"the "most correct of any book on earth" has undergone more than 3,000 textual and grammatical corrections."
MormonThink states...
"Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion." However, there have been numerous revisions of the text, the first occurring in 1837 and instituted by Joseph Smith himself."
Why did Joseph Smith say that the Book of Mormon was the "most correct book"?
Joseph Smith: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth"
In the History of the Church, the following entry is recorded as having been made by Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841.[1]
Sunday, 28.--I spent the day in the council with the Twelve Apostles at the house of President Young, conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Brother Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent four years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.
Critics of the Church assert that the phrase "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth" means that the Prophet Joseph Smith was declaring the Book of Mormon to be without error of any kind. Since each edition of the printed Book of Mormon since 1829 (including editions published during the life of Joseph Smith) has included changes of wording, spelling, or punctuation, critics declare Joseph Smith's statement to have been demonstrably false, thus proving that he was a false prophet.
Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" because of the principles it teaches
When Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" on earth, he was referring to the principles that it teaches, not the accuracy of its textual structure.
Critics of the Book of Mormon have mistakenly interpreted "correct" to be synonymous with "perfect," and therefore expect the Book of Mormon to be without any errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity of phrasing, and other such ways.
But when Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the "most correct of any book," he was referring to more than just wording, a fact made clear by the remainder of his statement: He said "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." When read in context, the Prophet's statement refers to the correctness of the principles it teaches. The Book of Mormon is the "most correct of any book" in that it contains the fulness of the gospel and presents it in a manner that is "plain and precious" (1 Nephi 13:35,40).
Mormon said "And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men"
It should first be noted that the Book of Mormon itself does not claim to be free of errors. As Mormon himself stated in the introduction to the Book of Mormon:
And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ. (1830 Book of Mormon title page)
Moroni said "because of the imperfections which are in it"
Mormon's son Moroni also acknowledges that the record that has been created is imperfect:
And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you. Mormon 8꞉12
The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant
As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":[2]
The doctrine of inerrancy is internally incoherent. In my opinion, numerous insuperable problems dictate the rejection of inerrancy in general and inerrancy as promulgated in the Chicago Statement in particular. First, the Chicago Statement is self-referentially incoherent. One cannot consistently assert that the Bible is the basis of his or her beliefs and then assert that one must nevertheless accept biblical inerrancy as asserted in the Chicago Statement...This statement contains a number of assertions, propositions if you will, that are not biblical. Inerrancy, at least as recently asserted by evangelicals, is not spelled out in the Bible. Nowhere do the words inerrant or infallible appear in the Bible. Such theoretical views are quite alien to the biblical writers. Further, inerrancy is not included in any of the major creeds. Such a notion is of rather recent vintage and rather peculiar to American evangelicalism. Throughout the history of Christian thought, the Bible has been a source rather than an object of beliefs. The assertion that the Bible is inerrant goes well beyond the scriptural statements that all scripture is inspired or "God-breathed." Thus inerrancy, as a faith commitment, is inconsistent with the assertion that one's beliefs are based on what the Bible says. The doctrine of inerrancy is an extrabiblical doctrine about the Bible based on nonscriptural considerations. It should be accepted only if it is reasonable and if it squares with what we know from scripture itself, and not as an article of faith... However, it is not and it does not.
The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.[3]
No book of scripture is "perfect"
Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in scriptural inerrancy. We do not believe that any book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:
When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.[4]
So while the Book of Mormon has come down to us with fewer doctrinal errors and corruptions than the Bible, even it could be improved if we were ready to receive further light and knowledge.
Infelicities of language are also to be expected when produced by revelators with little education, said George A. Smith:
The Book of Mormon was denounced as ungrammatical. An argument was raised that if it had been translated by the gift and power of God it would have been strictly grammatical.... When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding.[5]
Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?
Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today
It is claimed that Latter-day Saint leaders diminish the Bible as untrustworthy.
Do the Latter-day Saints detract from the Bible? Do they criticize it? No more so than the majority of Biblical scholars.
Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today. Only those who completely reject modern biblical textual criticism would find LDS leaders' views radical or evil. In fact, LDS beliefs on the matter accord well with many other Christian denominations. Those who vilify LDS belief on this point tend to be at the extreme end of the debate about scriptural inerrancy, and would also reject a modern creedal, orthodox scholar's views.
The Latter-day Saints believe that the Bible is true. It is inspired and inspiring, having been inspired by God and written by prophets, apostles, and disciples of Jesus Christ.
In 1979, the Church produced its own King James Bible, complete with a set of footnotes and cross references, as well as translational notes and study helps
Prior to this publication, the Church purchased most of its King James Bibles from Cambridge University Press. Does this sound like an organization that is using the Bible merely as a public relations gimmick? If so, millions of members were never told. The Church and its members have a deep love and appreciation for the Word of God as found in the Bible.
The bold assertion that the LDS do not value the Bible is amusing. There is no presentation of statistics, only anecdotal claims that first, LDS members do not read the Bible and are not familiar with it, and second, that they constantly hear from their leaders that the Bible is less than trustworthy.
In a survey published in July 2001, Barna Research Group, Ltd. (BRG) made the following observations:
The study also revealed that barely half of all Protestant adults (54%) read the Bible during a typical week. Barna pointed out that Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants-even though most Mormons do not believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.[6]
BRG is not affiliated with the LDS Church, nor was the LDS Church involved in the survey. Members of the LDS Church likewise would not categorize their faith in this fashion—they do, in fact, regard the Bible as authoritative and the Word of God. Yet the survey indicated that they certainly do read the Bible consistently. Also, over the course of two years out of every four years, every member of the Church is asked to read and study the entire text of the Bible as part of the Church's Sunday School curriculum. Asked by whom? By the leaders of the LDS Church.
Early LDS study of biblical languages
One of the often-neglected events in LDS history happened in 1836. Joseph Smith arranged for a Hebrew scholar to come and teach Hebrew to the members of the LDS Church in Kirtland Ohio. The members of the Church had already been studying the Hebrew language, having purchased some grammars, a Hebrew Bible, and a lexicon, and had previously attempted to hire a teacher. The Hebrew scholar who came was Joshua Seixas. He spent several weeks instructing many of the members of the Church in Hebrew.[7] Why the interest in the Hebrew we might ask? Clearly it was to be able to (in the words of Pope Pius XII) 'explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern.'
What this shows is that not only were the early LDS aware of the challenges associated with the Bible, but that they were just as interested in going back to the original language and to the original texts (if possible) as was the rest of Christendom who were aware of these discrepancies. Despite the critics' unfounded assertions to the contrary, there has never been a leader of the LDS Church who has ever suggested that the Bible was not suitable for study and for learning the Gospel due to any shortcomings it may have.
The Book of Mormon on the Bible
Critics often discuss two of Nephi's statements regarding the Bible as found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's perspective is that of modern Latter-day Saints: The Bible contains truth from God. However, it is still the work of men, and is only as reliable as the men who wrote, translated and copied it.
It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.[8] Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.[9] This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.
Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 98. ( Index of claims )
↑Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 4:461. Volume 4 link
↑On the Chicago Statement, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–185.
↑Blake T. Ostler, "Bridging the Gulf (Review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation)," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 103–177. off-site (italics in original)
↑The full survey, entitled "Protestants, Catholics and Mormons Reflect Diverse Levels of Religious Activity," can be found at the Barna Web site at www.barna.org.
↑Perhaps as many as 120 members of the LDS Church studied under Seixas while he was in Kirtland.
↑See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.
"when the BOM was first published, he tried to sell the copyright to the BOM to a publishing company"
MormonThink states...
"when the BOM was first published, he tried to sell the copyright to the BOM to a publishing company just like a regular book. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto for this purpose, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money."
"the first edition of the BOM has on its title page the author listed as Joseph Smith"
MormonThink states...
"the first edition of the BOM has on its title page the author listed as Joseph Smith although the "Preface" page in the first edition of the Book of Mormon states that Joseph translated it. Subsequent editions changed the term 'author and proprietor' to 'translator'."
FairMormon Response
Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon
"This wasn't a family of illiterates. Education was important to the Smith family"
MormonThink states...
"This wasn't a family of illiterates. Education was important to the Smith family, and although Joseph may have only had limited formal education in a typical classroom, his parents undoubtedly schooled him at home. Also Joseph was going to high school when he was 20 years old in Harmony PA with the Stowell children. ....
Even today many people home-school their children. Would anyone say that these home-schooled children are uneducated? It's true that they do not have a formal education but for the most part, home-schooled children have similar, and in some cases superior, education than traditionally-schooled children."
Source: "Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon?", MormonThink.com http://mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm#full
The Church never taught that Joseph Smith was "illiterate." The official account of the First Vision refutes this, since it demonstrates that Joseph was fully capable of reading and understanding the Bible. The statement from the critics that Joseph's family "wasn't a family of illiterates" argues against a point that is never being made.
Here's what Joseph wrote in 1832 (original spelling retained):
I was born in the town of Charon [Sharon] in the State of vermont North America on the twenty third day of December AD 1805 of goodly Parents who spared no pains to instructing me in the christian religion at the age of about ten years my Father Joseph Smith Siegnior moved to Palmyra Ontario County in the State of New York and being in indigent circumstances were obliged to labour hard for the support of a large Family having nine chilldren and as it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the support of the Family therefore we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading and writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements.[1]
Emma Smith, Joseph's wife, later stated:
Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, 'a marvel and a wonder,' as much so as to anyone else.[2]
Question: Did B.H. Roberts state that it was possible for Joseph Smith to have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own?
B.H. Roberts was a believer in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, and talked of young Joseph Smith as he sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel
B.H. Roberts retained his belief that the Book of Mormon was of divine origin up until the end of his life. Yet, according to one critical website, B.H. Roberts "postulated that it was certainly possible for Joseph Smith to have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own." [3] Roberts, however, believed that Joseph had conversations with the Angel Moroni.
B.H. Roberts, in his critical study of the Book of Mormon, pointed out how future critics might make use of this.
The face of it is first established by the testimony of the mother who bore him, Lucy Smith. Speaking of the days immediately following the revelation making known the existence of the Book of Mormon to her son...Lucy Smith in her History of the Prophet Joseph Smith, recounts how in the evening of that day, the young prophet sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel;[4]
Brian C. Hales, "Joseph Smith's Education and Intellect as Described in Documentary Sources," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 59/1 (13 October 2023). [1–32] link
Jeff Lindsay, "The Great and Spacious Book of Mormon Arcade Game: More Curious Works from Book of Mormon Critics," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23/8 (13 January 2017). [161–236] link
Robert A. Rees, "Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19/1 (26 February 2016). [1–16] link
Video
"Joseph Smith's pre 1830 education," BH Roberts Foundationprint-link.
↑Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp. 1-6. Published in: Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. This text was copied from Wikisource. The editor notes that insertions are indicated like this and deletions are indicated like this. Text in blue is in Smith's own handwriting, the remainder in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams. off-site
↑Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289–90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50–52.
↑"Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon?", MormonThink.com
↑B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City, UT; Signature Books, 1992), 243. Some online ministries quote Roberts' use of Lucy's quote as "evidence" that Roberts lost his testimony of the Book of Mormon. They completely ignore Roberts's statements on the same page that Joseph was describing the "wonderful conversations he had with the angel."
"Joseph was known for story-telling"
MormonThink states...
"Critics often say that young Joseph was known for story-telling and often cite the following account from Joseph's mother....LDS apologist and General Authority B.H. Roberts who suggests that Joseph could not have learned any of these things from Moroni:"
Was the young Joseph Smith a teller of "tall tales"?
The Prophet's mother's account of her son telling "amusing recitals" about the ancient inhabitants of the American continent occurred during the years that Joseph was being prepared to receive the plates
Lucy's 1853 autobiography, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for many Generations was considered inaccurate by Brigham Young and was ordered to be rewritten. The reasons for this had nothing to do with Lucy's account of her son Joseph's "amusing recitals." The 1853 autobiography and the 1845 manuscript upon which it was based still exist, and both confirm that the "amusing recitals" mentioned by Lucy were done during the period during which Joseph was being instructed by the angel as he waited to retrieve the gold plates. Lucy Mack Smith said the following in her 1853 autobiography:
During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.[1]
The quote from Lucy Mack Smith is used by critics of the Church to show how Joseph Smith told "yarns" about Native Americans "long before any golden plates had been found." The chronology found in Lucy Mack Smith's history, however, tells just the opposite story, and puts this quotation in its proper context. Lucy says that the angel Moroni told her son (during his first appearance) about the existence of the plates and informed him where they were buried (see Lavina F. Anderson, ed., Lucy's Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith's Family Memoir [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001], 335-36). Lucy then states that Joseph (the evening after he had seen the Nephite record in their place of deposit) told his family all about "the plates" (ibid., 343).
Lucy Mack Smith: "From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time and every evening we gathered our children"
Lucy Mack Smith's account of her son telling "amusing recitals" about the ancient inhabitants of the American continent occurred during the years that Joseph was being prepared to receive the plates. The stories that he was telling related to information that he was receiving from the angel Moroni: These were not "tall tales" that he fabricated for his family's amusement.
From Lucy's 1845 manuscript, we read:
Now said he[,] Father and Mother the angel of the Lord says that we must be careful not to proclaim these things or to mention them abroad For we do not any of us know the wickedness of the world which is so sinful that when we get the plates they will want to kill us for the sake of the gold if they know we had <have> them...by sunset [we] were ready to be seated and give our atten undivided attention to Josephs recitals...From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time and every evening we gathered our children togather [together]...In the course of our evening conversations Joseph would give us some of the most ammusing [amusing] recitals which could be immagined [imagined]. he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent their dress their man[n]er of traveling the animals which they rode The cities that were built by them the structure of their buildings with every particular of their mode of warfare their religious worship as particularly as though he had spent his life with them...The angel informed him at one time that he might make an effort to obtain the plates <on> the <22nd of the> ensueing september....[2]
Clearly, Joseph Smith told his stories after he learned about, and saw, the golden plates. Indeed, it is known that Moroni showed Joseph visions and gave him information regarding the people whose stories were found on the Nephite record (see Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 9, 1 March 1842, 707-708), so the young man undoubtedly had quite a few stories to tell. Lucy Mack Smith simply said in her autobiography that her son told the family about information connected with the angel and the Book of Mormon plates.[3] Lucy told the same information to Wandle Mace about seven years prior to producing her 1845 autobiography and clarified that this information was connected with the Book of Mormon "Nephites" and was shown to her son by vision.
In Joseph Smith's own official history he confirmed that he learned this information through the power of visions[4] and Oliver Cowdery made note of the same thing.[5] Thus, the origin of the stories mentioned by Joseph's mother in her autobiography was a heavenly one—she was not even remotely implying that her son was a teller of tall tales.
Was Joseph Smith, Jr. known as a "disreputable person?"
Joseph was only seen as lacking character in the opinion of those that misunderstood him and opposed his efforts in restoring the Church
In many—if not most—critical treatments of the Church, Joseph is made out to be "one of the basest men that ever lived." A Boston Bee reporter wrote after interviewing Joseph:
I could not help noticing that he dressed, talked and acted like other men, and in every respect appeared exactly the opposite of what I had conjured up in my imagination a prophet [to be].[6]
Clearly, Joseph is not what the critics imagine a prophet to be either. Was Joseph perfect? No; he never said he was. What he did say of himself was, "Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing; the wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature, like other men. No man lives without fault."[7]
Joseph was only seen as lacking character in the opinion of those that misunderstood him and opposed his efforts in restoring the Church. The recorded details and testimonies from firsthand accounts as to Joseph's good character cannot be ignored and certainly must be looked at by anyone serious in their study of Mormonism. The critics often avoid portraying the simple man who recognized the saving grace of Christ for his errors and sought to further the cause of righteousness.
Sectarian critics in particular ought to be careful, since the standard they apply to Joseph Smith might easily disqualify various biblical prophets. Paul for example, would not have been called to be an Apostle after his participation in the persecution of Christians and role in the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 8:1-3).
Ultimately, however, attacks, on Joseph's character are classic ad hominem—the man is attacked instead of the message.
Do Joseph Smith's personality and temperament indicate that he was not a true prophet of God?
