Which BOM origination theory do you believe? (15th attempt)

[jay santos]

Private poll. See options.

Which BOM origination theory do you believe?


Faithful view. Joseph translated Gold Plates which were an ancient record written by actual people.

Figurative faithful view. Joseph was inspired by God to produce a work of scripture comprising of fictional, allegorical people and events.

Joseph wrote it himself, acting alone, but convinced his main scribes Oliver and Emma to lie for him about the BOM translation method.

Joseph wrote it himself, acting alone, and conned Oliver and Emma with a pinhole in the hat trick.

Joseph wrote it himself, and was able to memorize chapters of material at a time, and repeat them, tricking his scribes.

Oliver conspiracy. Oliver (mostly) and Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon together largely using Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews as source material.

Rigdon-Spalding. Sidney stole an unpublished manuscript from Spalding, reworked it adding religious and doctrinal commentary to mimic the Bible, and conspired with Joseph to publish it.

Ultimate conspiracy. Sidney, Oliver, and Emma all in on it together, borrowing from a number of sources.

[jay santos]

I'm fascinated by this topic. I think there are weaknesses with every option.

[BigFatMeanie]

Just a historical tidbit, not making any qualitative claims about it:

The church archives contain some of the original handwritten manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, a good portion of it was damaged by water when it was kept in the foundation of the Nauvoo temple. The manuscript was placed face up in the foundation so the front parts of the manuscript are the most legible.

Emma and Martin Harris were Joseph's first scribes until Oliver came along. Interestingly, the manuscript switches into Oliver's handwriting in what would today be mid-verse (no chapters/verses existed in the original BOM) somewhere in 1st Nephi.

NOTE: I have never personally seen the manuscripts, just relating from memory what my dad, who has seen the manuscripts, told me.

[LA Ute]

Givens' "By the Hand of Mormon" seems like a pretty important book for those curious about all these explanations for the BofM.

I like wuap's approach to the subject.

[jay santos]

Givens' "By the Hand of Mormon" seems like a pretty important book for those curious about all these explanations for the BofM.

I like wuap's approach to the subject.

What's wuap's approach?

[LA Ute]

What's wuap's approach?

I'll let him explain. It's faith-based but he expresses it in his inimitable way.

[Jacob]

Just a historical tidbit, not making any qualitative claims about it:

The church archives contain some of the original handwritten manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, a good portion of it was damaged by water when it was kept in the foundation of the Nauvoo temple. The manuscript was placed face up in the foundation so the front parts of the manuscript are the most legible.

Emma and Martin Harris were Joseph's first scribes until Oliver came along. Interestingly, the manuscript switches into Oliver's handwriting in what would today be mid-verse (no chapters/verses existed in the original BOM) somewhere in 1st Nephi.

NOTE: I have never personally seen the manuscripts, just relating from memory what my dad, who has seen the manuscripts, told me.

So Cowdery's hand-writing first appears not at the beginning of the original manuscript, but just after the lost 116 pages?

[hopfrog]

When I was inactive, I used the BoM as one of my reasons, ignorantly. Why was a modern work written in the voice of the King James bible, in Shakespeare's language? Why would God communicate with modern humanity in such a way. The use of the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7 is a mistranslation of the Hebrew -- the word actually means "young woman" or "maiden" -- so why would "God" repeat the same error in 2 Nephi 17? It's baloney! But it was studying the Bookof Mormon when I began to return to the church that solidified my testimony -- it is impossible for me to believe that the book was written by an uneducated farmer in -- how long did it take him to translate it? And when I read By the Hand of Mormon by Terry L. Givens (Oxford University Press 2002) -- that was it, I had my intellectual conviction as well as my spiritual testimony. And how delightful that Harold Bloom is such a fan!

[RobinFinderson]

I'm going to wait on this poll, to see how things are going, and then vote at the last minute to see if I can alter the results.

[wuapinmon]

I'll let him explain. It's faith-based but he expresses it in his inimitable way.

I'm not answering until you use one of the "Summon wuap" cards.

[MarkGrace]

I would like to hear Wuap's position as well. Unfortunately I don't have one of those pesky cards.

[wuapinmon]

I would like to hear Wuap's position as well. Unfortunately I don't have one of those pesky cards.

