I saw this movie last night called "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" about Jean-Dominique Bauby, a writer for Elle magazine in France, who was completely paralyzed except for his left eye by a stroke. He wrote the book of the same name which is a memoir of his experiences through a transcriber by blinking once whenever the transcriber spoke the letter he wanted. He basically kept every sentence in his head, memorizing entire passages and ideas, writing it out mentally before having it transcribed through his blinking. He wrote it over a period of 10 months, took him 200,000 blinks, and it's 139 pages long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diving_Bell_and_the_Butterfly

What occurred to me is, if it's possible for someone to do this, how is it not possible for Joseph Smith to write the Book of Mormon himself? I hear the argument that Joseph Smith could only have written such a large and meaningful work if he were a genius or supernaturally endowed. I'm continually amazed by what the human mind can do, and this made me realize Joseph Smith could have easily wrote the Book of Mormon himself, especially considering his religious conviction as a young man and his confusion over the presiding religions.

Joseph Smith translated by putting a stone into a hat and burying his face in the hat, but he was also described as translating by pulling a curtain over an area so no one could see him and speaking the words to someone through the curtain. Joseph Smith also had people in his flock that were very well-versed in the Bible, such as Oliver Cowdery, that could easily have helped him with the over-arching story points and verbage of the book. Nevermind the fact that many speculative works at the time said many of the things presented in the Book of Mormon, such as View from the Hebrews.

While it was hard for me to contemplate that a single man could completely invent a book like the Book of Mormon, I'm now completely convinced of it, and if anyone brings up the argument that it's not possible, I'll have to introduce them to Jean-Dominique Bauby.

The more I read, the more unimpressed I am with the BoM. Frankly it is exactly what I would expect someone like JS to write.

There are many amazing books out there that are far more impressive.

Also, ask why JS needed props like a hat and curtain. These are magician types of tactics. He needed to hide his crib notes is my guess. If he did what was claimed, he wouldn't need standard props like that.

When Mormons mention the hat, rock and curtain, it's laughable that they are so credulous not so see what they are admitting.

That argument never impressed me. Go into a large library and take a look at the tens of thousands of books that are large in volume and much more complex than the BOM. All written by human beings. Then on top of it think about all of the other material written by humans that isn't in book form, and that you are just looking at a small, tiny, insignificant amount of all of the writing throughout history.

To say there is no way a person or set of person(s) couldn't write a small 500 page book is laughable at best. Its not a good argument for proof sake. The fact that they have to defend it in this way is more telling of the problems in the underlying postulate.

Everyone needs to remember the original was riddled with grammatical and spelling errors that JS did not want corrected in the publication. Large portions of it are lifted directed from the KJV bible, and there are tons of other filler with phrases like "And it came to pass" used to start every sentence. I really want to know how long the BoM would be if all of that stuff were removed. Probably 1/3 the size it is now. Really not very impressive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2010 02:15PM by vhainya.

Great movie, The Divine Bell and the Butterfly. But let's be careful about analogizing Jean-Dominique Bauby and Joseph Smith. Bauby was very cultured, literate and a professional writer. What is extraordinary about him is the patience he developed to continue communicating with the world.

But I agree that it is very possible that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon by himself. This point is only controversial if we over-think the matter. Plainly, Joseph Smith could extemporize loquaciously. Also, plainly, Joseph Smith's time and place was soaked with the language of the King James Bible, and "divers kinds of learning," both written and spoken (see "burnt-over district"). He made up stuff as he went, and the inconsistencies in the original BofM and subsequent Joseph Smith writings show just that.

To me it seems obvious, upon opening the original Book of Mormon on any page, that a bible-soaked New England farm boy with grade 3 schooling and a gift for the gab wrote it.

If Smith were truly guided by Angels I think his thought and prose would look more like Hawthorne, Melville, Emerson and Thoreau.

.

you had included Smith in your text sources.

.

I used to figure that he could have pulled it off because of the years he spent thinking about the plot before he even supposedly received the plates. Nobody ever talks about that, they act like he miraculously translated it over a short period of time, but all those years Moroni was supposedly showing up and telling him to wait a year, he could have been thinking through the whole plot.

And of course all the grammatical errors in the first edition and the tedious language and the lifting from the Bible and the Ethan Smith connection only made me more sure he could have written it himself. But on some level, in spite of all that I was somewhat impressed.

But when I started looking into the Sidney Rigdon connection, then I became totally unimpressed with JS. The hat, the crib notes, the curtain, etc. It all made sense. It was just a con job.

Of course he could have written it all himself, but I highly doubt it. Either way, the book ain't true.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Ethan connection and the Sid. Rig. connection. Can you shortly summarize or reference a link? Thanks!

For Ethan Smith:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_Hebrews

It is a little bit more than convenient that the arguments raised in his book are quite consistent with the BoM and that he was the Minister for the Cowdery family.