Although we cannot fully detach the man from the message, we should remember that Joseph Smith was a man as well as a prophet
As a man, Joseph was subject to the same passions and opinions as other men, but as a prophet, he restored the truths, ordinances, and authority necessary to exalt mankind.
At its base, this attack is simply ad hominem abusive—an attack on the messenger, rather than his claims.
This criticism is not driven so much by facts as it is by expectations—people have their own preconceived notions of how a prophet should look, speak, and act. When a person who claims to be a prophet, often people dismiss him because he doesn't fit their idea of what a prophet should be, regardless of what he has accomplished.
Joseph Smith encountered and recognized this sort of prejudice, and he spoke about it:
I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I then be thrown away as a thing of nought? [8]
Brigham Young explained it this way:
I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, Brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.[9]
At a 1894 gathering of Latter-day Saints who personally knew Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith (his nephew) arose and made the following remarks:
Now, some of us remember one thing, and some remember another thing, with relation to the Prophet [Joseph Smith]. I remember several instances, general incidents, myself, which might be considered inappropriate to mention here tonight. For it is sometimes the ludicrous things and drastic things which occur that impress themselves with greater vigor upon the mind; and we remember them more distinctly than we do other things of far greater importance and which are far more worthy to be recollected. No matter what we may recollect of the Prophet or what may be said to us here tonight with regard to our memeory [sic] of him, the one thing that I wish to call your attention to first and foremost of all other things is this, that whatever else the Prophet Joseph Smith may have done or may have been, we must not forget the fact that he was the man out of the millions of human beings that inhabited this earth at the time—the only man, that was called of God, by the voice of God Himself, to open up the dispensation of the Gospel to the world for the last time; and this is the great thing to bear in mind, that he was called of God to introduce the Gospel to the world, to restore the holy priesthood to the children of men, to organize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the world, and to restore all the ordinances of the Gospel, for the salvation not only of the living, but also of the dead, and he was called to this mission by God Himself. Now, if somebody tells us about Joseph being fond of wrestling, fond of running a foot race, fond of having a good scuffle with some lusty neighbor or friend; or if you hear somebody tell about the good, that is, the overflowing of the human nature that was in him, it need not detract one iota from the great and glorious principles which were revealed through him to the world.[10]
Dr. John M. Bernhisel, related his impressions of Joseph Smith to Illinois Governor Ford in 1844. He wrote:
Having been a boarder in General Smith's family for more than nine months, and having therefore had abundant opportunities of contemplating his character and observing his conduct, I have concluded to give you a few of my "impressions" of him.
General Joseph Smith is naturally a man of strong mental powers, and is possessed of much energy and decision of character, great penetration, and a profound knowledge of human nature. He is a man of calm judgment, enlarged views, and is eminently distinguished by his love of justice. He is kind and obliging, generous and benevolent, sociable and cheerful, and is possessed of a mind of a contemplative and reactive character. He is honest, frank, fearless and independent, and as free from dissimulation as any man to be found.
But it is in the gentle charities of domestic life, as the tender and affectionate husband and parent, the warm and sympathizing friend, that the prominent traits of his character are revealed, and his heart is felt to be keenly alive to the kindest and softest emotions of which human nature is susceptible; and I feel assured that his family and friends formed one of the greatest consolations to him while the vials of wrath were poured upon his head, while his footsteps were pursued by malice and envy, and reproach and slander were strewn in his path, as well as during numerous and cruel persecutions, and severe and protracted sufferings in chains and loathsome prisons, for worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
He is a true lover of his country, and a bright and shining example of integrity and moral excellence in all the relations of life. As a religious teacher, as well as a man, he is greatly beloved by this people. It is almost superfluous to add that the numerous ridiculous and scandalous reports in circulation respecting him have not the least foundation in truth.[11]
Attorney John S. Reed, a life-long non-Mormon, said in May 1844:
The first acquaintance I had with Gen. Smith was about the year 1823. He came into my neighborhood, being then about eighteen years of age, and resided there two years; during which time I became intimately acquainted with him. I do know that his character was irreproachable; that he was well known for truth and uprightness; that he moved in the first circles of the community, and he was often spoken of as a young man of intelligence and good morals, and possessing a mind susceptible of the highest intellectual attainments. I early discovered that his mind was constantly in search of truth, expressing an anxious desire to know the will of God concerning His children here below, often speaking of those things which professed Christians believe in. I have often observed to my best informed friends (those that were free from superstition and bigotry) that I thought Joseph was predestinated by his God from all eternity to be an instrument in the hands of the great Dispenser of all good, to do a great work; what it was I knew not.[12]
Peter H. Burnett, a former Governor of California and attorney for Joseph wrote:
You could see at a glance that his education was very limited. He was an awkward and vehement speaker. In conversation he was slow, and used too many words to express his ideas, and would not generally go directly to a point. But, with all these drawbacks, he was much more than an ordinary man. He possessed the most indomitable perseverance, was a good judge of men, and deemed himself born to command, and he did command. His views were so strange and striking, and his manner was so earnest, and apparently so candid, that you could not but be interested. There was a kind, familiar look about him, that pleased you. He was very courteous in discussion, readily admitting what he did not intend to controvert, and would not oppose you abruptly, but had due deference to your feelings. He had the capacity for discussing a subject in different aspects, and for proposing many original views, even of ordinary matters. His illustrations were his own. He had great influence over others. As an evidence of this I will state that on Thursday, just before I left to return to Liberty [Missouri], I saw him out among the crowd, conversing freely with every one, and seeming to be perfectly at ease. In the short space of five days he had managed so to mollify his enemies that he could go unprotected among them without the slightest danger.[13]
A New York Herald writer said he was "one of the most accomplished and powerful chiefs of the age." He then described him as follows:
Joseph Smith, the president of the church, prophet, seer, and revelator, is thirty-six years of age, six feet high in pumps, weighing two hundred and twelve pounds. He is a man of the highest order of talent and great independence of character--firm in his integrity--and devoted to his religion; . . as a public speaker he is bold, powerful, and convincing; . . as a leader, wise and prudent, yet fearless as a military commander; brave and determined as a citizen, worthy, affable, and kind; bland in his manners, and of noble bearing.[14]
Opposite the positive views presented here and the conflicting views of Joseph which critics seek to take advantage of, there is reason to pause and consider the absoluteness of one opinion of Joseph over another. Speaking of Joseph's human side, the world's expectations of him, and reconciling the two realities, Marvin S. Hill concluded:
If a look at the human side of Joseph Smith seems at times somewhat unflattering, it comes from no desire to diminish him. It comes rather from the belief that at times in the Church we tend to expect too much of him, to ask him to be more than human in everything he did. This may lead to some disillusionment, if occasionally we find that he did not measure up to all our expectations. The early Saints usually avoided that kind of mistake. Brigham Young said of Joseph: 'Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.' Brigham chose to stress the positive side.
Parley P. Pratt said that Joseph was "like other men, as the prophets and apostles of old, liable to errors and mistakes which were not inspired from heaven, but managed by...[his] own judgment."
These brethren knew Joseph as a man with human weaknesses, yet they believed in his divine calling and in his greatness. It seemed to them that what he had achieved as a prophet far outweighed his imperfections. In the long run their love of him and their faith in his calling were decisive in shaping their lives. Seeing Joseph in his various moods, they still called him a prophet of God... Those who would understand the Prophet must give consideration to his spiritual side as well as his human side. It was his strong commitment to things spiritual which made him so aware of his human failings, so desirous to overcome his weaknesses and to give his all to the work of the Lord.[15]
Did Joseph Smith engage in "land speculation" in Nauvoo?
Those that made this accusation against Joseph Smith had their profits harmed by Joseph's policy of giving land to the poor
The Law's claimed that Joseph Smith used Church members' donations to engage in "land speculation" in Nauvoo. However, the Laws’ profits were harmed by Joseph’s policy of giving land to the poor, and the Laws also resented his ability to influence buyers. G. D. Smith’s account is a caricature of the facts. Few citations to the relevant literature are provided.
G. D. Smith claims that "the Law brothers came into a . . . dispute with [Joseph] over his conduct as trustee-in-trust for the church. In that capacity, [Joseph] had appropriated church members’ charitable donations for real estate speculation, buying low and reselling high to those immigrants who could afford to pay" (p. 423). In fact, Joseph had signed two promissory notes of $25,000 for Nauvoo, payable to Eastern land speculators.
Yet the dispossession suffered by the Saints in Missouri made repayment difficult since many could not afford to purchase land.[16] "Joseph wanted to help," reports Richard Bushman, "but huge debts prevented him from simply giving away land. What could poor converts do?" Joseph’s preference was "to give land to the poor, especially to widows and orphans. To finance these free gifts, he wanted others to pay generously. The high council priced Nauvoo lots from $200 to $800, leaving room for negotiation. All these judgments required patience and wisdom and exposed Joseph to criticism for gouging and unfair treatment." [17] In addition, "in June 1840, he asked the high council to appoint someone else to attend to ‘the temporalities of the Church.’ . . . [B]ut his appeal went unheeded, . . . leaving Joseph responsible for the debts and final disposition of land." [18]
Thus the charge that Joseph was involved in "real estate speculation" is not true. G. D. Smith’s claim that Joseph was selling high "to those . . . who could afford to pay" is a bit of verbal legerdemain—it is true, while still managing to hide the fact that the Prophet was giving away land to those who could not pay. Joseph was already in debt for the land; land sold for higher prices did not benefit Joseph but did benefit those Saints too poor to afford land at all.
On what basis, then, were the Law brothers complaining? Their motives were not so pure as G. D. Smith suggests, just as Joseph’s actions were not so venal as G. D. Smith’s version implies. The Laws invested in lots in upper Nauvoo and on the outskirts while the church held title to the lower city. As Lyndon Cook has explained,
By 1843 the fundamental economic interests of the [Laws] and the Mormon leader were in definite conflict. Brisk competition caused the Prophet to insist that the Saints purchase building lots from only the Church. Although most recognized this as a sacrifice which would assist in liquidating Church debts, to William Law it sounded too much like totalitarianism.[19]
Did Joseph Smith really tell Orrin Porter Rockwell 'it was right to steal'?
The only evidence for this statement is a fourth-hand claim made by a convicted fifteen-year-old thief attempting to justify himself
The only evidence for this statement is a fourth-hand claim made by a convicted fifteen-year-old thief attempting to justify himself. Joseph's diary recorded the comment, suggesting it cannot have threatened or worried him.
Quinn's use of the source is incorrect, and his lumping of a later journal entry with it creates a false impression
Historian D. Michael Quinn's material for this claim reads:
10 Mar [1843]. Fifteen-year-old Thomas Morgan says that Orrin Porter Rockwell told him "Joseph had taught that it was right to steal…which was the means of drawing Thomas into the practice of stealing." Smith's next remark about his boyhood friend: "conversed much about Porter, wishing the boy well." [20]
Unfortunately, in this section of his book, Quinn provides no references, footnotes, or endnotes. One reviewer noted that "In a work where source notes are taken as seriously as they are in this book, it is unfortunate that they were not included in appendices 6 (Biographical Sketches) and 7 (Selected Chronology). The careful student needs to be able to weigh the evidence for the extensive and sometimes sensational information that is given here." [21]
So it proves here.
Background: identifying the participants
The source for Quinn's source appears to be an entry made in Joseph Smith's journal. A transcript of the journal for the period in question reads:
[Entry for February 20, 1843] Last night Arthur Milikin had a quantity of books stolen and found them at 3 this P.M. in Hyrum Smith's Hayloft. Thomas Morgan and Robert Taylor (Morgan 15, Robert Taylor 13 years old next April) /both members of the Church/ were arrested on suspicion in the forenoon. On finding the books [they] immediately went to trial before the Mayor having had a brief examination about noon. Court adjourned till 10 [A.M.] tomorrow....[22]
So, Thomas Morgan was a fifteen-year-old member of the Church brought before Joseph (in his role as a civil judge) for theft. The History of the Church notes that the next day:
Robert Taylor was again brought up for stealing, and Thomas Morgan for receiving the books, [referred to above] and each sentenced to six months imprisonment in Carthage jail.[23]
Morgan and Taylor were found guilty, and sentenced to jail. The History of the Church later says that
I [Joseph] went with Marshal Henry G. Sherwood to procure some provisions for Thomas Morgan and Robert Taylor, who, on petition of the inhabitants of the city, I had directed should work out their punishment on the highways of Nauvoo.[24]
So, far from approving theft, Joseph sentenced the young thieves to jail time, which was later converted into labor at the petition of others.
Evaluating the claim
We now come to the source (9 days later) to which Quinn likely alludes:
Friday, March 10th 1843 Clear and cold....As Thomas Morgan went out to speak with Mayor, said he had been told by several that Joseph had taught that it was right to steal viz. O. P. Rockwell, David B. Smith, and James Smith which was the means of drawing Thomas into the practice of stealing.[25]
So, it turns out that Quinn's source is a hearsay statement from a fifteen-year-old member boy found guilty of stealing, and sentenced to jail by Joseph (later commuted to road work). The young man doubtless wanted to excuse himself in the prophet's eyes, and so makes the claim that the only reason he was 'draw[n]...into the practice of stealing' is what he has heard (unnamed) others say that Joseph said to Porter Rockwell. This statement is thus at least fourth hand:
Joseph -> Rockwell -> "others" -> Thomas Morgan.
Moreover, why would Joseph's personal journal record this incident if there were any truth to it? Why would Joseph allow a record to be made of advocating theft?
Next remark: wishing the boy well?
Quinn follows his claim about what Joseph told Porter by writing:
Smith's next remark about his boyhood friend: "conversed much about Porter, wishing the boy well."
This is disingenuous at best. The entry which reads "Conversed much about Porter, wishing the boy well," comes from a diary entry on March 14, 1843—four days after the encounter with Thomas Morgan! [26] Quinn gives the impression that the very next thing that Joseph said, after hearing the tale from Morgan, were warm reminiscences regarding Porter Rockwell. Nothing could be further from the truth—this is simply the next remark about Porter in Joseph's journal, eight journal pages later. Small wonder that Joseph's thoughts turned to Rockwell, since on March 4, 1843, Rockwell was arrested for the attempted murder of former governor Boggs of Missouri.[27]
Brigham Young (1855): "he was an honorable man and dealt justly, we know his true character. But let his enemies give his character, and they will make him out one of the basest men that ever lived."
The history of Joseph and Mary is given to us by their best friends, and precisely as we will give the history of the Prophet Joseph. We know him to have been a good man, we know that he performed his mission, we know that he was an honorable man and dealt justly, we know his true character. But let his enemies give his character, and they will make him out one of the basest men that ever lived. Let the enemies of Joseph and Mary give their characters to us, and you would be strongly tempted to believe as the Jews believe. Let the enemies of Jesus give his character to us, and, in the absence of the testimony of his friends, I do not know but that the present Christian world would all be Jews, so far as their belief that Jesus Christ was an impostor and one of the most degraded men that ever lived.[28]
Joseph on himself
Joseph Smith:
...during this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark that, though as I have said above, 'as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies,' I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I allude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation. This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add that it is not without a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfil a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and trifling conversation and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the 'Articles and Covenants,' of this Church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man 'subject to passion,' and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk.[29]
Did B.H. Roberts state that it was possible for Joseph Smith to have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own?
B.H. Roberts was a believer in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, and talked of young Joseph Smith as he sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel
B.H. Roberts retained his belief that the Book of Mormon was of divine origin up until the end of his life. Yet, according to one critical website, B.H. Roberts "postulated that it was certainly possible for Joseph Smith to have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own." [30] Roberts, however, believed that Joseph had conversations with the Angel Moroni.
B.H. Roberts, in his critical study of the Book of Mormon, pointed out how future critics might make use of this.