I think he mean's this approach.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpost.php?p=254101&postcount=132

[jay santos]

My analysis:


1. Faithful view. Joseph translated Gold Plates which were an ancient record written by actual people.

con's: Native American DNA evidence, lack of archeological evidence, unnecessarily magical and strange translation process, vanilla doctrine compared to later Mormonism, other Joseph Smith issues (Book of Abraham, visions, etc)

pro's: I love the doctrine of the Book of Mormon and have observed its power first hand, I want it to be literal, no unfaithful views are satisfactory and most involve a complicated conspiracy angle

2. Figurative faithful view. Joseph was inspired by God to produce a work of scripture comprising of fictional, allegorical people and events.

con's: completely illogical. I don't think God uses trickery to this level to advance his cause.

pro's: not much, the only story I could buy is that God sees various humans throughout history attempting to create a world religion and he decides to intervene a little to at least steer them in a positive direction


3. Joseph wrote it himself, acting alone, but convinced his main scribes Oliver and Emma to lie for him about the BOM translation method.

con's: difficult for me to believe Joseph could pull this off with his education and writing ability, conspiracy issue: why would Oliver and Emma never leak the info?

pro's: simple, probably the best non-faithful view

4. Joseph wrote it himself, acting alone, and conned Oliver and Emma with a pinhole in the hat trick.

con's: kind of ludicrous to imagine Joseph transcribing 500 pages of material using the pinhole trick

pro's: simple and avoids the conspiracy issues


5. Joseph wrote it himself, and was able to memorize chapters of material at a time, and repeat them, tricking his scribes.

con's: pretty extreme to imagine Joseph memorizing 500 pages of material, but he did demonstrate a great ability to memorize

pro's: simple and avoids the conspiracy issues

6. Oliver conspiracy. Oliver (mostly) and Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon together largely using Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews as source material.

con's: conspiracy issue, why wouldn't Oliver spill the beans? if you're going conspiracy, why not bring in Sidney too and acknowledge all the possible Spalding source material

pro's: Oliver had more ability to create something like the BOM. Ethan Smith was allegedly Oliver's pastor for a couple years. The D&C section 8 divining rod issue implies (when looked at through the critical perspective and especially reading the first version of the Book of Commandments) Oliver was likely a co-conspirator. And of course Oliver was a co-conspirator in the three witnesses angel visit, John the Baptist, and Peter James and John visits (through critical eyes).


6. Rigdon-Spalding. Sidney stole an unpublished manuscript from Spalding, reworked it adding religious and doctrinal commentary to mimic the Bible, and conspired with Joseph to publish it.

pro's: latest Stanford word match study is somewhat compelling, the narrative works out (Sidney lived in same area as Spalding, Spalding claims someone stole his unpublished manuscript, Rigdon's family members talk of him spending hours every night writing a huge work, BOM doctrine is more Sidney than Joseph, Sidney's section 76 co-revelation implies a conspiracy existed (when looked at through critical perspective)

con's: Rigdon turned into a whack job and there's no compelling reason that he would have kept his mouth shut. Not very Occam's razor-like to assume a wild story about Smith and Rigdon conspiring to create BOM while living hundreds of miles apart and not officially meeting until years later

7. Ultimate conspiracy. Sidney, Oliver, and Emma all in on it together, borrowing from a number of sources.

pro's: best explanation brining together possible source materials (View of Hebrews, Spalding, Campbellite doctrine, Joseph Smith Sr Tree of Life), it can be shown some degree of conspiracy had to exist if you look at it through critical perspective

con's: difficulties of maintaining conspiracy

[jay santos]

Here's something else I find fascinating. The faithful are far outnumbering the faithless in this poll. In other polls, it seems the faithless win out or the numbers are split. I think SU and his types are scared to vote in this poll.

It's easy to be critical of BOM origination but much harder to provide a critical, plausible, detailed theory that satisfies all the issues.

[DapperDan]

Here's something else I find fascinating. The faithful are far outnumbering the faithless in this poll. In other polls, it seems the faithless win out or the numbers are split. I think SU and his types are scared to vote in this poll.

It's easy to be critical of BOM origination but much harder to provide a critical, plausible, detailed theory that satisfies all the issues.

What are the best resources for researching the various theories?