As for the Rigdon connection, a good source for that is the book - Who Really Wrote The Book Of Mormon?

Also, check out the following:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2010 03:18PM by madiran.

http://packham.n4m.org/jsauthor.htm
http://www.solomonspalding.info/

Ethan Smith wrote "View of the Hebrews" just before the BoM was written. The BoM wasn't directly plagiarized, but they both have the same theme - that Hebrews populated the Americas. It was a common theme in JS's day.

There is a theory that the BoM was put together by Cowdery, Rigdon and Smith together, and Craig Criddle has done some amazing work with computer linguistics with a team from Stanford. There is a book called "Who Really Wrote the BoM" that details the theory.

There are two older brothers Alvin and Hyrum followed by the prophet Joseph and his brother Sam, and then two more brothers Don Carlos and William. Compare that with Laman and Lemuel, Joseph, Sam, Jacob and Joseph. Lehi's dream is almost the same as father Joseph Sr.'s dream. I'm sure there are more similarities that I haven't thought of.

I don't think that Smith wrote all of this book, but I do think that he was a contributor. I'm thinking Rigdon got a hold of the Spalding story, added his own sermons, handed it off to Smith and company to pretend to translate. Then Harris carelessly got the 116 pages destroyed by his wife, and Smith and company had to produce the start of the book all over again. So, they produced 1st and 2nd Nephi based on Smith's family, Rigdon's sermons, and a bunch of filler shamelessly copied from the Bible. Perhaps some Bible passages were "corrected" such as in the "ships of Tarshish" passage to include the parts from two Bible versions. Then they added some quick filler books to get them up to the start of Mosiah to catch up with the Spalding manuscript again.

I think they worked their asses off on this project, and that's one problem I have with Smith having written this book. He never did a hard day's work in his life. I think he may have contributed, but wrote a 500 page book? No way. lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2010 03:14PM by Makurosu.

Thanks to you both. Good info!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2010 02:52PM by Dave the Atheist.

except for the believers who are convinced that it is done by a divine hand. That is how sacred writings become canonized. Was it necessary to have actual "golden plates"? No, of course not. The spiritual eye claim is just as powerful as any other.

The point is that Joseph Smith Jr created the only American God Myth (based on Christianity of the time, and a lot of other notions) that is nearly world wide with believers accepting it as divine. It's unique in American history.

Religious sacred writings are not about facts, they are about divine teachings for their unique group.

Mormonism, because of the Book of Mormon as it's base, as resulted in a basically American God Myth complete with unique leaders, doctrine/teachings, traditions, language, music, and costuming, buildings, etc, and very territorial. It's the same pattern as most religions.

As a convert, I understand this very well, as I lived different religious beliefs and teachings and participated in their traditional rituals and understand their power to cement the beliefs and teachings as necessary to please the particular deity or belief.

Religious beliefs, in my observation, will always appeal to the majority of human beings. They are ancient, not much new about any of them. They comprise some of the oldest ornate buildings, and are the basis of much of modern day music.
The pageantry alone, is still alive and well, with thousands of religions in the world.

Does it matter how the Book of Mormon came to be? No. Of course not. It's the believers acceptance that gives it it's power. And that is how religion in general works - by belief, or the spiritual witness.

I don't have any interest, personally, anymore, in any sacred writings, except where I find universal wisdom for living today.
And they are usually full of those kinds of teachings.

>The point is that Joseph Smith Jr created the only American God Myth (based on Christianity of the time, and a lot of other notions) that is nearly world wide with believers accepting it as divine. It's unique in American history.

Just not true. The Seventh Day Adventists were created in America. They have a worldwide presence that exceeds LD$, Inc. Jehovah's Witnesses are also an American creation, and, depending on how one defines membership, also have a larger worldwide presence than the Mo church.

Of the three, the mormons are the most vocal about it, so they get the attention and are inappropriately credited.

That was the OP topic: the BOM.

I put this post up not to convince anyone here, but to help you out with an example whenever someone in the church brings up the argument that one man could not have written this book himself. It was an argument I heard over and over in testimony meetings, sacrament meetings, and Sunday School, and I admit for a large chunk of my life I believed it. To me it seemed impossible for just one man to write a book comprised of many "authors" with their own writing styles, points of views, story archs and over-archs, but seeing what Jean-Dominique Bauby did further pushes what I believed the human mind is capable of. Considering Joseph Smith had full function of his body and much help from his associates, it's totally plausible that the BoM is a complete invention. The movie was merely my realization that I can't consider anymore the argument that it couldn't have been written by one man, and my post is here to provide a concrete example for the TBM's that you encounter that it could.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2010 03:31PM by perceptual.

That's exactly how I understood your point, and I think it is a good point.

You're right, TBMs are fond of saying "no one man could write such a book without divine help, let alone an ignorant farm-boy with a grade three education." I usually say, "read it again in the original, most true draft. To me it looks exactly like a book an imaginative, New England farm-boy turned young man would write. Besides, LDSinc. doesn't believe in that book anyway." And thus a conversation ensues pointing out the differences between BofM teachings&beliefs and modern Mormon teachings&beliefs.