The face of it is first established by the testimony of the mother who bore him, Lucy Smith. Speaking of the days immediately following the revelation making known the existence of the Book of Mormon to her son...Lucy Smith in her History of the Prophet Joseph Smith, recounts how in the evening of that day, the young prophet sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel;[31]
Stephen H. Webb: "Evidence That Demands Our Amazement... Joseph Smith was a remarkable person"
By any measurement, Joseph Smith was a remarkable person. His combination of organizational acumen with spiritual originality and personal decorum and modesty is rare in the history of religion. He was so steadfast in his ability to inspire men and women through times of great hardship that none of those who knew him could claim to fully understand him. He knew more about theology and philosophy than it was reasonable for anyone in his position to know, as if he were dipping into the deep, collective unconsciousness of Christianity with a very long pen. He read the Bible in ways so novel that he can be considered a theological innocent—he expanded and revised the biblical narrative without questioning its authority—yet he brusquely overturned ancient and impregnable metaphysical assumptions with the aplomb of an assistant professor. For someone so charismatic, he was exceptionally humble, even ordinary, and he delegated authority with the wisdom of a man looking far into the future for the well-being of his followers. It would be tempting to compare him to Mohammed—who also combined pragmatic political skill and a genius for religious innovation—if he were not so deeply Christian. [Title is Webb's.][33]:95
B.H. Roberts:
[Joseph Smith] claimed for himself no special sanctity, no faultless life, no perfection of character, no inerrancy for every word spoken by him. And as he did not claim these things for himself, so can they not be claimed for him by others; for to claim perfection for him, or even unusual sanctity, would be to repudiate the revelations themselves which supply the evidence of his imperfections, whereof, in them, he is frequently reproved.
Joseph Smith was a man of like passions with other men; struggling with the same weaknesses; subjected to the same temptations; under the same moral law, and humiliated at times, like others, by occasionally, in word and conduct, falling below the high ideals presented in the perfect life and faultless character of the Man of Nazareth.
But though a man of like passions with other men, yet to Joseph Smith was given access to the mind of Deity, through the revelations of God to him; and likewise to him was given a divine authority to declare that mind of God to the world.[34]
Joseph was open and direct about his weaknesses, saying to his accusers:
Being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends... I was left to all kinds of temptations; and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.[35]
Joseph Smith:
...during this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark that, though as I have said above, 'as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies,' I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I allude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation. This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add that it is not without a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfil a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and trifling conversation and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the 'Articles and Covenants,' of this Church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man 'subject to passion,' and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk.[36]
1819 trial
In 1819, a year prior to the First Vision, Joseph Smith was thirteen years old. His family sued a neighboring farmer over a dispute regarding some horses they had purchased. One author explained that Joseph's use as a witness indicates that the trial judge and jury found him both trustworthy and competent to give evidence:
Under New York law, being just thirteen, Joseph's testimony about the work he had performed was admissible only after the court found him competent. His testimony proved credible and the court record indicates that every item that he testified about was included in the damages awarded to the Smiths. Although Hurlbut [the farmer they were suing] appealed the case, no records have survived noting the final disposition of that case; perhaps it was settled out of court. The significance of this case is not limited to the fact that a New York judge found the young Joseph, just a year prior to his First Vision, to be competent and credible as a witness....
The trial was held on February 6, 1819. Twelve jurors were impaneled, all men and property owners. The Smiths called five witnesses, Hurlbut seven. Both Joseph Jr. and Hyrum were called to testify. This appears to be young Joseph's first direct interaction with the judicial process. He had turned thirteen years old a month and a half previously. New York law and local practice permitted the use of child testimony, subject to the court's discretion to determine the witness' competency. The test for competency required a determination that the witness was of 'sound mind and memory.' A New York 1803 summary of the law for justices of the peace notes that 'all persons of sound mind and memory, and who have arrived at years of discretion, except such as are legally interested, or have been rendered infamous, may be improved as witnesses.' This determination of competency rested within the discretion of the judge....
From the record it appears that Judge Spear found Joseph Jr. competent, and he indeed did testify during the trial. This is evident in a review of the List of Services that was part of the court file. Joseph Jr.'s testimony would have been required to admit those services he personally performed. His testimony was certainly combined with Hyrum's. Hyrum was born February 11, 1800, and was therefore nineteen years old at the time this case was tried.[37]
[Letter on Mormonism, 26 July 1841,] Christian Advocate and Journal (New York) 15, no. 52 (11 August 1841). off-site
“Mormonism,” Supplement to the Connecticut Courant (Hartford, Connecticut) 5, no. 22 (15 December 1838): 175–76. off-site
“Complaints of a Mormonite,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (Utica, New York) ( 5 September 1835): 285. off-site
“Mormonism—Religious Fanaticism—Church And State Party,” Morning Courier and New-York Enquirer (New York City, New York) 7, no. 1333 (31 August 1831). off-site
Anon., "Great Discussion on Mormonism Between Dr. West and Elder Adams, at the Marlboro’ Chapel [Quoting from The Bostonian]," Times and Seasons 3 no. 20 (15 August 1842), 886; citing Mormonism Unvailed (Howe, 1834). off-siteGospeLink
“Mormonism Exposed and Refuted,” Universalist Union (New York) 3, no. 26 (5 May 1838): 205. off-site
Henry Caswall, The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century, or, the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints : To Which Is Appended an Analysis of the Book of Mormon (London: Printed for J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1843), 27. off-site
John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the way. No. VI,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (5 September 1840): 94. off-site
John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the Way No. X,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (10 October 1840): 114-115. off-site
Clericus, “Mormonism,” Christian Register (Boston) 15, no. 52 (24 December 1836): 1. Reprinted from Hampshire Gazette, circa December 1836. (Cites Mormonism Unvailed). off-site
Samuel Haining, Mormonism Weighed in the Balances of the Sanctuary, and Found Wanting: The Substance of Four Lectures (Douglas: Robert Fargher, 1840), 20. off-site
James H. Hunt, Mormonism: Embracing the Origin, Rise and Progress of the Sect (St. Louis: Ustick and Davies, 1844), 57. off-site
J.A.H., “Origin of Mormonism,” Wayne County Whig (Lyons) 3, no. 51 (14 September 1842). off-site
Richard Livesey, An Exposure of Mormonism, being a statement of facts relating to the self-styled “Latter day Saints,” and the Origin of the Book of Mormon (Preston: J. Livesey, 1838), 2–3. off-site
Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 253. ( Index of claims )
James M’Chesney, An Antidote To Mormonism, revised by G. J. Bennet (New York, NY: Burnett & Pollard, 1838), 22. off-siteFull title
Grandison Newell to Sidney Rigdon, Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, Ohio) (26 May 1837). off-site
George Peck, “Mormonism and the Mormons,” Methodist Quarterly Review (January 1843): 111–27. off-site
Philanthropist of Chester County, Mormonism Unmasked, Showed to be an Impious Imposture, and Mr. Bennett’s Reply Answered and Refuted (Philadelphia: T. K. & P. G. Collins, 1840), 9. off-siteResponse
La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 9 (3 March 1838): 34, citing Howe. off-site
Alphonoso Wetmore, Gazetteer of the State of Missouri (St. Louis: C. Keemle, 1837), 93-96. off-site
Past responses
E. Snow and Benjamin Winchester, "An Address to the Citizens of Salem (Mass.) And Vicinity," Times and Seasons 2 no. 24 (1 October 1841), 574-76. off-siteGospeLinkoff-site
↑Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:296. citing Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool, S.W. Richards, 1853), 36-173.
↑Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:294–296. citing the 1845 manuscript of Lucy Mack Smith's autobiography.
↑Lucy Smith, Lucy's Book: Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith's Family Memoir, edited by Lavina Fielding Anderson and Irene M. Bates, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2001), 346. ISBN 1560851376.
↑Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1 no. 7 (April 1835), 112.
↑"Mormonism," Boston Bee (24 March 1843); cited in "From the Boston Bee," Times and Seasons 4 no. 13 (15 May 1843), 119–120. off-siteGospeLink
↑Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:140. Volume 5 link
↑Joseph Smith, Jr., Thomas Bullock Report, 12 May 1844, Temple Stand; cited in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of Joseph Smith, 2nd Edition, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996), 369, punctuation modernized.
↑"Joseph, the Prophet. His Life and Mission as Viewed by Intimate Acquaintances", Salt Lake Herald, Church and Farm Supplement (12 January 1895): 210. Reprinted in Joseph F. Smith, "Joseph, the Prophet. His Life and Mission as Viewed by Intimate Acquaintances," in Brian H. Stuy (editor), Collected Discourses: Delivered by Wilford Woodruff, his two counselors, the twelve apostles, and others, 1868–1898, 5 vols., (Woodland Hills, Utah: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987–1989), 5:26ff. [Discourse given on 1894?.]
↑Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 6:467–468; citing Bernhisel to Thomas Ford (14 June 1844). Volume 6 link
↑"Some of the Remarks of John S. Reed, Esq., as Delivered Before the State Convention," Times and Seasons 5 no. 11 (1 June 1844), 549–550. off-siteGospeLink
↑Peter H. Burnett, Recollections of an Old Pioneer (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1880), 66–67.
↑James Gordon Bennet, "The Mormon Prophets," New York Herald (19 February 1842).
↑Marvin S. Hill, "Joseph Smith the Man: Some Reflections on a Subject of Controversy," Brigham Young University Studies 21 no. 1 (1981), 9. PDF link
↑Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 430.
↑Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 414, 417.
↑Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 417.
↑Dean C. Jessee, "review of The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power," Journal of Mormon History 22:2 (Fall 1996): 167–168.
↑Joseph Smith, An American Prophet's Record:The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott Faulring, Significant Mormon Diaries Series No. 1, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1989), 307.
↑Joseph Smith, An American Prophet's Record:The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott Faulring, Significant Mormon Diaries Series No. 1, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1989), 329.
↑Joseph Smith, An American Prophet's Record:The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott Faulring, Significant Mormon Diaries Series No. 1, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1989), 334.
↑Letter to Oliver Cowdery [December 1834]; cited in Jessee, 336–337.
↑"Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon?", MormonThink.com
↑B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City, UT; Signature Books, 1992), 243. Some online ministries quote Roberts' use of Lucy's quote as "evidence" that Roberts lost his testimony of the Book of Mormon. They completely ignore Roberts's statements on the same page that Joseph was describing the "wonderful conversations he had with the angel."
↑"Webb is Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Indiana. He is a graduate of Wabash College and earned his PhD at the University of Chicago before returning to his alma mater to teach. Born in 1961 he grew up at Englewood Christian Church, an evangelical church. He joined the Disciples of Christ during He was briefly a Lutheran, and on Easter Sunday, 2007, he officially came into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church."
↑Stephen H. Webb, "Godbodied: The Matter of the Latter-day Saints (reprint from his book Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford University Press, 2012)," Brigham Young University Studies 50 no. 3 (2011). (emphasis added)
↑Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 2:360–361. GospeLink
↑Joseph Smith, History (1838), 3–4; cited in Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, [original edition] (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1984), 9–11. ISBN 0877479747. GL direct link
↑Letter to Oliver Cowdery [December 1834]; cited in Jessee, 336–337.
↑Jeffrey N. Walker, "Joseph Smith's Introduction to the Law: The 1819 Hurlbut Case," Mormon Historical Studies 11/1 (Spring 2010): 129-130.
"Roberts...concluded that Joseph Smith had sufficient imagination"
MormonThink states...
"In his book Studies of the Book of Mormon, Roberts answers the question as to whether or not Joseph Smith could have produced the Book of Mormon. He concluded that Joseph Smith had sufficient imagination and was capable of producing the BOM even though he had little formal education. He was, however, prone to made silly mistakes. It is these telling inconsistencies and problems that Roberts lists: 1) evidence of an undeveloped mind, 2) repetition of the same themes, 3) repetition of the same villains, 4) repetition of same battles and wars, 5) conversions typical of 19th century conversions."
"Joseph simply incorporated this dream experience, that had such an impact on his father, into the BOM"
MormonThink states...
"Critic's comment: This is the 'Tree of Life' story as told in the Book of Mormon starting in 1 Nephi 11:25. Joseph's father must have told Joseph about this dream many times when Joseph was growing up. Although faithful LDS try to explain this as evidence that Joseph's father was also inspired, there is another more plausible explanation - Joseph simply incorporated this dream experience, that had such an impact on his father, into the BOM."
FairMormon Response
Question: Did Joseph Smith incorporate his father's dream of the tree of life into the Book of Mormon?
The details of Joseph's father's dream were written long after the Book of Mormon was published
Critics point to similarities between a dream Joseph Smith's father had and Lehi's dream of the tree of life as evidence that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon based on his own experiences. Significantly, none of Joseph's family regarded the similarities as evidence that Joseph Jr. was engaging in a forgery.
The details of the dream were written long after the Book of Mormon was published. Lucy's account is (at the very least) influenced in its verbiage by the Book of Mormon. Either Joseph Sr. had a remarkably similar dream, or Lucy used the material in the Book of Mormon to either bolster her memory, or it unwittingly influenced her memory.
There are three potential explanations for the similarities
Joseph Smith plagiarized Joseph Sr.'s dream when he wrote the Book of Mormon. This is the stance adopted by the critics.
Joseph Sr. had a dream that was similar to the dream experienced by Lehi, and this was a sign to the Prophet's family that he was translating a real record that came from God. This is certainly possible, though it is impossible to prove or disprove by historical techniques, and so will not be elaborated on. It remains, however, a viable option.
Lucy Mack Smith's account of the dream (which she recorded many years after the fact, when the Book of Mormon account was well-known and published) may have influenced how she remembered and/or recorded her account of Joseph Sr's dream.
Details of Joseph Smith, Sr.'s dream of the tree of life
According to Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, Senior, the father of the Prophet, had the following dream in 1811 when the family was living in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Joseph Smith, Junior, would have been 5 years old at the time.
I thought...I was traveling in an open, desolate field, which appeared to be very barren. As I was thus traveling, the thought suddenly came into my mind that I had better stop and reflect upon what I was doing, before I went any further. So I asked myself, "What motive can I have in traveling here, and what place can this be?" My guide, who was by my side, as before, said, "This is the desolate world; but travel on." The road was so broad and barren that I wondered why I should travel in it; for, said I to myself, "Broad is the road, and wide is the gate that leads to death, and many there be that walk therein; but narrow is the way, and straight is the gate that leads to everlasting' life, and few there be that go in there at."
Traveling a short distance farther, I came to a narrow path. This path I entered, and, when I had traveled a little way in it, I beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west. Of this stream I could see neither the source nor yet the termination; but as far as my eyes could extend I could see a rope running along the bank of it, about as high as a man could reach, and beyond me was a low, but very pleasant valley, in which stood a tree such as I had never seen before. It was exceedingly handsome, insomuch that I looked upon it with wonder and admiration. Its beautiful branches spread themselves somewhat like an umbrella, and it bore a kind of fruit, in shape much like a chestnut bur, and as white as snow, or, if possible whiter. I gazed upon the same with considerable interest, and as I was doing so the burs or shells commenced opening and shedding their particles, or the fruit which they contained, which was of dazzling whiteness. I drew near and began to eat of it, and I found it delicious beyond description. As I was eating, I said in my heart, "I can not eat this alone, I must bring my wife and children, that they may partake with me." Accordingly, I went and brought my family, which consisted of a wife and seven children, and we all commenced eating, and praising God for this blessing. We were exceedingly happy, insomuch that our joy could not easily be expressed.
While thus engaged, I beheld a spacious building standing opposite the valley which we were in, and it appeared to reach to the very heavens. It was full of doors and windows, and they were filled with people, who were very finely dressed. When these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us, and treated us with all manner of disrespect and contempt. But their contumely we utterly disregarded.
I presently turned to my guide, and inquired of him the meaning of the fruit that was so delicious. He told me it was the pure love of God, shed abroad in the hearts of all those who love him, and keep his commandments. He then commanded me to go and bring the rest of my children. I told him that we were all there. "No," he replied, "look yonder, you have two more, and you must bring them also." Upon raising my eyes, I saw two small children, standing some distance off. I immediately went to them, and brought them to the tree; upon which they commenced eating with the rest, and we all rejoiced together. The more we ate, the more we seemed to desire, until we even got down upon our knees, and scooped it up, eating it by double handfuls.
After feasting in this manner a short time, I asked my guide what was the meaning of the spacious building which I saw. He replied, "It is Babylon, it is Babylon, and it must fall. The people in the doors and windows are the inhabitants thereof, who scorn and despise the Saints of God because of their humility."
I soon awoke, clapping my hands together for joy.[1]
There are many obvious connections between this dream and Lehi's vision of the tree of life
There are many obvious connections between this dream and Lehi's vision of the tree of life recorded in 1 Nephi 8:
A desolate field representing the world (8:4).
A narrow path (8:20).
A river of water (8:13).
