For those who dismiss the Book of Mormon, what's your explanation for it?

[CardiacCoug]

I'll say this too: it would be so much more interesting to read and discuss the BOM as a product of Joseph's mind.

How great would it be in Sunday School to talk about the Second Great Awakening and how the sermons Joseph heard may have inspired the King Benjamin passages? And how great would it be to discuss the change the Church made to Ether 4:1 after the first edition of the BOM to say that Mosiah kept the Jaredite records instead of Benjamin?

Anyway that was off topic, but Sunday School is so boring -- I would love to talk about something interesting for a change.

[Levin]

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your question here, because I know you believe plenty of works to be inspired, but not scriptural.

"Inspired" only in the sense of the Greek muses.

You get the semantics and the point.

[ERCougar]

You're not getting the real question. The question is why is that the more plausible explanation.

More plausible than...? Believing that two families crossed the sea in closed top boats and established a civilization that fluorished and then disintegrated in a bloody great war over a thousand years, yet we have no archaelogical proof of it ever happening?

[ERCougar]

"Inspired" only in the sense of the Greek muses.

You get the semantics and the point.

No, I actually don't get the point. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I think Cardiac (and other very smart people) recognize the genius in the Book of Mormon and call it "inspired", in the same sense of the Greek muses. But you seem to be claiming that works claiming divine origin cannot be inspired unless they are truly divine? Or am I misunderstanding you? The Bhagavad Gita, for example? Is there anything inspired about that?

[Levin]

I'll say this too: it would be so much more interesting to read and discuss the BOM as a product of Joseph's mind.

How great would it be in Sunday School to talk about the Second Great Awakening and how the sermons Joseph heard may have inspired the King Benjamin passages? And how great would it be to discuss the change the Church made to Ether 4:1 after the first edition of the BOM to say that Mosiah kept the Jaredite records instead of Benjamin?

Anyway that was off topic, but Sunday School is so boring -- I would love to talk about something interesting for a change.

I agree -- and I think it's this type of question that opens that up. You have to answer those questions to explain why it's more plausible that Joseph planned the structure, narrative, theology, and themes of the BofM for years in advance.
It sounds like you think the most plausible answer is that he planned it and then wrote it.

It's interesting to think of Joseph plotting this out, devising a way to deceive. Surely one thought that came to his mind was: It will be a great testimony builder if I write this thing fast, and if I can do it through dictation and use a means that look magic-like ("hey, I'll look into a hat at two stones!" -- I wonder when he got that great idea. lol.). Anyway, so he thinks, "I have to give the appearance of writing this in a miraculous way, and that only means writing it fast and no editing." He therefore had to think of a way to do that. Only way is to map it all out perfectly beforehand. Truly, to accept this, is to accept that he is one of the greatest frauds. More than that, a truly deceitful and dishonest man.

[CardiacCoug]

Cardiac, why do you use the adjective "inspired"? Seems kind of disingenuous. You can't thoughtfully explain why you think the BofM isn't inspired, and then say you think it's inspired b/c it's kind of neat in some respects. I know the sense you're using "inspired," but it doesn't really work when talking about scripture you think is definitively NOT inspired in the theological sense.

Well, I consider parts of the BOM to be as "inspired" as anything else I have come across is all I'm saying. Like the Church, the BOM doesn't have to be exactly what it claims to be for it to be a good thing.

[Levin]

No, I actually don't get the point. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I think Cardiac (and other very smart people) recognize the genius in the Book of Mormon and call it "inspired", in the same sense of the Greek muses. But you seem to be claiming that works claiming divine origin cannot be inspired unless they are truly divine? Or am I misunderstanding you? The Bhagavad Gita, for example? Is there anything inspired about that?

Boring. Yes, you explained it correctly.

It's just incongruous to use the word "inspired" given its double-meaning when arguing that a book isn't inspired. I think it's condescending in a way. Better just to say "genius," as you say.

