Brant Gardner discusses his two new books: “Plates of Mormon” and “Engraven Upon Plates, Printed Upon Paper.” “Engraven” explores the 19th-century production culture of the Book of Mormon, focusing on literary devices like diphrastic kennings. “Plates of Mormon” reorganizes the Book of Mormon based on Mormon’s perspective, starting with Mosiah and using the Printer’s Manuscript. Gardner emphasizes the importance of understanding the text’s original context and challenges modern interpretations, particularly regarding skin color and cultural biases. The discussion centers on the translation of the Book of Mormon, particularly the “tight translation” model proposed by Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen. This model suggests Joseph Smith read from a seer stone, translating an existing English text rather than creating new content.
Overview of Brant Gardner’s New Books
Brant Gardner delves into the concept of diphrastic kennings, explaining their significance in Mesoamerican literature and their use in the Book of Mormon. A diphrastic kenning is a pair words that frequently go together: cats and dogs, rich and famous, gold and silver, etc. He emphasizes that gold and silver were not the primary markers of wealth, especially in Mesoamerica. Instead, precious items like jade and cacao beans were markers of wealth in Mesoamerica.
Introduction to “Plates of Mormon”
Brant Gardner introduces “Plates of Mormon,” which reformats the Book of Mormon. He has formatted the book to start with the Book of Mosiah, following the order of translation order by joseph Smith. It is a Study Book of Mormon with helpful footnotes to explain important topics not often known among the general membership. He discusses the significance of the original chapters and headers in the Book of Mormon, highlighting their role in understanding the text’s construction.
Addressing Racial Interpretations in the Book of Mormon
Rick brings up the issue of racial interpretations in the Book of Mormon, specifically the phrase “white and delightsome.” Brant Gardner explains that the phrase should not be read as a reference to skin pigmentation but rather to spiritual righteousness. Brant highlights the lack of evidence for skin pigmentation differences in the Book of Mormon and the importance of reading the text without racial biases.
Comparison with Other Study Editions
Rick asks Brant to compare his books with other study editions like Grant Hardy‘s and David Hocking‘s annotated versions. Brant Gardner explains that his study edition focuses on the text’s original form and the historical context, rather than providing commentary on the text’s meaning. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the text’s original language and the challenges of translation. He used the Printer’s Manuscript and the original chapters and headers.
Joseph Smith’s Translation Methods and Tyndale’s Influence
Stanford Carmack has explained that many of what we could call grammatical errors in the Book of Mormon may be explained by Joseph’s use of the Tyndale Bible rather than the King James Bible. Brant explains that Stanford and he have differing opinions on this topic. The discussion touches on the concept of “tight translation,” which Brant clarifies is actually “tight transmission” according to Royal Skousen. “Tight translation” is not the literal translation but rather the transmission of the text from the seer stone. There may be errors in the book because of the issue of homonyms in the text, such as “strait” and “straight,” which could be simple spelling errors. Brant argues that the argument shifts blame for grammar issues to early modern English rather than attributing them to Joseph Smith. The discussion questions whether God could have updated the language if He wanted to, suggesting that the argument undermines the understanding of the text.
Brant discusses the persistence of certain language forms, such as “they was,” which are considered incorrect but still used by native speakers. The conversation explores how the Book of Mormon attempts to mimic King James English, leading to both correct and incorrect language usage. The discussion includes examples of archaic language and grammar that were considered correct or incorrect at different times, highlighting the fluidity of language. Brant argues that the argument shifts the focus away from Joseph Smith and onto external factors. If God could translate 200 years ago, He could have updated the language to modern English.
Repetitive Resumption and Joseph Smith’s Involvement
Brant discusses the limitations of short-term memory and how they affect the translation process. Joseph Smith’s mind was present in the translation process, using oral dictation as evidence. Rick noted that Brant had similarities with William Davis‘s views on oral transmission and his book Visions in a Seer Stone. Some critics have offered up that there was written original used by Joseph Smith. Brant dismisses that idea and provides examples of repetitive resumption at the textual level, marking insertions in the Book of Mormon.
Formatting and Structuring the Book of Mormon
Brant discusses the formatting of the Book of Mormon, including the use of “and it came to pass” as paragraph markers. Brant explains the significance of chapter headings in the original Book of Mormon and doesn’t like Orson Pratt cutting up the chapters and adding verses.
Is Infant Baptism a Book of Mormon Anachronism?