A rope running along the bank of the river (similar in function to the rod of iron in 8:19, 24).
A tree with dazzling white fruit (8:10–11).
Joseph, Sr. desires that his family should partake of the fruit also (8:12).
A spacious building filled with people who are mocking those who eat the fruit (8:26–27).
Joseph, Sr. and his family ignore the mocking (8:33).
The fruit represents the love of God (11:22).
The building represents the world (11:36; 12:18).
The source of the dream is Lucy's manuscript for which she dictated in the winter of 1844–45, 15 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon
The source of the dream is Lucy's manuscript for Joseph Smith, The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations, which she dictated to Martha Jane Coray in the winter of 1844–45. Note the date of Lucy's dictation: more than 15 years after Joseph Smith, Junior, dictated the Book of Mormon.
Dreams are notoriously ephemeral. It is difficult for most people to remember the details of a dream, and those details quickly fade in the first few minutes after awaking.
The amount of detail Lucy records and the second-hand nature and late date of her testimony have led many to the conclusion that Lucy's recollection was strongly influenced by what she read in the Book of Mormon. That is, it is difficult to establish how much Joseph Sr.'s original dream had in common with the Book of Mormon, since the details which we have are only available after the fact, when Lucy's memory would have been affected by what she learned in the more detailed Book of Mormon account (even as it stands, the Book of Mormon account is far more detailed and lengthy than the material from 1844-45).
Thus, it seems plausible that there is a relationship between the Book of Mormon and Lucy's text--but, we cannot know in what direction(s) that influence moved.
"Many parts of the BOM are identical to the Bible....Plagiarism is not difficult for anyone to do"
MormonThink states...
"Many parts of the BOM are identical to the Bible. Entire chapters of the Bible are contained within the BOM. Plagiarism is not difficult for anyone to do."
Does the Book of Mormon plagiarize the King James Bible?
The Book of Mormon emulates the language and style of the King James Bible because that is the scriptural style Joseph Smith, translator of the Book of Mormon, was familiar with
Critics of the Book of Mormon write that major portions of it are copied, without attribution, from the Bible. They argue that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon by plagiarizing the Authorized ("King James") Version of the Bible.
Hugh Nibley: "As to the 'passages lifted bodily from the King James Version,' we first ask, 'How else does one quote scripture if not bodily:'"
In 1961, LDS scholar Hugh Nibley wrote:
[One of the] most devastating argument[s] against the Book of Mormon was that it actually quoted the Bible. The early critics were simply staggered by the incredible stupidity of including large sections of the Bible in a book which they insisted was specifically designed to fool the Bible-reading public. They screamed blasphemy and plagiarism at the top of their lungs, but today any biblical scholar knows that it would be extremely suspicious if a book purporting to be the product of a society of pious emigrants from Jerusalem in ancient times did not quote the Bible. No lengthy religious writing of the Hebrews could conceivably be genuine if it was not full of scriptural quotations.
...to quote another writer of Christianity Today [magazine],[2] "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," and that it quotes, not only from the Old Testament, but also the New Testament as well.
How can scripture be cited except 'bodily':
As to the "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," we first ask, "How else does one quote scripture if not bodily:" And why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them:
Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext: Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original: Do they give their own inspired translations: No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so: Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When "holy men of God" quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing.
Prophets usually use the version of scripture with which their audience is familiar
We do not claim the King James Version of the Septuagint to be the original scriptures—in fact, nobody on earth today knows where the original scriptures are or what they say. Inspired men have in every age have been content to accept the received version of the people among whom they labored, with the Spirit giving correction where correction was necessary.
Since the Book of Mormon is a translation, "with all its faults," into English for English-speaking people whose fathers for generations had known no other scriptures but the standard English Bible, it would be both pointless and confusing to present the scriptures to them in any other form, so far as their teachings were correct.
What is thought to be a very serious charge against the Book of Mormon today is that it, a book written down long before New Testament times and on the other side of the world, actually quotes the New Testament! True, it is the same Savior speaking in both, and the same Holy Ghost, and so we can expect the same doctrines in the same language.
"Faith, hope, and charity" from the New Testament:
But what about the "Faith, Hope and Charity" passage in Moroni 7꞉45: Its resemblance to 1 Corinthians 13:] is undeniable. This particular passage, recently singled out for attack in Christianity Today, is actually one of those things that turn out to be a striking vindication of the Book of Mormon. For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled "the Hymn to Charity," was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record.
Now it so happens that other Book of Mormon writers were also peculiarly fond of quoting from the record. Captain Moroni, for example, reminds his people of an old tradition about the two garments of Joseph, telling them a detailed story which I have found only in [th' Alabi of Persia,] a thousand-year-old commentary on the Old Testament, a work still untranslated and quite unknown to the world of Joseph Smith. So I find it not a refutation but a confirmation of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when Paul and Moroni both quote from a once well-known but now lost Hebrew writing.
Why KJV English:
Now as to [the] question, "Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language:"
The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.
∗ ∗ ∗
Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version—and what of the rest of it: That is scripture, too.
One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient nonbiblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read: "For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David."[3]
Even professional translators will lapse into the scriptural language that they know
Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely.
At any rate, Professor Burrows, in 1955 (not 1835!), falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: "All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence."[4] Professor Gaster, too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom. [A more recent example of the same phenomenon in the twenty-first century is discussed here.]
By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into "modern English" every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English![5]
Quotations from the Bible in the Book of Mormon are sometimes uncited quotes from Old Testament prophets on the brass plates, similar to the many unattributed Old Testament quotes in the New Testament; others may be similar phrasing emulated by Joseph Smith during his translation.
Oddly enough, this does not mean that Joseph Smith simply plagiarized from the KJV. Using the Original and Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen has identified that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when quoting, echoing, or alluding to the passages, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJV.[6]
Even if all the biblical passages were removed from the Book of Mormon, there would be a great deal of text remaining. Joseph was able to produce long, intricate religious texts without using the bible; if he was trying to deceive people, why did he "plagiarize" from the one book—the Bible—which his readership was sure to recognize: The Book of Mormon itself declares that it came forth in part to support the Bible (2 Nephi 9). Perhaps the inclusion of KJV text can show it engaging the Bible rather than just cribbing from it. If we didn't get some KJV text, we might think that the Nephites were trying to communicate an entirely different message.
A Proposed Scenario
Skousen proposes that, rather than looking at a Bible (the absence of a Bible now near-definitively confirmed by the manuscript evidence and the unequivocal statements of witnesses to the translation to the Book of Mormon), Joseph was provided a page of text via his gift of seership. This page of text contained, in this view, the King James Bible text. Joseph was then free to alter the text for his audience. Thus:
As Joseph was translating the text of the Book of Mormon, he encounter something that was being roughly similar to texts from the Bible. This would occur most prominently when Nephi quotes from Isaiah.
Instead of translating Nephi's quotations of Isaiah word-for-word, the Lord gave the passages from Isaiah as contained in the KJV. Reasons for which this may have been done are discussed earlier in this article.
Consequently, the Isaiah chapters on Nephi's plates would have looked slightly different from the Isaiah chapters that we have now in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's version of Isaiah 8꞉52 would have been the primitive, early version written by 1st Isaiah. The version of Isaiah 8꞉52 that we have now in the Book of Mormon would not then be taken directly from Nephi's plates, but rather adapted from the KJV Bible as described.
Learn more about biblical allusions or citation in the Book of Mormon
FAIR links
Ben McGuire, "Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi," Proceedings of the 2001 FAIR Conference (August 2001). link
Sara Riley, "“Even as Moses’ Did”: The Use of the Exodus Narrative in Mosiah 11-18," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link
Online
Sidney B. Sperry, "Literary Problems in the Book of Mormon involving 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and Other New Testament Books," farms.byu.eduoff-site.
Learn More About Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon off-site.
Royal Skousen, "The History of the Book of Mormon Text: Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text" off-site.
Standford Carmack, "Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles" off-site.
Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader" off-site.
Did Joseph Smith use characters from the Bible as templates for the characters in the Book of Mormon:
Critic Fawn Brodie claimed:
Many stories [Joseph Smith] borrowed from the Bible [for the creation of the Book of Mormon]. The daughter of Jared, like Salome, danced before a king and a decapitation followed. Aminadi, like Daniel, deciphered handwriting on a wall, and Alma was converted after the exact fashion of St. Paul. The daughters of the Lamanites were abducted like the dancing daughters of Shiloh; and Ammon, like the American counterpart of David, for want of a Goliath slew six sheep-rustlers with his sling.[7]
When deciding whether Joseph used characters from the bible as templates we should remember a few things.
Problems with parallels
Similarities do not necessarily imply causal influence. Literary scholars have long considered the question of how to tell if two texts have influenced each other.[8]
It was once popular to list elements found in both texts in table form and 'compare' the similarities or parallels. This is now discouraged as it tends to what is called 'parallelomania.' Ben McGuire quoted Everett Ferguson on this technique's use on Christianity:
another image from geometry that has been used to describe the relation of Christianity to its context is “parallels,” and these have caused various concerns to modern readers. This volume will call attention to a number of similarities between Christianity and various aspects of its environment. Many more could have been included, and probably many more than are currently recognized will become known as a result of further study and future discoveries. What is to be made of these parallels? Do they explain away Christianity as a natural product of its environment? Must they be explained away in order to defend the truth or validity of Christianity? Neither position is necessary. . . . The kind and significance of the parallels may be further clarified by commenting on the cultural parallels. That Christians observed the same customs and used words in the same way as their contemporaries is hardly noteworthy in itself. Those things belonged to the place and time when Christianity began. The situation could not have been otherwise for Christianity to have been a real historical phenomenon, open now to historical study. To expect the situation to have been otherwise would require Christianity to be something other than it is, a historical religion. Indeed, if Christianity did not have these linguistic and cultural contacts with the first-century Mediterranean world the presumption would be that it was a fiction originating in another time and place.[9]
If this is true of Christianity in general, it is even more so for the restored Church of Jesus Christ whose origins are recent, and for whom supposed parallels will be even easier to find, but no less misleading.
As McGuire explains:
Simply stated, on some level we can find a parallel to any source. An author may not recognize another’s text in his writings at all—even if parallels may be found. This isn’t to say that there isn’t literary plagiarism. But, the concern here is with mistakenly finding it when it may not actually have occurred. ...[10]:29
He goes on to quote W.H. Bennett, who provides two warnings applicable to our question. The first cautions:
(Many alleged parallels are entirely irrelevant, and are only such as must naturally exist between works in the same language, by authors of the same race, acquainted with the history and literature, customs and traditions which were earlier than both of them. . . .[11]
This is of major importance in trying to determine whether biblical characters are the source of Book of Mormon ones. Why? Because the Book of Mormon claims to share a culture, religious outlook, and textual tradition with the bible.
It would therefore be unsurprising that a similar environment created similar themes, characters, and situations.
This becomes even more likely when we realize that a major part of ancient Hebrew writing was the type scene.
Book of Mormon Central has produced an excellent article that may explain this type of "plagiarism" in the Book of Mormon. That article is reproduced in full (including citations for easy reference) below:
In Genesis 4, Abraham sent his servant to a foreign land to find a wife for Isaac. When he got there, he met a girl named Rebekah at a well, she drew water for him, she ran off to tell her family about it, and later she and Isaac were betrothed. Something similar happened to Jacob. He went to a foreign land to find a wife, he met Rachael by a well, he drew water for her, she ran to tell her family, and Jacob and Rachael were betrothed (see Genesis 9). As with all true stories, the author could have told these stories in many different ways.[12] However, the reason these two stories are so similar is because they are both based on the same pattern, called a type-scene.[13]
A type-scene is an ancient storytelling technique where certain kinds of stories are told in certain ways.[14] The ancient audience expected that when a main character got engaged, for example, he would journey to a foreign land, encounter a woman at a well, and draw water from the well.[15] Then the woman would rush home to tell the family, and the man and the woman would be betrothed.[15]:62 However, each time the storyteller applied this type-scene to a new character, they would change the story slightly. This allowed the type-scene to fit each character’s historical circumstances, but also gave insights into the personalities of each character in the story.[16]
For instance, biblical scholar Robert Alter noted that "it is only in [Isaac's] betrothal scene that the girl, not the stranger, draws water from the well."[15]:64 This fits well with what we see Rebekah doing later, when she took "the initiative at a crucial moment in the story in order to obtain the paternal blessing for her favored son, Jacob."[15]:64 Ultimately, "Rebekah is to become the shrewdest and the most potent of the matriarchs, and so it is entirely appropriate that she should dominate her betrothal scene."[17] The more these stories differ from the basic type-scene, the more one can expect that the characters in the scene will turn out differently than expected.[18]
Alan Goff has pointed out a radically different, but still recognizable, version of this type scene in Alma 7.[19] Just as in the classic type-scene, Ammon went to a foreign land, but in this case, he went to preach the gospel (Alma 17꞉12).[19]:105 Although Ammon did not meet a woman there, the king offered Ammon his daughter in marriage, but he declined (v. 24).[20] Shortly thereafter, Ammon went to the waters of Sebus, rather than a well, to water the flocks (v. 26).[21] Finally, instead of the woman returning to tell the family about the presence of a potential suitor, the servants returned to the king with the arms of the would-be sheep rustlers (v. 39).[22]
The differences between the basic type-scene and the Ammon story teach us much about Ammon and how we can be like him. Instead of going to a foreign land to find a wife, Ammon went to a foreign land to preach the gospel. When he got there and was offered the hand of the princess, he declined, stating that he wished to work for the king of the Lamanites instead. In addition to simply drawing water for the flocks, he saved them at the peril of his own life. Finally, those present at the watering of the flocks returned to tell the king not about Ammon as a potential suitor, but about the power of God that was with him.
The Ammon story takes the type-scene, in which the hero is simply trying to find a wife, and turns it on its head. Everything Ammon does in the story is done for selfless reasons. The last part of the type-scene, in which the hero becomes betrothed, is conspicuous by its absence. Ammon does not become betrothed at the end of the story because that was not his purpose in traveling to the land of the Lamanites. He went to the Lamanites to preach the gospel and remained focused on that goal the entire time he was in Lamanite lands.
It is easy for us to become so focused on ourselves and our own needs that we rarely think about those around us. Mormon’s masterful reworking of this type-scene reminds us all of the importance of putting others first. If we will all replace selfishness with selflessness, like Ammon did, we can be a true force for good in the lives of those around us and have the power of God with us in our lives, like Ammon did.
Book of Mormon Central has also produced this video on the subject:
We will return to the idea of "type scenes" when we consider specific examples. But first we will consider the second of W.H. Bennett's cautions about finding supposed sources for parallel accounts:
In considering two similar passages, A and B, there are at least three possible explanations of their resemblance. A may be dependent on B, or B on A, or both A and B may be dependent on something prior to both of them. A critic with a theory—and everybody starts with a prepossession in favour of some theory —is tempted to take for granted that the relation of the parallel passages is in accordance with his theory. If he holds that B is older than A, it seems to him that A is so obviously dependent on B, that this dependence proves the early date of B. But, as a rule, it is very difficult to determine which of two similar passages is dependent on the other. Often the question can only be settled by our knowledge that one passage is taken from an earlier work than the other; and where we do not possess such knowledge the priority is quite uncertain, and a comparison of the passages yields little or no evidence as to the date of the documents in which they occur. . . ..[23]
Bennett insists that we cannot approach a text without a theory—and critics of the Book of Mormon have a theory that it is a forgery. Thus, they conclude that the Book of Mormon (A) is dependent on the King James Bible characters(B), since the KJV was certainly published before the Book of Mormon.
Once they conclude that these are "so obviously dependent" on the Bible, it becomes a simple matters to convince oneself that these parallels prove plagiarism or influence. But it is equally possible for such characters to both be type-scene characters (as discussed in the previous section). In that case, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are dependent upon something else that predates them—the type scene.
Or, as we saw with the example with the "duplicate" kings of England, many themes and stories and personalities recur in history. If an ancient author is looking for type-scenes, then they will emphasize the similarities even further, misleading the zealous critic into thinking they have found a smoking gun.
Specific Book of Mormon type-scenes
We will now consider some specific examples of type scenes, examining both the similarities and the differences between them and the biblical 'parallels'.
