that he didn't.

It's Alma 36 (not 38), and that issue has already been addressed. You've been reading too much FairMormon.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/45227342?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

as PDF:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V38N04_105.pdf

What is the new angle here?

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/74160

It goes beyond simply copying from the Bible and taking ideas from Views of the Hebrews, The Late War, etc., it brings in the early 19th century oral culture.

All this being true how can I use it in my recovery?

This is an excellent question and one that I used to ask myself often when going over material of this sort. I was born and raised as a mormon and went on a 2-year mission, married in the Temple and all of that. When I realized that mormonism was not true it still took me several years to figure out how I felt about the book of mormon. When I first got out of the cult I felt that the book of mormon was a unique oddity and so detailed that it would be unlikely that jo smith made it up. As it turns out, I was right - Jo smith didn't make it up. He copied it from other books with the help of a few friends.

It was important to me to arm myself with all of the information I could about the origins of the BoM so that I could satisfy the questions in my own mind and heart.

My nevmo wife could not understand why it was so important to me to get to an answer about the BoM as I seemed to be fixated on it. To her it was such an obvious fake. Looking back I feel like I needed to learn the truth for myself and really understand how and why it was written and how much of a fraud it all was.

This has helped me as I go through my life dealing with friends and family members still in the cult. I let them all know if they really want to talk about the Book of Mormon I would gladly talk with them about it but they may not like where the conversation might lead. None of them have taken me up on the offer.

The Amazon reviews this book is getting indicate ... at least to me... this is a quality book;

who published it?

why is he listed as an independent academic? (Publisher's Weekly)

The “product details” halfway down the web page list the publisher and a whole bunch more. University of North Carolina Press.

I assume independent scholar means he does not have an academic appointment.