Rick asked if infant baptism was an anochronism in the Book of Mormon. Brant did not think it was. He said that washing the heat off was likely confused with infant baptism.
Adam Clarke’s Commentary
Brant discusses the influence of Adam Clarke’s commentary on Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. Brant took issue with some apologists who took issue with Thomas Wayment’s research. Some have felt Wayment’s research threatening to church members, but Brant thought Thomas’s research was excellent and he didn’t have any issues with Wayment’s findings.
Brass Plates and Source Texts
Brant discusses the use of the brass plates as a source text for the Book of Mormon. He explains the differences in how Nephi and Jacob use the brass plates compared to other authors.
Lehi’s Theology and Polytheism
Rick asked if Brant was familiar with Val Larsen‘s views on Lehi’s theology and its connection to polytheism. Brant explains the concept of monotheism in ancient Israel was different from modern understandings. Brant discusses the relationship between Yahweh and Asherah, noting that Asherah was seen as Yahweh’s consort and Heavenly Mother. Brant explains that while the Israelites believed in Asherah, the Nephites worshiped Yahweh and understood the symbolic relationship between Asherah and Yahweh. The conversation touches on the difference between formal theology and popular beliefs, using Sunday school examples to illustrate how personal backgrounds influence understanding.
Nephi’s Vision and Its Interpretation
Brant elaborates on Nephi’s vision, noting that Nephi was more interested in the symbolism of the tree of life and its connection to the Mother of God. The discussion includes Nephi’s selective use of his father’s vision, focusing on his own interpretation of the tree of life. Brant transitions to Nephi’s discussion of future history and the cosmic struggle between good and evil. Brant quibbles with with Val Larsen’s terminology but sees some agreement.
Mormon’s Role in the Book of Mormon’s Structure
Brant examines Mormon’s use of names and their symbolic meaning, noting that Jaredite-looking names often indicate negative characters. The discussion includes the naming conventions used by Mormon to further his narrative. Brant speculates on the presence of book names on the large plates and their potential changes by the time of Nephi. The conversation highlights Mormon’s storytelling techniques and their impact on the Book of Mormon’s structure.
Are you familiar with Brant’s 2 new books? Do you use a Study Book of Mormon? What do you think are the strengths & weaknesses of Brant’s arguments?
Wheat & Tares 
I read Brant’s book Translating the Book of Mormon (Greg Kofford Books, 2011) when it came out. A lot of nice discussion (a good summary of orthodox and apologetic BoM translation theories) but no firm conclusions on method or technique — except of course that whatever the method, it was divinely guided, and whatever means Joseph used, he was inspired, and whatever text resulted from the project, it was an accurate translation of an authentically ancient document.
I haven’t read the new books. I’d have more interest if the conclusions weren’t so obviously predetermined. These kinds of books have a fairly narrow target audience: LDS readers who already accept those predetermined conclusions and are largely interested in a few new pieces of evidence that support them.
About skin pigmentation: “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them,” 2 Ne. 5:21. So skin does not mean skin and blackness does not mean blackness. That sort of argument undermines the author’s credibility.
I’ve really enjoy following Dan McClellan on social media for insight into biblical scholarship. He has made lots of good comments on the usage of the KJV version of the bible in our faith. When I was on my mission in Montreal over 25 years ago, I remember teaching young adults who had absolutely no familiarity with any of the flow or structure of the KJV version of the bible. Because of this, the Book of Mormon text was also very foreign and difficult to read.
Since I served a French mission, many of the members had older copies of the French translation of the Book of Mormon. During my time as a missionary, an updated French translation of the Book of Mormon arrived. But the old and new translations were still being used concurrently. There were also various French bible translations that were used by the various members of the congregation. Up until my mission, I had sincerely believed that the KJV version of the bible was the best/correct version (I think I read an Ensign article buttressing this notion pre-mission). But it was on my mission that I became much more comfortable with different bible translations. Also, learning a language with formal/familiar pronouns (especially with prayer) challenged my understanding of thee/thine/thou. When I prayed in French, I used the same language that I would use as if I were speaking to a close friend. But when I prayed in English, I reverted to very perfunctory and flowery pronouns that were never used in common parlance. It was when I was teaching a young kid who had never prayed before on my mission when I first really learned how to pray. He talked to God as if he were right in the room. There were no canned, rote phrases. It was just heartfelt, unostentatious dialogue. I realized just how distant my own prayer language made me feel when I prayed. I started to see parallels between what Christ condemned as “vain repetitions” and praying to be seen of men.