The Daughter of Jared and Salome
BYU Professor Nicholas J. Frederick addressed this very question in the book Illuminating the Jaredite Records published by the Book of Mormon Academy.[24]:236–51
Frederick points out that similarities do exist. Both stories involve:
An unnamed daughter
A female performing a dance before a powerful male figure
Demands for decapitation—one realized, the other foiled
Revenge against a perceived injustice
Swearing of oaths with unfortunate consequences (the beheading of John the Baptist and the destruction of the Jaredites).
But Frederick also points out important dissimilarities—we might call these the unparallels:
Who is the instigator? "[I]n Ether 8 the daughters of Jared is the primary actor; it is she who puts the evil ideas into her father's head and dances before Akish. In Mark's account Salome acts at her mother's behest and presumably does not know that her dance will result in John's death until her mother instructs her after the dance to ask for John's head (see 6꞉24). She is as much of a pawn in her mother's game as Herod is. Because of this, the daughter of Jared seems to occupy the position or role of both Herodias and Salome , as if both figures were collapsed into one Jaredite female."[24]:239
The audience of the dance: "Salome dances for her father and his friends, while the daughter of Jared dances for a potential husband. The presence of Herod's guests presumably ensures that Salome's request will not be dismissed, an action that would likely have caused Herod to lose face. The daughters of Jared, in the same fashion, has exactly the audience she requires."[24]:239
The nature of the request: "Herod is clearly uncomfortable offering up John's head, but he has little choice—his promise must be kept. Akish appears completely comfortable with the request to carry out the murderous plot, as are, one assumes, both Jared and his daughter."[24]:239
The nature of the dance itself: "The daughter of Jared's dance is prefaced by Moroni's statement that Jared's daughter was "exceedingly fair," suggesting a likely sensual element to her dance, on that is expected to appeal to Akish and that will lead to his matrimonial request. While there is nothing in the text to suggest a salaciousness to the dance itself, it does appear designed to highlight the woman's physical attractiveness. In contrast, Salome is described simply as a 'damsel' (Mark 6꞉22), and no mention is made of her physical appearance. Nor is there any suggestion that her dance was in any way seductive or erotic, only that it 'pleased Herod' (v. 22). Again, to suggest without textual evidence that Salome's dance contained a lascivious element or that it was, in the words of one scholar, 'hardly more than a striptease' is to surely go beyond the mark."[24]:239
Frederick proposes a few possible scenarios to answer the question of how we got a story this similar to Salome in the Book of Mormon:
Salome is a direct analogue for the daughter of Jared. This idea, as observed by Frederick, simply does not work.
The daughter of Jared as a blend of both Herodias and Salome, a move that combines these two women into one remarkable figure. Yet even then the daughter of Jared is more Herodias than Salome. The dance itself is the only contribution of Salome to the daughter of Jared's story.
Joseph Smith drawing on the Salome story in the nineteenth century with its oversexualized portrayal of Salome. Yet even this does not do the daughter or Jared justice. The daughter of Jared is depicted as calm, shrewd, devoted, knowledgeable, and self-sacrificing. She may be beautiful, but her beauty is one of her features; it does not define her.
Hugh Nibley writes that the account of the daughter of Jared is more similar to ancient accounts that use the same motifs of the dancing princess, old king, and challenger to the throne of the king. That is, this could be a case in which both the bible and the Book of Mormon account are drawing on a third, even older, source—the type-scene.
This is indeed a strange and terrible tradition of throne succession, yet there is no better attested tradition in the early world than the ritual of the dancing princess (represented by the salme priestess of the Babylonians, hence the name Salome) who wins the heart of a stranger and induces him to marry her, behead the whole king, and mount the throne. I once collected a huge dossier on this awful woman and even read a paper on her at an annual meeting of the American Historical Association.[25] You find out all about the sordid triangle of the old king, the challenger, and the dancing beauty from Frazer, Jane Harrison, Altheim, B. Chweitzer, Franell, and any number of folklorists.[26] The thing to note especially is that there actually seems to have been a succession rite of great antiquity that followed this pattern. It is the story behind the rites at Olympia and Ara Sacra and the wanton and shocking dances of the ritual hierodules throughout the ancient world.[27] Though it is not without actual historical parallels, as when in A.D. 998 the sister of the khalif obtained as a gift the head of the ruler of Syria,[28] the episode of the a dancing princess is at all times essentially a ritual, and the name of Salome is perhaps no accident, for her story is anything but unique. Certainly the book of Ether is on the soundest possible ground in attributing the behavior of the daughter of Jared to the inspiration of ritual texts – secret directories on the art of deposing an aging king. The Jaredite version, incidentally, is quite different from the Salome story of the Bible, but is identical with many earlier accounts that have come down to us in the oldest records of civilization.[29]
Aminadi and Daniel
The single 'parallel'—that both men interpreted the writings of God on a wall—is tenuous. Parallel aspects do not equal dependency, unless we assume what we set out to prove.
Brant A. Gardner observes:
The story of Aminadi [in Alma 10꞉2-3] clearly parallels Daniel 5꞉5-17 with a prophet interpreting Yahweh's writing on a wall, although there is no language dependency. There can be no textual dependency because Daniel describes events during the Babylonian captivity that postdates Lehi's departure from Jerusalem. Just as Alma's conversion experience was similar to, but different from, Paul's (see commentary accompanying Mosiah 27꞉10-11), it is probable that, if we had a fuller version of Aminadi's story, we would see both similarities and differences.[30]
Ammon and David
The only similarity between these two stories is that both men killed another individual or group with a sling. How many stories can we find authored before the Book of Mormon was translated where a protagonist defeats an antagonist with a sling? Hundreds. The comparison is flimsy at best, and probably included simply to increase the number of "hits" in order to create the impression of even more numerous problems.
(This is part of a fallacious debating technique known as the Gish Gallop.)
The daughters of the Lamanites and the dancing daughters of Shiloh
File:Benjaminite and Concubine in Morgan Bible.pngFrench illuminated manuscript (1244-1254) of the Benjaminite arriving with his concubine in Gibeah. This is a benign beginning to a horrific account. From "The Morgan Bible."
Latter-day Saint philosopher Alan Goff wrote a short chapter on this parallel back in 1991:
A minor story in the Book of Mormon provides an example of how complex the task of reading the book can be. It also illustrates how much richer our understanding can be when we remember that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record with connections to other ancient records, particularly the Old Testament. In the book of Mosiah, a band of wicked priests hid in the wilderness and kidnapped some young women to be their wives (see Mosiah 20꞉1-5). This story can be read as an adventure tale. If looked at carefully, however, it shows the kind of connections between the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament that demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book.
The story of kidnapping by the wicked priests is a minor part of the record of the people of Zeniff. When King Noah, ruler over the Zeniffites, rejected the prophet Abinadi's message and had him killed, the priest Alma and his followers separated from the rest of the people. Soon thereafter, the Lamanites attacked the people of Zeniff. As they fled from the Lamanites, King Noah commanded them to abandon their families. Instead, they executed Noah and attempted to kill his priests (see Mosiah 19꞉19-21). These priests escaped into the wilderness, led by Amulon, one of their number, and later kidnapped some daughter sof the Lamanites to be their wives. Angered by the kidnapping and assuming the Zeniffites were guilty, the Lamanites attacked them. Peace was restored when the Lamanites learned who the real kidnappers were (see Mosiah 20꞉26).
File:Abudction of girls in Shiloh - Dore.pngTo allow the tribe of Benjamin to survive after they had vowed not to marry their daughters to them, the Israelites arranged a "bride theft" event to get around the vow. (Illustration from :Gustav Doré, "Abduction of the girls at Shiloh," La Grande Bible de Tours (1866).)
A Biblical Parallel
This story of the abduction of young Lamanite women is similar to a story in the Bible in which men from the tribe of Benjamin kidnap daughters of Israel at Shiloh. The end of the book of Judges contains three stories about the tribe of Benjamin. In the first, Benjaminites abused and murdered a Levite concubine (see Judges 20). In the second, the other eleven tribes gathered to punish the offenders, and a civil war resulted (see Judges 19). The third story tells of the kidnapping (see Judges 1).
After destroying most of the tribe of Benjamin, the Israelites realized that this tribe was in danger of extinction. To preserve the tribe, the Benjaminites needed wives. But the Israelites had vowed not to allow their daughters to marry the Benjaminites. To get around their vow, they instructed the Benjaminites to kidnap the daughters of the Israelites who lived at Shiloh while the young women danced in the vineyards. As the daughters of Shiloh gathered, the Benjaminites lay hidden. The girls danced, and the Benjaminites stole them to be their wives.
The Stealing of the Daughters of the Lamanites
The similarities between the stories in Mosiah and Judges are complex and carefully stated:
Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the Lord in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah. Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; and see, and behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin (Judges 21꞉19-21).
Now there was a place in Shemlon where the daughters of the Lamanites did gather themselves together to sing, and to dance, and to make themselves merry. And it came to pass that there was one day a small number of them gathered together to sing and to dance (Mosiah 20꞉1-2).
The Bible clearly mentions the incident as a yearly ritual. The Book of Mormon mentions it as a regular occurrence, not telling us how often ("one day"). In both stories the kidnapped virgins became the wives of the abductors. The record says that the priests of Noah, "being ashamed to return to the city of Nephi, yea, and also fearing that the people would slay them, therefore they durst not return to their wives and their children" (Mosiah 20꞉3), so they watched the dancers and kidnapped substitute wives. When the narrative returned to the story of Amulon and his fellow priests, the daughters of the Lamanites were then called "their wives" (Mosiah 23꞉33).
In both stories, the abductors, like peeping toms, waited and watched the spectacle. The Benjaminites lay in wait in the vineyards watching the dancing. The wicked priests also found the place where the girls danced, then "they laid and watched them" (Mosiah 20꞉4). We know that the priests hid because in the next verse they "came forth out of their secret places" and abducted twenty-four of the dancing maidens. Not only is the watching stressed in both stories, but also the lying in wait. These were not crimes of passion, but ones of premeditation.
The Meaning of Parallels
Some Book of Mormon critics have seen the parallels between the two stories and concluded that Joseph Smith merely copied the story from Judges, they conclude that any similarities in stories indicate plagiarism. Biblical scholars take a more sophisticated approach than do these critics to texts that may appear to borrow from other texts. Scholars often see similarities between stories as evidence of the writer's sophistication and of the richness of the text.
For example, the first of the stories about the Benjaminites, telling of the rape and death of a concubine, is similar to an earlier Bible story of Lot and his two visitors at Sodom. The story in Judges tells of a Levite and his concubine who were returning home from a visit to her father's house in Bethlehem. At a late hour they arrived at Gibeah, a Benjaminite city. Only one old man was willing to take the travelers in. As the host entertained, the men of the city gathered outside and demanded that the host bring the Levite outside so they could rape him. The host protested this violation of the law of hospitality and offered his own virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine as substitutes. The Levite instead pushed his concubine out to the mob, who "abused her all the night until the morning" (Judges 19:25). In the morning she was dead.
This story is obviously similar to the story of Lot's visitors in Genesis 19. In both stories the guests were taken in, the inhabitants of the cities threatened a homosexual rape, and the host offered two women as substitutes to spare the men. Obviously readers are meant to see a relationship between the two stories. Biblical scholars see this as an example of conscious borrowing intended both to enhance the meaning of the second story and to emphasize how wicked Gibeah had become. The story in Genesis 19 can easily be read and understood with no awareness of the story in Judges 19, but to understand Judges 19 in any complete way the reader must see the connection to Sodom. The Levite was portrayed unfavorably compared to Lot's divine visitors. The visitors to Sodom effected a divine rescue, while the Levite threw out his own concubine to save himself.[31]
I believe that, in a similar way, the story of the abduction in Mosiah means more when we see it light of the story in Judges. I feel that the author of the story in Mosiah borrowed consciously from the story in Judges, which he knew from the plates of brass, to help make his point.
The story of the abduction of the daughters of Shiloh is the final story in Judges. One of the main purposes of Judges was to justify the establishment of a king. Judges described the evil the Israelites did in the Lord's sight (see Judges 3꞉74꞉1), explaining that they did evil because there was no king over the people (see Judges 17꞉6; 18꞉1). Judges ends with three stories about the tribe of Benjamin that illustrate this evil. The stories are preceded by a statement about the lack of a king over the land: "And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel. . . " (Judges 19꞉1). The third story ends with a similar statement: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21꞉25). The topsy-turvy world described in Judges 17-Judges 21 demonstrates that doing what is right in one's own eyes is often the same thing as doing what is evil in the Lord's eyes.[32]
By emphasizing parallels to the kidnapping story in Judges, the author of the story in Mosiah seems to me to have strengthened the moral point. The wicked priests led by Amulon were also evil, doing what was right in their own eyes rather than following the Lord.
Other Parallels
Understandably, the text shows disapproval of all that Amulon and his fellow priests did. The parallel case from Judges of doing what is right in man's eyes is only one way the text shows this disapproval. There are other parallels that further discredit Amulon and his companions.
After the Lamanites captured Amulon and his people, the record states that "Amulon did gain favor in the eyes of the king of the Lamanites" (Mosiah 24꞉1). In gaining the favor of the Lamanites, these priests clearly lost favor with God. There is a note of disapproval in the narrator's words when he says that the people of Amulon not only found favor in the eyes of the Lamanite king, but also that the king appointed these men to be teachers over all his people (see Mosiah 24꞉1). As teachers, these priests taught the Lamanites the language of the Nephites (see Mosiah 24꞉4), "nevertheless they knew not God; neither did the brethren of Amulon teach them anything concerning the Lord their God, neither the law of Moses; nor did they teach them the words of Abinadi" (Mosiah 24꞉5).
On the other hand, Alma taught his people how God delivered both the followers of Limhi and Alma out of bondage (see Mosiah 25꞉10,16). He also taught them "repentance and faith on the Lord" (Mosiah 25:15) as he organized them into congregations. The author emphasizes how different from Alma the priests of Noah were. He says directly that the priests of Noah didn't teach the Lamanites Abinadi's words. He also specifically mentions that Alma "went about privately among the people, and began to teach the words of Abinadi" (Mosiah 18꞉1). Both Alma and Amulon entered the narrative as priests of Noah. Upon hearing the words of Abinadi, Alma repented, but Amulon refused to repent. Alma taught the prophet's words in secret, while Amulon and his priests utterly refused to teach them to the Lamanites.
The reader is led to see the contrasting lives, not just of Alma and Amulon, but of the people of Limhi and Alma and the people of Amulon. Both Alma and Amulon led colonies into the wilderness: Alma and his people, when Noah's soldiers discovered their "movement," "took their tents and their families and departed into the wilderness" (Mosiah 18꞉32,34). Amulon and his followers also fled into the wilderness, but at Noah's command they left their families behind (see Mosiah 19꞉11-23).
The wicked priests abandoned their wives when King Noah "commanded them that all the men should leave their wives and their children, and flee before the Lamanites" (Mosiah 19꞉11), then they went about trying to find substitute wives. The other Zeniffites would rather have perished than leave their wives and children behind (see Mosiah 19:12). Thus those who remained behind "caused that their fair daughters should stand forth and plead with the Lamanites that they would not slay them" (Mosiah 19:13). The daughters inspired "compassion" among the Lamanites, for they "were charmed with the beauty of their women" (Mosiah 19:14). Later, Amulon would do the same thing, sending out the Lamanite daughters he and the other priests had kidnapped to plead for mercy (see Mosiah 23꞉33-34).
The text has set up parallel examples for the reader to compare. The Zeniffites sent men out to find those who had fled their children and wives, "all save the king and his priests" (Mosiah 19꞉18), and had vowed that they would return to their wives and children or die seeking revenge if the Lamanites had killed them (Mosiah 19꞉19). The parallel stories of sending the two sets of daughters to beg for mercy from the Lamanites teach the reader that what appear to be the same actions actually differ when performed by the good-hearted on the one hand or the evil-hearted on the other.
When we compare the people as the text invites us to do, we contrast the care the men of Limhi showed for their wives and children with the abandonment by the priests of Noah. All of these events define the lack of moral character of the priests. The fact that the Lamanite king was willing to permit the stealing of the Lamanite daughters by welcoming Amulon and the priests into his kingdom speaks badly of this king, just as the Israelites' encouragement of the Benjaminites to kidnap their own daughters speaks badly of all Israel. The people of Limhi, on the other hand, "fought for their lives, and for their wives, and for their children" (Mosiah 20꞉11). These differences reveal not only the character of the priests of Noah, who abandoned their families rather than fall into Lamanite hands, but also of the Nephites, who decided to face death with their families rather than abandon them.
