Two honest questions for Bible scholars...

[MikeWaters]

I don't need a computer to tell me that various voices in the Book of Mormon seem distinctly different. In fact, I find Nephi quite annoying.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Indy, I think you might be referring to the following article in BYU Studies:

Larsen, W., Rencher, A. and Layton, T., 1980, Who wrote the Book of Mormon?: an analysis of wordprints, BYU Studies, 20, 225-251.

However, the empirical evidence on the issue is a bit mixed. The following paper comes to largely the opposite conclusion (I have read this paper but not particularly carefully or critically):

Holmes, D. I., 1992, A Stylometric Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 155, 91-120.

There have been responses to the Holmes article as well.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't need a computer to tell me that various voices in the Book of Mormon seem distinctly different. In fact, I find Nephi quite annoying.

In my opinion, again based on no numerical data, I see a difference in the style between the small plates and the large plates. That's really the only divide I see. It is interesting to me since the small plates seem to be an ad hoc replacement of lost texts that would have been originally continuous with the large plates.

[MikeWaters]

if Joseph Smith were committing a fraud, reading directly from a text, he would have been able to reproduce it in the exact same way. No?

Martin Harris only lost the translation. Not the "original" if you believe that the BoM came from an extant modern fictional document.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

My honest opinon is:

1- It is fiction (I'm 95% certain).
2- Joseph Smith himself was probably not its author (leaves room for it to be inspired, a possibility which I doubt but am open to).
3- It has the 19th century written all over it, from infant baptism to Protestant rantings against catholicism to Native American origins (and everywhere in between).
4- Beyond this, I don't know.

I'm curious. Why do you think he didn't write it? I claim 100% certainty the Book of Mormon isn't what Joseph Smith said it was. Yet, I'm with Brodie in dismissing the traditional defense of the Book of Mormon citing Joseph's lack of education as lame and a little sad.

Clearly, Joseph's later life establishes him as a man possessing formidable skills, and he was no slouch with words; what I think he had among other things a great memory and an ability to intuitively organize what he retained and orally present it in original ways, sometimes extemporizing and even repeating verbatim long passages he learned (in addition to overarching ambition; what could be more ambitious than the founding of a religious movement?).

Throughout history we have unschooled bards like Homer and those in India and the Balkans still extant in modern times reciting orally transmitted epics sometimes exceeding biblical proportions, and of greater literary merit than the Book of Mormon, needless to say. These bards all the while embellish and improve what was handed down to them. In fact, I read something fascinating about this process a while ago--the more a bard becomes literate his powers of memorization and retention diminish. Note that Joseph even according to his own account always had a scribe.

I agree the Book of Mormon is a Hodge podge of nineteenth century lore. Later Joseph would show an impressive ability to synthesize in his mind and repeat a hodge podge of old discarded Christian heresies like Arianism, Palagianism, and Gnosticism. Where did he learn this stuff? Who knows? Maybe nowhere. I believe these heresies are natural reactions to traditional Christian theology that have tended to materialize on the fringes. As Harold Bloom has suggested, Mormonism belongs in that family of ascetic sects traditionally arising in the sticks including Islam, James the Just's Christianity, and Gnosticism, naturally repelled by Romanized/Hellenized Christianity.

For example, Catholicism holds that the godhead is one; it doesn't take really any education or a whole of imagination to wonder whether they are in fact separate, and to find instances in the New Testament where they appear seemingly as three personages. The Arian heresy and recurring schism occurred in late antiquity along a natural fault line. Joseph may well have been "inspired" by some itinerant preacher he heard during the Second Great Awakening, but he may also have coincidentally reacted to the traditional Christian idea of the godhead in the same way as did presbyter Arius fifteen hundred years before. Same with Palagianism--there's a natural inclination to find a different explanation than Catholicism's or Calvinism's dire take on original sin. Same with Gnostic ideas such as God being subordinate to natural laws, etc. We see a bard/magpie like quality in the way Joseph used his experience in free masonry to adapt the the temple ceremony.

I think that when Harold Bloom calls Joseph Smith a "religious genius" and a genuine prophet he is referring to this bard-like/magpie quality, coupled with brilliant charisma, creative imagination, and overarching ambition necessary to start a successful religious movement.

That's my theory anyway; Joseph was Homer to the nineteenth century American Anglo-Saxon underclass.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

if Joseph Smith were committing a fraud, reading directly from a text, he would have been able to reproduce it in the exact same way. No?

Martin Harris only lost the translation. Not the "original" if you believe that the BoM came from an extant modern fictional document.

I understand the reasons, at least partially why CHC might come to that conclusion, but ...

Oliver Cowdery's conduct seems to contradict any knowing fraud. Here is the Second Elder, wrongly excommunicated, who nevertheless NEVER recanted his testimonies, and came back despite shoddy treatment, poor health and no promises of anything.

You would have thought one of the detractors or witnesses would have broken ranks.

[MikeWaters]

have you finally read bloom's book or are you still basing your reasoning on reviews of the book?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I understand the reasons, at least partially why CHC might come to that conclusion, but ...

Oliver Cowdery's conduct seems to contradict any knowing fraud. Here is the Second Elder, wrongly excommunicated, who nevertheless NEVER recanted his testimonies, and came back despite shoddy treatment, poor health and no promises of anything.

You would have thought one of the detractors or witnesses would have broken ranks.

The evidence that JS was a knowing fraud seems to be extremely lacking.

That Joseph believed in what he said is the more elegant hypothesis.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

if Joseph Smith were committing a fraud, reading directly from a text, he would have been able to reproduce it in the exact same way. No?

Martin Harris only lost the translation. Not the "original" if you believe that the BoM came from an extant modern fictional document.

The counterpoint to that is if he was translating by the gift of god he would have been able to do it as well. The whole 'let's not retranslate because our enemies might change the text' never made sense to me. It would have been easy to expose their enemies for what they were if they had tried to change the text and then expose Joseph as a fraud. I think that whatever was lost, Joseph could not reproduce it. I don't see how that says yea/nay on the fraud issue though.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

The counterpoint to that is if he was translating by the gift of god he would have been able to do it as well. The whole 'let's not retranslate because our enemies might change the text' never made sense to me. It would have been easy to expose their enemies for what they were if they had tried to change the text and then expose Joseph as a fraud. I think that whatever was lost, Joseph could not reproduce it. I don't see how that says yea/nay on the fraud issue though.

why in the world do you think the fraud issue only goes one way?

even today people are claiming the BoM is a fraud due to changes over the years.

Again, what evidence is there that Joseph Smith believed himself to be a fraud?