[Levin]

More plausible than...? Believing that two families crossed the sea in closed top boats and established a civilization that fluorished and then disintegrated in a bloody great war over a thousand years, yet we have no archaelogical proof of it ever happening?

More plausible than that the Book of Mormon came from God.

[Non Sequitur]

How do you think he came up with all those crazy names!?! Has there ever been a reference book or baby names book discovered from the period that included these names? He must have also thought that out beforehand.

Bilbash, Eldigor, Omnoram, Estilam, Mancori, Heffalorb, Quilucam, Mendafel, Hishpatum. That took 15 seconds, and it wasn't even dictated.

[pellegrino]

One theory:

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonis...holleymaps.htm

interesting that BOM geographical "scholarship" has come full circle on this.

[CardiacCoug]

It's interesting to think of Joseph plotting this out, devising a way to deceive. Surely one thought that came to his mind was: It will be a great testimony builder if I write this thing fast, and if I can do it through dictation and use a means that look magic-like ("hey, I'll look into a hat at two stones!" -- I wonder when he got that great idea. lol.). Anyway, so he thinks, "I have to give the appearance of writing this in a miraculous way, and that only means writing it fast and no editing." He therefore had to think of a way to do that. Only way is to map it all out perfectly beforehand. Truly, to accept this, is to accept that he is one of the greatest frauds. More than that, a truly deceitful and dishonest man.

No I wouldn't say that Joseph definitely plotted this out and made notes or wrote it all down ahead of time. I think he may have never intended to dictate ancient scripture. But it was all there in his awesome mind and out it came when he put himself to the task. But sure maybe the simplest explanation is that he did make a few notes that other people didn't see, I think that's possible

OK, if you want to say he was deceitful and dishonest I think Emma and a few other Mormon fathers of teenage girls would have agreed with you there.

[Levin]

Bilbash, Eldigor, Omnoram, Estilam, Mancori, Heffalorb, Quilucam, Mendafel, Hishpatum. That took 15 seconds, and it wasn't even dictated.

J.R.R. Tolkien already proved it could be done. But good job.

[Levin]

No I wouldn't say that Joseph definitely plotted this out and made notes or wrote it all down ahead of time. I think he may have never intended to dictate ancient scripture. But it was all there in his awesome mind and out it came when he put himself to the task. But sure maybe the simplest explanation is that he did make a few notes that other people didn't see, I think that's possible

OK, if you want to say he was deceitful and dishonest I think Emma and a few other Mormon fathers of teenage girls would have agreed with you there.

Sure, but I think there's an even deeper level of deceitfulness to the BofM if Joseph made it up. He needed to create a "keystone" to prove the veracity of his story. Truly a crazy man.

[Topper]

The thread on whether God exists, and several of the responses, rekindled a persistent question I have that is rarely directly answered.

For those who don't believe that the Book of Mormon is from God, what's your explanation for it? As far as I can see, the only explanation is that Joseph Smith was a crazed genius who wrote it in 75 days (copying several chunks from the KJV of the Bible).

Kind of like when Cormac McCarthy wrote The Road in 60 days -- except much more impressive from an output point of view.

None of this historicity crap of a mealy-mouthed middle-ground either. Either it's from God, or it's the work of a mad man.

So for those who reject it's from God, you obviously think Joseph Smith could have written it in 75 or so days.

Typical strawman approach. Set up a false dichotomy to make your position more appealing.

[CardiacCoug]

Sure, but I think there's an even deeper level of deceitfulness to the BofM if Joseph made it up. He needed to create a "keystone" to prove the veracity of his story. Truly a crazy man.

I don't think Joseph knew exactly where it was all headed.

Seems like you're going with the argument that people like to apply to Joseph Smith and Jesus that goes "Either he was exactly who he said he was OR he was a crazy, evil, horrible person."

I'm not a big fan of that argument. It's impossible to know what all the motivations were for Joseph or what his level of sincerity was, but I think people are complicated, not totally good or totally evil.