Once you bring up Rigdon Spaulding Cowdery etc. you're playing a hair-splitting game with Mo-pologists in which 98% of TBMs don't follow or care or even really know about. Personally, playing with Mo-pologists seems as interesting or as useful as playing with trolls on this board. But it's a game some ex-mos like to play. I'd rather re-read Moby Dick.

Hopefully your post will get some to rent The Diving Bell and the Butterfly or read the book. Extraordinary stuff and well worth our time.

Cheers.

You say "Once you bring up Rigdon Spaulding Cowdery etc. you're playing a hair-splitting game with Mo-pologists in which 98% of TBMs don't follow or care or even really know about."
"
But it's not "hair-splitting". It's getting to a narrative that is best supported by evidence.

The arguments indicating that Smith had help from Rigdon and Cowdery are not in same category as those of the apologists.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2010 04:33PM by CraigC.

Sorry CraigC, I should have been more clear that I was not speaking in a strictly academic context but in the context that the OP was speaking to.

If you bring up Rigdon Spaulding and Cowdery to TBMs they immediately will say something like, "oh, the Church has a department to deal with that kind of stuff." And that's only the few who even know what is being talked about. It is to that "department" and the few who follow it (both mo and ex-mo alike) that your BofM authorship work and other work like it is adressed to. That is your audience.

I agree: "[t]he arguments indicating that Smith had help from Rigdon and Cowdery are not in same category as those of the apologists." After all, apologists believe angels took some only-seen-by-J. Smith jr. gold plates to heaven to test man's faith.


CraigC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You say "Once you bring up Rigdon Spaulding
> Cowdery etc. you're playing a hair-splitting game
> with Mo-pologists in which 98% of TBMs don't
> follow or care or even really know about."
> "
> But it's not "hair-splitting". It's getting to a
> narrative that is best supported by evidence.
>
> The arguments indicating that Smith had help from
> Rigdon and Cowdery are not in same category as
> those of the apologists.

...is there any way you could get Yale to change "translated by Joseph Smith" to "written by Joseph Smith (et. al.", if you wish)?

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300142181

To have translated something assumes a prior text. What's going on at Yale?

.

I understand that you are trying to answer the question "How could Joseph Smith have written this book?"

One answer is the one you are making -- that, in theory, Joseph Smith could have written a book like the Book of Mormon.

But a second answer is that Joseph Smith had help. I think the second answer is a stronger argument because it is better supported by evidence.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2010 04:15PM by CraigC.

I find it interesting that people worry how the BOM was written or created/invented.

However, even so far as the Bible is translated correctly, wouldn't it be more enlightening to know when, who, why, where the bible stories were written? There are many scholars who have studied the origin of the bible. There is so little evidence of the gospel stories actually happening it makes the BOM problems insignificant.

Test you belief in the bible the same way you test your belief in the BOM. Why give the bible a pass if you won't give the BOM a pass? Be consistent in your studies. People don't even consider studying the Koran to see if it is true. Most assume it's not and never bother to go further. But the Bible, well, it has to be true - who would make that up? Do you get a warm fuzzy when you read about god nailed to the cross? JC walking on water? Jc turning Water to wine? (or grape juice if you prefer) Study all the Easter stories for consistency. That alone should get you thinking.

For if the Bible isn't so - then the BOM should obviously be put on the shelf next to "Lord of the Rings", Not offense to JRT, - "The Lord of the Rings" is way better, but it too is fiction.

James Michener does a better job with historical fiction anyway. Read his stuff and you might actually learn something along with a good story.

I mean what's more likely:

1.) The church, its foundational stories, and everything that entails are true.

Or,

2.)An "ignorant farm boy" with a penchant for telling wild stories wrote a terrible piece of fiction about supposed Semitic peoples in the Americas-- maybe even with help?


I mean seriously, far stranger and unlikely things have happened than #2.

I heard he used to tell stories all the time before he wrote it. His mother had been known to say he would describe what the people were like in detail. He was a good story teller. If you recite stories you make up for a long time it isn't so hard to get them down on paper. I also heard the story about the spacious building was originally his dad's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2010 10:48PM by suckafoo.

Plus, he wasn't a small boy when he wrote it and his story about the grove wasn't told until years after

Well - Tolkien wrote the LOTR and all the surrounding works by himself and, if you remove every instance of "it came to pass" the BoM is not much longer than a college thesis.

Have you ever read Harry Potter? No snickering allowed, but seriously- that woman created an entire world and wove seriously complex story lines into it. And that she planted tiny things in book 1 that turned out to be very important books later.

Sure, she had more time and kept notes and whatnot, but stuff like that and other amazing works of fiction make it clear to me that the creative powers of the mind is fairly unlimited for some people.