The text is clearly unsympathetic to the people of Amulon. The connection between the two stories of abduction is a hint from the author that their actions were reminiscent of a time, reported in Judges, when the Israelites didn't follow God's law but did what was right in their own eyes. The priests are portrayed as indifferent to God, in spite of their position, which should have made them more anxious to follow God.
The Book of Mormon story of the stealing of the Lamanite daughters cannot be accounted for by the simplistic claim that it was just copied from the Bible. The Book of Mormon makes sophisticated use of the story to make its own point. Critics of the Book of Mormon believe that the author of the text used the earlier story from Judges, and I agree. But unlike them, I believe that the parallel enhances the book and reveals it to be an ancient document rather than a modern imitation.[33]
Goff has more recently treated this episode in more detail, with a thorough discussion of type-scenes and judging the value of readings that assume parallels by plagiarism.[34]
Alma and Paul
This parallel has received the largest amount of attention from critics, apologists, and other scholars.
File:1920px-La conversion de Saint Paul Giordano Nancy 3018.jpgPaul's dramatic experience on the road to Damascus turned him into a Christian and perhaps the faith's most influential missionary. Despite the artist's dramatic use of horses, there's no evidence that Paul was riding as he travelled on his mission to persecute Christians. (Image: Luca Giordano, "The Conversion of St. Paul," (1690).)
The Book of Mormon records the conversion and ministry of a young man named Alma. Alma goes about trying to lead people away from God's church. An angel appears, causing Alma and his companions to fall and tremble because of fear. Because of this experience, Alma was converted to the gospel and spent his life teaching it thereafter.
In 2002, critic Grant H. Palmer asserted that this conversion narrative and much of the rest of Alma’s story "seems to draw" on Paul’s story of conversion and ministry in the New Testament as a narrative structure.[35]
In particular, critics assert that the following parallels exist:
Both were struck dumb/blind, became helpless, and were assisted by their companions. They went without food before converting (Mosiah 27꞉19, 23-24; Acts 9꞉8).
Both used the same phrases in their preaching.[36]
This article will seek to examine this criticism and address it in a way that makes sense given orthodox Latter-day Saint theological commitments.
A translator can see parallels too
A well-informed translator would also see the parallels, and so the translation could emphasize the Pauline parallels. If we insist that Joseph was not well-informed enough to see the parallels, he can hardly have been well-informed enough to create the parallels either.
Are roughly parallel stories surprising?
Are we really to believe that there can't be two narratives of men persecuting a church organization, being visited by a heavenly messenger exhorting them to repent, having them converted to preaching repentance, supporting themselves by their own labor while they preach, and being freed from bands and prison without one narrative being literately dependent on the other?
Scholars John Welch and John F. Hall created a chart noting similarities and differences between Alma's and Paul's conversion.[37] They explain:
The conversions of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus and of Alma the Younger in the land of Zarahemla are similar in certain fundamental respects, as one would expect since the source of their spiritual reversals was one and the same. Interestingly, in each case we have three accounts of their conversions: Paul’s conversion is reported in Acts 9, 22, and 26. Alma’s conversion is given in Mosiah 7, Alma 6, and 38. No two of these accounts are exactly the same. The columns on the far right and left sides of chart 15-17 show the verses of these six accounts in which each element either appears or is absent. Down the middle are found the elements shared by both Paul and Alma, and off center are words or experiences unique to either Paul or Alma. In sum, the personalized differences significantly offset and highlight the individual experiences in the two conversions.
The parallels are examined below. Each narrative has important similarities and dissimilarities that need to be considered in isolation in order to understand how combining them too hastily can lead to misunderstanding.
A fairly innocuous parallel when taken by itself and one that we could establish with many other books. This parallel can only be seen as convincing when taken with other parallels. This parallel and the next are probably better combined with parallels three and four as one parallel. Both are so naturally tied into 3/4 that they function better as one parallel. The critics may be trying to list a greater number of parallels because it makes the criticism look more persuasive than it actually is. (This is another example of the Gish Gallop.)
The account of Alma stresses that they were corrupting people and getting them to not keep the commandments (Mosiah 27꞉8-10). Paul's emphasizes, by contrast, that he was arresting and persecuting the Saints. Paul imprisoned followers of Christ (Acts 9꞉1-2) whereas Alma had no such power.
In Alma's case, his actions were illegal. In Paul's, they were legal and sanctioned by the Jewish authorities.
Paul is a part of the majority religion persecuting the minority religion, while Alma is the opposite.
The parallels are superficial, and ignore the differences.
3. Both were persecuting the church when they saw a heavenly vision (Mosiah 27꞉10-11; Acts 26꞉11-13); 4. Their companions fell to the earth and were unable to understand the voice that spoke (Mosiah 27꞉12; Acts 22꞉9; 26꞉14)
Paul is on the road to Damascus when he has his vision. The Book of Mormon doesn't give us any details as to the location of Alma and his companions.
We know that Alma was with four other people at the time of the heavenly appearance. We are not told how many companions Saul had with him while on the road to Damascus, though it was clearly more than one since he speaks of them in the plural (Acts 22꞉9).
"The next slight difference comes in the angel's appearance to them. To Alma the angel comes in a cloud and to Saul with a bright light from heaven (Acts 9꞉3)."[38]
"The next difference is the description of the voice. No description accompanies the voice in Paul's account, but in Alma's it is 'a voice of thunder' that shakes the earth. Both Saul and Alma fall to the ground—Saul/Paul because he appears to recognize majesty, and with Alma, as a result of the earth's shaking."[38]:4:450
In both accounts, all fall to the ground and all hear the voice of the angel. "The difference is that, in the Book of Mormon account, all fall and all see the messenger (v. 18)…In the Old World example, the companions heard a voice, but the record does not allow us to infer either that they understood it or assumed it to be divine."[38]:4:451
Once more we see differences that the "parallels" approach gloss over.
In Alma's case, it is an angel—not a divine being. In Paul's case, it is Jesus Christ.
"The similarity to Paul's experience is that 'persecution' is part of the divine message in both cases. In Saul's case, however, it is Christ who is persecuted and in Alma's it is the church. The fact of persecution exists in both cases; but in the New World, Alma's persecution precedes Jesus's coming in the flesh. Thus, in one sense, there was no person with which the church might be directly identified and against whom one might persecute as in the New Testament example. Alma's version of apostasy was almost certainly like that of Noah and his priests in which he accepted much of the competing religion but also held some beliefs of the Mosaic law. In this case, Alma and the sons of Mosiah could not have accepted a declaration like that given to Saul because they would not have believed that they were persecuting Yahweh himself, only those who believed in the future Atoning Messiah. Nevertheless, the messenger declares that the church was equated with Yahweh. Alma and the sons of Mosiah were not persecuting people who believed in a nonexistent being, but they were directly persecuting their own God."[38]:4:451–52
6. Both were struck dumb/blind, became helpless, and were assisted by their companions. They went without food before converting (Mosiah 27꞉19, 27꞉23-24; Acts 9꞉9)
Being made dumb is entirely different from being made blind.
Brant Gardner wrote that "Contary to Saul ... Alma is completely debilitated. His companions are functional, able to carry him to assistance. Saul was only blind, but Alma was dumb and so weak that he was 'carried helpless.'"[38]:4:454
Paul was incapacitated for three days and Alma for "two days and two nights"[38]:4:457
Paul went without food before converting. That is specified clearly in the account of his conversion. In Alma's conversion, it is the priests who intentionally fast before Alma receives his strength again.
Again, the parallels are superficial with many details that do not match.
Both indeed preached the Gospel. Alma ascended to political power after his conversion and then relinquished it before entering ministry whereas Paul had political power in the Jewish world, relinquished it, and did not ascend to it again after conversion and before entering ministry.
Paul and Alma did not perform the same miracle. In Alma's passages, he implores the Lord to heal Zeezrom from a serious fever. Zeezrom asks to be healed, and walks to show that he is better, not because he had been physically lame.
By contrast, in Paul's passages, he merely commands the man lame from birth to walk without being asked
Once more, a superficial list of parallels ignores many differences.
8. While preaching, they supported themselves by their own labors (Alma 30꞉32; 1 Cor 4꞉12)
This is true, though hardly a significant point. Those who sincerely preach would not need to be paid to do so, and preaching an unpopular faith is not likely to be financially rewarding anyway. It is hard to see how Alma and Paul's stories—if true—could have been different on this point.
(We could equally argue that they both preached to large groups in the open air—but that is a meaningless parallel since what they are doing virtually requires that they do so.)
9. They were put in prison. After they prayed, an earthquake resulted in their bands being loosed (Alma 14꞉22,26-28; Acts 16꞉23,25-26 )
Paul and Silas were placed in prison after being stripped and whipped. Alma and Amulek were also confined to prison after being stripped of clothes but were smitten, spit upon, and had people gnash their teeth at them. Paul was imprisoned three times throughout his ministry and Alma once.
Palmer is entirely wrong that an earthquake resulted in Alma's bands being loosed. Alma's bands are loosed by God and then the prison walls shake and tumble. With Paul, it's the foundations of the prison that shake first, doors open, and then the bands are loosed. The walls of the prison in Paul's narrative do not tumble down.
This is a good example of how parallels can blind us to differences—our minds see things that are similar, and gloss over the differences. The critics' emphasis on parallels while ignoring unparallels makes them even more vulnerable to this cognitive error.
10. Same Phrases in Teaching
Palmer suggests that both authors used the same phrases in teaching. Yet, the Book of Mormon is replete with phrasing similar to the New Testament—which is unsurprising since similar ideas are being taught in similar language to people familiar with the KJV New Testament.
The use of such language is not unique to Alma and his conversion narratives and thus it can't be used as a peculiarity to establish Joseph Smith's dependence on Paul's conversion narratives for Alma.
Alan Goff, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (April 29, 2022)
The story often referred to as Alma’s conversion narrative is too often interpreted as a simplistic plagiarism of Paul’s conversion-to-Christianity story in the book of Acts. Both the New and Old Testaments appropriate an ancient narrative genre called the prophetic commissioning story. Paul’s and Alma’s commissioning narratives hearken back to this literary genre, and to refer to either as pilfered is to misunderstand not just these individual narratives but the larger approach Hebraic writers used in composing biblical and Book of Mormon narrative. To the modern mind the similarity in stories triggers explanations involving plagiarism and theft from earlier stories and denies the historicity of the narratives; ancient writers — especially of Hebraic narrative — had a quite different view of such concerns. To deny the historical nature of the stories because they appeal to particular narrative conventions is to impose a mistaken modern conceptual framework on the texts involved. A better and more complex grasp of Hebraic narrative is a necessary first step to understanding these two (and many more) Book of Mormon and biblical stories.
Edward A. Freeman pointed out how cautious we must be in concluding that similarities mean plagiarism or any kind of litereary dependence. He wrote of the kings of England:
I have often thought how easily two important reigns in our own history might be dealt with in the way that I have spoken of, how easily the later reign might be judged to be a mere repetition of the former, if we knew no more of them than we know of some other parts of history. Let us suppose that the reigns of Henry the First and Henry the Second were known to us only in the same meagre way that we know the reigns of some of the ancient potentates of the East. In short and dry annals they might easily be told so as to look like the same story. Each king bears the same name; each reigns the same number of years; each comes to the crown in a way other than succession from father to son; each restores order after a time of confusion; each improves his political position by his marriage; each is hailed as a restorer of the old native kingship; each loses his eldest son; each gives his daughter Matilda to a Henry in Germany; each has a controversy with his archbishop; each wages war with France; each dies in his continental dominions; each, if our supposed meagre annals can be supposed to tell us of such points, shows himself a great lawgiver and administrator, and each, to some extent, displays the same personal qualities, good and bad. Now when we come really to study [Page 35]the two reigns, we see that the details of all these supposed points of likeness are utterly different; but I am supposing very meagre annals, such as very often are all that we can get, and, in such annals, the two tales would very likely be so told that a master of higher criticism might cast aside Henry the Second and his acts as a mere double of his grandfather and his acts. We know how very far wrong such a judgment would be; and this should make us be cautious in applying a rule which, though often very useful, is always dangerous in cases where we may get utterly wrong without knowing it.[39]
Further details on this topic are available in a paper by Alan Goff—who once more reminds us that Paul and Alma are simply examples of a much broader literary pattern: a type-scene.[40]
Old Testament
How can 1 Nephi 22:15 in the Book of Mormon quote Malachi 4:1 hundreds of years before Malachi was written:
The translation language may resemble Malachi, but the work is not attributed to Malachi
Only if we presume that the Book of Mormon is a fraud at the outset is this convincing. If we assume that it is a translation, then the use of bible language tells us merely that Joseph used biblical language.
The Book of Mormon claims to be a "translation." Joseph could choose to render similar (or identical) material using KJV language if that adequately represented the text's intent.
Joseph used entire chapters (e.g., 3 Nephi 12-14 based on biblical texts that he did not claim were quotations from original texts (even Malachi is treated this way by Jesus in 3 Nephi 24-25). This was simply how Joseph translated.
Did Joseph Smith riff off of Hebrews 7 to produce the material discussing Melchizedek in Alma 2 and 13:
Critic David P. Wright argues that
Alma chapters 12-13, traditionally dated to about 82 B.C.E., depends in part on the New Testament epistle to the Hebrews, dated by critical scholars to the last third of the first century C.E. The dependence of Alma 2꞉13 on Hebrews thus constitutes an anachronism and indicates that the chapters are a composition of Joseph Smith.[41]
Replied John Tvedtnes:
Wright contends that Alma 13꞉17-19 is a reworking of Hebrews 7꞉1-4, noting six elements shared by the two texts and appearing in the same order in both. [Ref] To his list of six, Wright adds a seventh that is pure guesswork, saying that the words 'there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards' (Alma 13꞉19) derive from the notion of no beginning of days or end of life in Hebrews 7꞉3. This is much too far-fetched.[42]
This argument is long, detailed, and hard to summarize easily. We include some highlights, with links to more detailed treatments.
John A. Tvedtnes’ review of Wright’s chapter
John Tvedtnes was one of the first to respond to Wright’s contentions in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon back in 1994. Tvedtnes argues that the parallels do not come from Joseph Smith reading Hebrews 7 but instead that both Hebrews 7 and Alma 3 share in thought from an earlier source discussing Melchizedek. Readers can find a link to his paper at the citation below.[43]
John W. Welch 1990 Book Chapter on the Melchizedek Material in Alma 3
Three years before Wright published on this topic, John W. Welch wrote a paper on the Melchizedek material in Alma 2꞉13. While not being a direct reponse to Wright, Welch provides insightful comparisons between Alma 3, Hebrews 7, Genesis 2, and extrabiblical lore about Melchizedek to elucidate how Alma interprets Genesis and frames concepts of priesthood and thus how it differs from Hebrews 7. Readers are strongly encouraged to read Welch’s paper.[44]
Book of Mormon Central KnoWhy on Alma and Melchizedek
Book of Mormon Central has written an accessible distillation and analysis of the Melchizedek material in Alma 3 that readers are encouraged to visit.
Brant A. Gardner Commentary in Second Witness
Gardner has written a commentary on Alma 2 and 13 with Wright’s argument and Tvedtnes' response in mind and offers a subtle response to both. In that commentary, "[he takes] the position that the construction of Alma’s text follows a different logic and theme than that of Hebrews. [He develops] this argument in the commentary on the individual verses [of Alma 3]."[45]
Does Helaman 12:25-26 quote John 5:29?
We must remember that the speaker in this case is Mormon, who was writing more than three centuries after Jesus Christ, and who had access to a large variety of Nephite records
And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord. [26] Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery, fulfilling the words which say: They that have done good shall have everlasting life; and they that have done evil shall have everlasting damnation. And thus it is. Amen. (Helaman 12꞉25-26)
It is claimed that the "reading" referred to is from John:
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.(John 5:29:{{{4}}})
The problem is that Helaman 12꞉26 doesn't quote John, but at best paraphrases. The issue is over the word "read" that is used to force the connection. We must remember that the speaker in this case is Mormon, who was writing more than three centuries after Jesus Christ, and who had access to a large variety of Nephite records.
For example, the following Book of Mormon verses are potential sources for these ideas:
If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of damnation....
Mormon had access to this text, and it approximates that used in Helaman quite closely. (Remember that many who criticize the Book of Mormon on this point claim that Helman is speaking pre-Jesus Christ, rather than the editor Mormon, who is post-Jesus and thus post-3 Nephi.)
For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.
Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.
"And also, what is this that Ammon said—If ye will repent ye shall be saved, and if ye will not repent, ye shall be cast off at the last day:"
While Mormon in Helaman doesn't use the "resurrection of life" and "resurrection of damnation" that is found in John, it does use the "shall be cast off" and "the last day". Now it isn't exact either, and its quite likely that it isn't a direct quote of this passage.
Another source of this teaching in the Book of Mormon comes in 2 Nephi 2, in particular in verse 26:
"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given." (2 Nephi 2꞉26)
"And they were handed down from king Benjamin, from generation to generation until they have fallen into my hands. And I, Mormon, pray to God that they may be preserved from this time henceforth. And I know that they will be preserved; for there are great things written upon them, out of which my people and their brethren shall be judged at the great and last day, according to the word of God which is written."
Other teaching from Christ's era:
Given that Mormon is writing well after Jesus' visit to the Nephites, it is also possible that he is citing another Christian text from that period—it would be logical for Jesus to teach something similar to John 5꞉29 among the Nephites, though as we have seen there were ample other pre-crucifixion texts available to the Nephites as well.
Summary
Since we have this idea present in Alma 22꞉6 (the missionary Aaron quoting Alma the Younger), it seems likely that this was an idea that was taught commonly among the Nephites. This is confirmed by the other passages cited. We can see how the passage in Helaman reflects a Nephite theology and need not be a New Testament theology introduced anachronistically.
Ultimately, the idea is not a particularly complex one, and could easily have had multiple sources or approximations. Mormon need not be even citing a particular text, but merely indicating that one can "read" this idea in a variety of Nephite texts, as demonstrated above.
Thus, the claim of plagiarism seems forced, since there are Nephite texts which more closely approximate the citation than does the gospel of John, and a precise citation is not present in any case.
KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon Summary: Many changes in the Book of Mormon occur in the KJV italicized text. What is that text for? Did Joseph focus on it during the translation?
Learn more about biblical allusions or citation in the Book of Mormon
FAIR links
Ben McGuire, "Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi," Proceedings of the 2001 FAIR Conference (August 2001). link
Sara Riley, "“Even as Moses’ Did”: The Use of the Exodus Narrative in Mosiah 11-18," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link
Online
Sidney B. Sperry, "Literary Problems in the Book of Mormon involving 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and Other New Testament Books," farms.byu.eduoff-site.
Learn More About Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon off-site.
Royal Skousen, "The History of the Book of Mormon Text: Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text" off-site.
Standford Carmack, "Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles" off-site.
Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader" off-site.
A Little Talk, Between John Robinson and his Master about Mormonism, Shewing its Origin, Absurdity, and Impiety (Bedford: W. White, 1840), 1–8. off-site
“A Short and Easy Method with the Mormonites,” Anti-Socialist Gazette (Chester) no. 8 (1 May 1842): 142. off-site
“The Book of Mormon and the Mormonites,” Athenaeum, Museum of Foreign Literature, Science and Art 42 (July 1841): 370–74. off-site
[Letter on Mormonism, 26 July 1841,] Christian Advocate and Journal (New York) 15, no. 52 (11 August 1841). off-site
“Mormonism,” New York Weekly Messenger and Young Men’s Advocate (29 April 1835). Reprinted from The Pioneer (Rock Springs, Illinois), March 1835. off-site
“Gold Bible, No. 5,” The Reflector (Palmyra, New York) 2, no. 14 (28 February 1831): 109. off-site
↑Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, The Prophet And His Progenitors For Many Generations, chapter 14
↑Nibley is responding to Wesley P. Walters, "Mormonism," Christianity Today 5/6 (19 December 1960): 8–10.
↑Nibley is quoting Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Michigan: Baker, 1955; reprinted 1978), 1:397.
↑Nibley is quoting Theodore H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 136.
↑Church News, 29 July 1961: 10, 15. Reprinted in Hugh W. Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Vol. 8 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989), 214–18. ISBN 0875791794. Wiki editors have added subheadings to this section to aid in readability and navigation. [Nibley's first edition of Since Cumorah cites such sources as R. Reitzenstein, in Nachrichter v. d. kgl. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen (1916): 362, 416, and 1917 Heft 1, pp. 130-151, and Historische Zeitschrift 116 (DATE:), pp. 189-202. A von Harnack, in Journal of Biblical Literature 50 (1931), pp. 266ff; cf. Alf. Resch, "Der Paulinismus u. die Logia Jesu," in Texte u. Untersuchungen. N. F. 13 (1904).]
↑Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: the Life of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. (New York: Vintage, 1995), 62–63.
↑For a detailed and thorough review of the literature on this topic, see: Benjamin L. McGuire, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5/1 (17 May 2013). [1–60] link and Benjamin L. McGuire, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part Two," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5/2 (24 May 2013). [61–104] link
↑Benjamin L. McGuire, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5/1 (17 May 2013): 8-9. [1–60] link; citing Everett Ferguson, “Introduction: Perspectives on Parallels,” in Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1-2
↑Benjamin L. McGuire, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5/1 (17 May 2013). [1–60] link
↑W. H.Bennett and Walter F. Adeney, A Biblical Introduction (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1899), 39; cited in {{Interpreter:McGuire:Finding Parallels Some Cautions And Criticisms Part One:2013:Short|pages=36}
↑For a few examples other examples of type-scenes in the Book of Mormon, see Richard Dilworth Rust, "Recurrence in Book of Mormon Narratives," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/1 (1994): 42-43. [39–52] link.
↑ 15.015.115.215.3Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2011), 62.
↑ 19.019.1Alan Goff, "Reduction and Enlargement: Harold Bloom's Mormons (Review of The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation by Harold Bloom)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5/1 (1993): 105. [96–108] link
↑Bennett, 39; cited in Benjamin L. McGuire, Interpreter (17 May 2013): 36-37.
↑ 24.024.124.224.324.4Nicholas J. Frederick, "Whence the Daughter of Jared:" in Illuminating the Jaredite Records, ed. Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020)
↑At the Pacific Coast meeting in 1940, ARAHA (1940): 90.
↑Hugh W. Nibley, "Sparsiones," Classical Journal 40 (1945): 541–43.
↑E.A. Wallis Budge, Chronology of Bar Hebraeus, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 1:182, "The sister of the Khalifah had a certain scribe, and Egyptian, in Syiria, and he sent and complained to her about Abu Tahir [the ruler of Syria]. . . . And because her brother always paid very great attention to her, she went and wept before him. And she received [from him] the command, and she sent [it] and killed Abu Tahir, and his head was carried to Egypt."
↑Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1988), 213.
↑Alan Goff, "The Stealing of the Daughters of the Lamanites," in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, ed. John L. Sorenson (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 67–74.
↑Alan Goff, "The Plagiary of the Daughters of the Lamanites," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 61/1 (2024). [57–96] link
↑Palmer cites 16 examples in which Alma and Paul used similar phrases in their teaching.
↑John W. Welch, John F. Hall and J. Gregory Welch, Charting the New Testament: Visual Aids for Personal Study and Teaching (Provo, Utah: FARMS and Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Texts, 2002), chart(s) 15-17. ISBN 0934893640. off-site(Permission in digital version granted for non-profit reproduction and distribution if copyright notice intact and material unaltered.)
↑ 38.038.138.238.338.438.5Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007).
↑Edward A. Freeman, The Methods of Historical Study (London: Macmillan, 1886), 138–39; cited in Benjamin L. McGuire, Interpreter (17 May 2013): 34-35.
↑Alan Goff, "Alma's Prophetic Commissioning Type Scene," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51/5 (29 April 2022). [115–164] link
↑David P. Wright, "’In Plain Terms That We Might Understand’: Joseph Smith’s Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 2꞉13" in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 165–229 (166).
↑John A. Tvedtnes, "Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994). [8–50] link
↑John W. Welch, "The Melchizedek Material in Alma 13-19," in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book/Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990), 2:248.
↑Making Life Count Ministries, Inc., "Proof the Book of Mormon Isn't True," (PDF on-line, no date), 1.
"the BOM has these same errors"
MormonThink states...
"The King James version of The Holy Bible has some translation problems with it as stated in the Articles of Faith. These translation errors occurred when the original Greek and Hebrew Bibles were translated into English. Obviously if the BOM used the Old Testament records that the Nephites brought with them from Jerusalem in 600 BC, then they would not have English translation errors made in the Middle Ages. However the BOM has these same errors."
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Some LDS apologists admit that Joseph must have used the King James Bible when bringing forth the Book of Mormon. They explain that translating was hard on Joseph, and when he recognized that parts of the golden plates were identical to the Bible, he used the Bible instead so Joseph would not have to go through the more laborious method of translating the BOM using the seer stones. This apologetic answer really sounds like they are grasping for straws to provide some sort of answer to this problem.
FairMormon commentary
The author claims that believers "admitted" something —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
Believers are characterized to be in a state of "desperation" or "despair" or "grasping at straws" —Critics wish to make it appear that believers are never on solid ground based upon facts and that any attempt to support their belief is an act of desperation or despair. Note the term "grasping for straws".
The author is making mutually exclusive claims: —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be. Although some apologists may believe that Joseph used a Bible during translation, how did he hide it as he was dictating using the stone and the hat? Did he completely and accurately memorize extensive passages from Isaiah?
Quotes to consider
Joseph's wife, Emma, would later say of the translation that he did not have a book to read from, and "[i]f he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me." - Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289–90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50–52.
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Christ's Sermon on the Mount in the BOM and the Bible are identical. Yet later on, in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, Joseph corrected many of the parts of the Sermon on the Mount. So the question is, if the sermon on the mount was not translated correctly in the Bible, why then, is it the same incorrect translation in the BOM? Why is it not corrected like Joseph later did with his Bible translation?
FairMormon commentary
The purposes of the Book of Mormon and JST translations were not identical. The LDS do not believe in one fixed, inviolate, "perfect" rendering of a scripture or doctrinal concept. The Book of Mormon likely reflects differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the commonly known Biblical manuscripts. The JST is a harmonization, expansion, commentary, and clarification of doctrinally important points. Neither is intended as "the final word" on a given concept or passage—continuing revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which members of the Church find themselves, precludes such an intent.
Critics impose their own inerrantist assumptions on LDS scriptures, but such assumptions simply do not apply to LDS doctrine or scripture.
Additional information
Relationship of the JST to the Book of Mormon—Some passages from the Bible (parts of Isaiah, for example) were included in the Book of Mormon text. However, the same passages were later revised for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Holy Bible. In some cases these passages are not rendered identically. It is claimed that if the JST was an accurate translation, it would match the supposedly more 'pure' Isaiah text possessed by the Nephites. (Link)
"View of the Hebrews was a very popular book published in New England in 1823"
MormonThink states...
"View of the Hebrews was a very popular book published in New England in 1823 which said that the American Indians are really descended from Hebrews and that they came over here to America and separated into two factions, one civilized and one wild and bloodthirsty, and that there were lots of wars between them, and finally the wild faction wiped out the civilized faction."
Source: "Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon," MormonThink.com
FairMormon Response
Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There was a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasonson June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon: "If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America..."
FairMormon commentary
OK, if you're going to lift text from the FAIR Wiki without attribution, at least address FAIR's final comment on the item as well: "It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?"
There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon:
If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.][3]
It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Early American Influences in the Book of Mormon stands in direct contradiction to the testimonies of witnesses to Joseph Smith's translation process. Translation is a generous term considering the word for word dictation method as observed by those closest to Smith. The multiple accounts of Smith's glowing stone in his hat delivering each word in order leaves little room for Smith interpreting or translating what he saw. Yet, when compared to available contemporary writing, the Book of Mormon is shown repeatedly to borrow verbiage and phrases from its time.
FairMormon commentary
So, so far we have learned on this page that the Book of Mormon was translated into 17th Century English, 19th Century English and modern English.
Why wouldn't the Book of Mormon incorporate verbiage and phrases from "its time" (presumably the 19th century)? It was a translation into 19th Century English. "Translation" is defined as "The act or process of translating, especially from one language into another." Just exactly what target language would MormonThink find acceptable?
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph Smith may simply have had help from someone else to write the Book of Mormon. Someone else may have written the BOM (or most of it) and Joseph was merely the one to deliver it to the world. There are many theories regarding this idea. They generally involve some combination of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and perhaps an author by the name of Solomon Spalding.
FairMormon commentary
The author is making mutually exclusive claims: —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be. So, now that we have spent considerable time to show how Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon himself, we are now going to spend time considering that he may not have written it at all?
MormonThink does not tell us that historians and virtually all critics abandoned the "Spalding theory" (which also involves Sidney Rigdon) more than a century ago.
The fact that there are "many theories" is not a strength--it illustrates that any explanation will do besides the one that Joseph offered, and yet the critics cannot come up with a consistent single story that fits all the evidence. So, they play bait-and-switch, offer part of one theory and then switch to another, even though the two theories are mutually incompatible.
Even MormonThink is doing that--they assure us that Joseph could easily have written the Book of Mormon, and then resort to these "many other theories."
Additional information
Rejection of the Spalding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon—Many critics of the Book of Mormon reject the Spalding theory as unworkable. If Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it? (Link)
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The Spalding theory often does not get much attention because two of the biggest critics of the LDS Church dismissed it years ago - The Tanners and Fawn Brodie. LDS apologists dismiss it similarly saying that it was refuted long ago. We think that the Tanners and Fawn Brodie did a disservice to the theory as there is some significant information that supports the theory that is worthy of further study.
FairMormon commentary
The Spalding Theory was dismissed because in order to have validity it must assume the existence of a second Spalding manuscript, despite the fact that the existing Spalding manuscript was unfinished.
It also must assume that Joseph met Sidney Rigdon well before the Book of Mormon was published, rather than afterward as has been documented.
It also must assume that Joseph and Sidney kept their collusion on the production of the Book of Mormon secret, even after Joseph and Sidney had a falling out and parted ways. Even to his death, Sidney insisted he had nothing to do with it.
That is why most critics have rejected it. There is, however, a small group of people that continue to push it, with the cited source Craig Criddle among them. Yet, the Criddle paper is deeply and embarrassingly flawed--a rebuttal was published in the same statistical journal in which the original effort appeared.[1]
Criddle's methodology is so flawed that when his methodology was used on The Federalist Papers, it found a 99% probability that Sidney Rigdon wrote them.
Criddle's methodology, when applies to his own paper, found a 99% probability that Oliver Cowdery had written their paper.
Does MormonThink really want us to accept that this is a useful method?
Quotes to consider
an authorship attribution study requires the consistent, coherent, and congruent conjunction of historical, biographical, and stylometric evidence to support the conjecture of a writer as the author of a text with disputed authorship. Such a combination of mutually supporting evidence was not set forth by Criddle and associates.32 Even as a stylometric analysis the Criddle and associates study is invalid since they made a fundamental error in their study design by considering Book of Mormon authorship to be a closed-set problem and then making the logical error of saying the results exclude any other possible authorship, when in fact the researchers had not even allowed for the possibility of other authors in their study design. The open-set possibility is sometimes called the "none of the above" possibility, and in authorship attribution studies an open set is more often the case than not.
The Criddle and associates study used the Nearest Shrunken Centroid (NSC) classification method in an attempt to find evidence in support of the Spalding-Rigdon theory. However, their study design was fundamentally flawed. Although NSC is a sound classification technique, the Criddle and associates study was an unsuitable and mistaken use of the technique. The compounding effect of at least eight major errors rendered their results utterly meaningless....[2]
The eight errors are:
Failing to Include Joseph Smith as a Candidate Author [in the Criddle method, if you don't include someone as a possible author, the method cannot detect them, and will conclude (with high probability) that someone else is the author.]
Misapplying a Closed-Set Technique for an Open-Set Problem [Criddle's method will always give the closest of those tested, but this is useless if the true author isn't included]
Confusing "Closest" to Mean "Close" [since some author must be closest, one must then determine "how close": and Rigdon wasn't close at all]
Misinterpreting Relative Probabilities as Absolute Probabilities
Ignoring a High Rate of False Classifications
Using Circular Statistical Thinking
Disregarding Statistical Problems of Homogeneity and Multiplicity
Confounding the Primary Candidate Author's Differing Writing Styles
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Dale Broadhurst has amassed a collection of various 1800s newspaper articles that report many accounts of those that support the Spalding Theory and witnesses that claimed Sidney Rigdon admitted his involvement in producing the Book of Mormon.
FairMormon commentary
Yet, Broadhurst can never find the alleged "second manuscript" nor can he find that elusive "missing link" that Joseph and Rigdon colluded to produce the Book of Mormon.
"A lost Spalding manuscript was found in Hawaii"
MormonThink states...
"A lost Spalding manuscript was found in Hawaii and LDS believers have said that puts the nail in the Spalding Theory coffin. The manuscript that was discovered was Manuscript Story, not Manuscript Found, even though it was given that name later on, perhaps as wishful thinking so the Spalding theory would die. Yet discussions have included both names over the years. So then if there was only one manuscript, then it was/is Manuscript Story, and Manuscript Found doesn't exist, unless it is indeed the second manuscript, the one which Solomon Spalding did indeed submit to a print shop in Pittsburgh. The point of contention then becomes whether that manuscript later became the basis for the Book of Mormon."
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
1. Ethan Smith - the author of A View of the Hebrews was Oliver Cowdery's minister from 1823-1828 - they both are from Poultney, VT. This is also where the book was published. 2.Solomon Spalding was also a classmate of Ethan Smith and both were graduates of the same religious college. Some people believe that both Ethan and Solomon's works are plagiarized in the Book of Mormon.
FairMormon commentary
The author is using the "spaghetti defense" —Critics cannot figure out how something happened, so they will throw every possible explanation at it that they can in the hope that one of them will "stick to the wall."
OK, this gets even better...
Ethan Smith, author of A View of the Hebrews (an entirely different Book of Mormon authorship theory) was Oliver Cowdery's minister, and Solomon Spalding was a classmate of Ethan Smith.
So, are you implying that Spalding gave Ethan Smith ideas, and that these were transferred to Cowdery?
Are you implying that Ethan Smith gave Solomon Spalding ideas?
Are you implying that it was Oliver Cowdery that actually wrote the Book of Mormon based upon ideas that he got from Spalding and/or Smith?
Wait, what happened to Sidney Rigdon in all of this?
Are you beginning to understand why intelligent critics tend to reject the Spalding Theory?
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We don't necessarily support the Spalding theory; however there is more evidence to support the theory than we initially thought. If this theory is true then it neatly answers many of the concerns that faithful members have who question the church based on other problematic issues such as the temple ceremony and Book of Abraham translation issues but still don't think that Joseph could have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own. Many people currently support the theory. It may or may not be true, but it's certainly worthy of further study. More ongoing work is currently being performed in order to try to find a link between Rigdon and Smith before the BOM was published.
FairMormon commentary
Yes, finding a link between Rigdon and Smith before the Book of Mormon is a daunting task, considering that Rigdon joined the Church after reading the Book of Mormon.
A "theory," by definition, "may or may not be true."
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It should also take into consideration the fact that Joseph Smith had years to come up with text and plot. There are tons of books, far superior in writing style and story line, that didn't take nearly as long as the Book of Mormon did to complete. It may have been dictated in 90 days but he had been working on it, if only in his head, for years. Of course if the Spalding theory has any validity to it, the translating speed is not an issue at all as he would have basically been dictating a book already written.
Author's source(s)
An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, Grant Palmer, pp 66-67.
FairMormon commentary
And your evidence supporting this is.....what? Oh, but if that doesn't work out, there's always the Spalding Theory.
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Comment: If Joseph was indeed committing a fraud, but wanted to convince his wife that he was really translating an ancient document, then that is exactly the kind of stunt that Joseph would do. He simply acted like he didn't know that Jerusalem had walls so she would think he was translating from another document and not merely making it up. OR if the BOM came from another source such as Sidney Rigdon, then he may have been genuinely surprised to read that and simply stated as such.
FairMormon commentary
So, the point here is that Joseph had to keep up the appearance that he didn't really know what he was dictating, so he threw out the question about whether or not Jerusalem had walls....or if Rigdon really wrote it, then Joseph really was surprised. OK...
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Comment: According to Oliver Cowdery, Oliver scribed the entire Book of Mormon 'save a few pages'. Emma may have only done a few pages here and there. Joseph likely memorized the pages well enough to continue where he left off or he may very well have peaked at the last page before he started again - it's not like Emma kept the pages. Joseph would have kept the pages already done, and he simply looked at them before he gave them to Emma to begin translating again. It's not that remarkable when you think about it. And if there was a curtain between them, as was commonly taught when we were growing up in the Church, then Joseph could have obviously had notes or any material he wanted to look at.
FairMormon commentary
The author is using the "spaghetti defense" —Critics cannot figure out how something happened, so they will throw every possible explanation at it that they can in the hope that one of them will "stick to the wall."
Except, don't critics believe that Joseph dictated openly using a stone and a hat? Is the curtain simply a convenient explanation this time around?
The critics are just making this up as they go, right?
If you were to examine that actual historical sources, you would discover that the curtain was likely used while Martin Harris and Emma were scribes while Joseph used the Nephite interpreters, and that after the loss of the 116 pages, the curtain was gone and Joseph dictated openly using the stone and the hat.
This means that any material dictated when the curtain was in place was likely part of the lost 116 pages. The entire Book of Mormon text dictated to Oliver appears to have been produced using the stone and the hat. So, where are all these notes and things that Joseph "likely memorized." Not one single note or page has ever turned up to support this.
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Growing up in the church we were clearly taught that there was a curtain between Joseph and Oliver Cowdery, the principle scribe for the BOM. This was done presumably so that the scribe could not see the plates. If that's the case, then the dictation isn't even an issue as Joseph could have simply read from notes or even whole papers that were already developed by him or someone else.
FairMormon commentary
Actually, the curtain was between Joseph and Martin Harris.
With Oliver, there was no curtain. Even the critics (although apparently not this one) make a big deal about Joseph sitting on the stairs or in some other location with his head in his hat dictating to Oliver right out in the open. Unless, of course, the notes were in the bottom of the hat. But, Joseph had his face in the hat, so how did he read the notes?
Sometimes its simply easier to believe in the "gift and power of God"...
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
However more recently LDS historians are supporting the idea that there was often not a curtain between Joseph and the scribe. If a curtain was used at all, it was to separate Joseph and Oliver from others in the house. LDS faithful such as Daniel Peterson are now endorsing the idea that Joseph put his face in a hat with a seer stone and dictated the BOM to a scribe when the plates were either covered or not even in the room.
FairMormon commentary
This isn't "recent" at all—the historical data has been around for a long time. It has been written about for a long time. Apparently this critic didn't pick up on that until he saw Daniel Peterson on the PBS special "The Mormons."
This goes to show you that you should learn about everything the apologist do by simply watching television.
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
When LDS faithful quote the above two questions and answers by Emma they never quote the rest of the interview by Emma. That's because Emma blatantly lies in the following questions seriously damaging her credibility. Here are other questions and her answers from that same letter:
FairMormon commentary
So, Emma claimed that Joseph sat in the open dictating using the stone and the hat, but she lied about Joseph's polygamy. Is the critic asking us to disbelieve Emma's claim about the stone in the hat?
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Comment: Emma's answers are blatant lies, as the historical record shows. Her intentions are fairly clear - she is lying in order to protect Joseph Smith's legacy. What she said in the same letter about Smith's involvement in creating the Book of Mormon is equally suspect.
Emma said this to her (and Joseph's) son, Joseph Smith III, who was president of the Reorganized Church. She had ample motive to defend the Book of Mormon to her own son who was president of a Church that she was a member of, and which also considered the Book of Mormon to be scripture.
FairMormon commentary
Historical data shows that Emma knew about Joseph's polygamy, so we know that what she said to her son during this interview is incorrect. Her reasons for doing this are not known.
However, dismissing Emma's entire interview as "blatant lies" is a very odd position for critics to take, since she clearly supports the Book of Mormon translation method of using the stone in a hat with the plates covered on a table. This translation method is corroborated by a number of other witnesses, so there is no reason to dismiss what Emma said in this case.
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Comments on Emma
Although Emma likely believed Joseph, even if she didn't, she would still have supported her husband. If she suspected that Joseph was indeed making this stuff up and she stated that to the public, Joseph's enemies surely would have taken it out on him. Emma obviously wouldn't want any harm to come to her husband, and the father of her children, regardless of the reason.
Also Emma lied when she felt it was necessary. In addition to her false claim that Smith couldn't "write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter", she also lied to her son about polygamy. She lied repeatedly to her children when asked if their father practiced polygamy. She denied it so strongly so her children would not have a tainted view of their father. Emma's lies are one of the reasons that the RLDS (Community of Christ) church was formed.
In view of the documentary record, together with the fact that Emma also testified that Joseph had no wife but her, it can be surmised that her "memory" was probably more concerned with how she wanted things to be remembered more than how they had actually happened. And of course she didn't want to be portrayed as the woman whose husband made a fool of by claiming divine right to have relations with dozens of other women while he was married to Emma.
FairMormon commentary
We will let Emma speak for herself on this one. Just because she denied polygamy does not mean you get to conveniently dismiss everything that she ever said.
Quotes to consider
Here's what Emma said in 1879:
Question. What of the truth of Mormonism?
Answer. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.
Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?
Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.
Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?
Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.
Question. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?
Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.
Question. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?
Answer. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.
Question. Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book?
Answer. Joseph Smith [and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, "your father" or "my husband"] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to anyone else.
Question. I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?
Answer. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so;
Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?
Answer. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.
Question. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?
Answer. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.[3]
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Many Latter-day Saints proclaim that the Book of Mormon is true because Joseph Smith didn't have the education and knowledge to produce such a work. They cite that no one else of Joseph's Smith comparable background ever produced anything well-beyond their apparent capabilities as Joseph did. If there are others that produced works that far exceeded their capabilities, then this would show that Joseph's experience was not unique and perhaps there are more earthly explanations for the Book of Mormon's origins.
FairMormon commentary
No, this is incorrect. Many Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph's lack of education (as described by himself and others around him) supports the story of the production of the Book of Mormon. They do not proclaim that the book is true because of this. Latter-day Saints proclaim that the book is true because they have read it and prayed about it.
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Both Mohammed and Pearl Curran were of like mental ability to Joseph Smith. Mrs. Curran had a slightly better education than Smith, although it was still not outstanding by any means. Mohammed's formal education, on the other hand, was virtually nil. He was illiterate, unlike Smith, who could read and write. (It should be noted that the claim that Mohammed was unlettered has been disputed by a number of professional historians, including some Muslim scholars).
Their lack of ability, in each case, did not seem to deter them from producing works which equal, or easily surpass, the Book of Mormon in literary style and quality. We find then that the LDS claim that Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon is without foundation. Not only has a similar feat been performed before, it has been performed better.
If the Book of Mormon is held up as proof of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling on the basis that he could not have written it, then we must grant the same status to Pearl Curran and Mohammed, on the same grounds. Anything less would amount to intellectual dishonesty.
FairMormon commentary
So, now we're back to the claim that Joseph did write it.
Joseph dictated the text in 65 working days. Mohammed dictated his over a period of approximately 23 years.
Did Mrs. Curran found a religious movement? Are her texts revered as life-changing scripture by millions? No--she claimed to channel a departed spirit, and produced material that was published. Few of the works remain in print today, and they are little read.[4]
Thus, Joseph did something which is probably unequaled in terms of the influence that it has had and the short time frame in which it occurred. It is a pity that MormonThink cannot simply admit that it is amazing--they don't have to accept that Joseph could not have written it. But, they need to quit acting as if there is nothing particularly amazing about it (except when they want to foist the whole thing on Spalding or Rigdon as the mood strikes them).
MormonThink again caricatures the LDS position--the fact that the Book of Mormon was apparently beyond Joseph's capacity is not the only argument for its divine nature--simply one of them. It supports the idea, it does not prove it. Since Mohammed and Mrs. Curran do not share the many other characteristics that Joseph's work does, it is not intellectually dishonest to come to different conclusions about them. It is, however, intellectually dishonest to misrepresent the believer's argument.
We are, however, quite happy that they realize (if only implicitly) that Joseph belongs in a very select group--the handful of people who have produced a new sacred text that has founded a major religious movement that persists to the present. That alone ought to give us pause.
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
A righteous man who was deluded could have written the Book of Mormon, not aware that he was lying. There are hundreds of examples of well-meaning (righteous) people who have produced "scriptures" which we (as LDS members) would not accept such as Mohammed, Zoroaster, Lao Tze, to mention only a few. Even well-meaning believers in Joseph Smith have produced nice-sounding scriptures. Here are a few examples:
Doesn't this throw the entire critical argument of Joseph being a con-man out the window? Which is it? Is he a liar memorizing a fake text for years and dictating it, or cribbing a text from Solomon Spalding (a second text, not the text we know about), faking up plates to pack around and trick people with, or is he delusion who believes it all real?
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Some people believe that Joseph Smith's hand was moving by some strange force like the channelers do. Now the channeling hypotheses cannot be dismissed out of hand. Joseph was trained by his father in the hermitic arts. His use of the seer stone is consistent with a long tradition stretching back to Europe. Our Thoughts: We don't give credence to any particular theory of channeling, but just state that those who "believe" (or who say that they do) are capable of complex and lengthy documents that seem to greatly exceed the normal capabilities demonstrated by the 'mediums' when not in a trance.
FairMormon commentary
The author is using the "spaghetti defense" —Critics cannot figure out how something happened, so they will throw every possible explanation at it that they can in the hope that one of them will "stick to the wall." So, just in case Joseph didn't write it, and just in case Oliver Cowdery or Sidney Rigdon didn't write it, we will throw in the possibility that the Book of Mormon simply wrote itself. That should cover every possible way of explaining the Book of Mormon without having to believe in God's hand in it.
On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Ending summary by critics. The book is clearly of purely human origin, penned by an author with a vivid imagination ....Together with the duplicity of Smith's associates Cowdery, Harris and Whitmer, their affirmation of the Book of Mormon as a part of "God's restoration of the true Church" helped attract the hundreds, than thousands who would travel with them across the Midwest to create their own religious utopia, Zion, which would evolve into the LDS Church of today.
FairMormon commentary
The author is namecalling: liars —Critics often assume or claim that LDS leaders or members are lying or dishonest. They do not consider or grant that even if they are in error, they might have made an error innocently or unintentionally. Any error (real or perceived) is evidence of lying. So, the critics just dismiss everyone as liars and move on. This is easier than dealing with what the witnesses actually said.
"unless Laban was in the habit of coming home with blood-drenched clothing"
MormonThink states...
"The only thing remarkable about the Book of Mormon is how remarkably bad it is. How much genius does it take to write about god telling Nephi to hack off Laban's head and then put on Laban's clothing to fool Laban's servants into thinking that Nephi was Laban? (A slightly intelligent writer would almost instantly see that there was a problem with this scenario, unless Laban was in the habit of coming home with blood-drenched clothing and dripping blood and gore all over the place.)"
Source: "Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon," MormonThink.com
Summary: If you would like to read all of the source quotes without wading through all of the "Critic's comments," "Apologetic rebuttals" and "Our Thoughts" sections, we present the critical web page as it would appear if only the source quotes were provided without any additional commentary. We also try to provide accurate references and direct links to the original source text rather than simply linking to other websites where you have to search for them.
↑Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M.Witten, and Craig S. Criddle, “Reassessing Authorship of the Book of Mormon Using Delta and Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23/4 (2008): 465–91.
↑G. Bruce Schaalje, Matthew Roper, and Paul Fields, "Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification to Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship (A review of "Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification" by: Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle)," Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 87–111. off-site wiki
↑Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52.
↑"The story and writings of Pearl Curran/Patience Worth are little known outside of occult circles today. Most of the writing is out of print, except for a few print on demand publishers who specialize in public domain works." - wikipedia.org (accessed 9 May 2012).
.jpeg){kind=link}