Anyway, all of this is to say that I think that if the church can translate the Book of Mormon into multiple languages, it can surely update the English version of the Book of Mormon to make it correspond to modern English dialect and remove the KJV flourishes. As an aside, I never use “thee/thine” in my own prayers now because I would never use thee/thine to talk to my own dad, nor would my son ever use thee/thine to talk to me.
I was unaware of Gardner’s new books. That said, I really don’t think much of his arguments. Emergent from the ancient Near East is all sorts of literature similar to the Bible. It makes perfect sense that the Bible emerged in the Iron Age and early Classical Period Near East. Fits a clear pattern. Contrast this with the very little amount of literature in Mesoamerica 600BC to 400AD. It looks nothing like the Book of Mormon. Why should we expect something like the Book of Mormon to appear in Mesoamerica during that time?
Jade and cacao? Ok. What does that have to do with the Book of Mormon?
I fail to understand apologist obsession with headings. Joseph Smith copied the style available in the KJV. Book of so-and-so was a clear copy from the Ketuvim in the OT.
Joseph Smith plagiarized Adam Clarke to create his translation of the Bible. He plagiarized the KJV and The Late War to create the Book of Mormon. Again. Fits a clear pattern. He was a plagiarist fan-fiction writer with a good memory and vivid imagination.
Skins is reference to skin color, full on. It was Joseph Smith’s way of explaining why Native Americans of his time had darker skin and were inferior and were dominated by Europeans. Their Laminate ancestors had fallen astray. If they “repented” and converted to Mormonism, their skin would become lighter and all white and delightsome. Don’t ask me, just ask the Mormon leaders of just a few decades ago. That’s how they interpreted it. Are the apologists of today “woke” or something and can’t call a spade a spade? Enough with the gaslighting and denial.
For once, I would like to see an apologist address a non-Mormon academic audience. Convince them of the plausibility of Christians inhabiting the pre-Columbian Americas, anywhere, any time period.
I’m having a hard time getting past the title of the post.
What in the world can you be translating?
Brad D,
There is too much in the Book of Mormon that cannot be explained by natural causes–IMO–for it to be a product of Joseph’s own mind and machinations. Now certainly, Joseph’s signature is to be found in the text–that goes without saying, IMO. But it’s a far different voice than what we read in the D&C or Pearl of Great Price. Something has to account for that difference–and while plagiarism might explain some of the difference in tone the BoM is far too complex to be nothing more than a product of the works you mention above–let alone Joseph’s own ingenuity.
If we were to do nothing more than compile the sermons of Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Abinadi, Alma, Samuel the Lamanite, Mormon, and Moroni, we would have a gold mine of precious doctrine–each taught in the unique voice of the one who delivered it! The only book on the planet that might come close to rivaling such a collection of wisdom would be the Bible–chiefly the writings of the apostles.
How does that happen? How does a lad emerge from the woods and singlehandedly produce a text that rivals and even surpasses the greatest religious texts known to humanity–especially with regard to the doctrine of Christ? And that’s not including the other texts that he produced.
PWS, the word Translation in the title is meant a little in jest. You are correct that nothing was translated. In a way, it’s like the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible in which Joseph didn’t find new scrolls but made changes anyway. That’s the idea I was going for.
The major things Brant did were 3-fold. (1) He arranged the books in translation order, so the book starts with Mosiah, goes to the end with Moroni, adds the Words of Mormon and then finishes with the Small Plates (1 Nephi thru Omni.) it gives a different feel for the book to read it in that order.
(2) He uses the unpunctuated Printer’s Manuscript and rather than accept John Gilbert’s punctuation (who had never read the book and Brant has read it many times) Brant re-punctuated it and added Hebrew poetry in the Isaiah chapters. Joseph also removed italicized words in the Bible and Brant added a blank space to emphasize that Joseph removed biblical words in the Book of Mormon. So those changes make differences in reading.
(3) Brant added footnotes to make it more of a study Book of Mormon, so there are some interesting tidbits. For example, when Joseph pronounced the word Zeniff in his New England accent, the scribe misheard and wrote Zenith. So there is info like that in the “Plates of Mormon” as well that some (like me) who would find interesting.
it’s not really a translation, but I don’t know how else to simply convey these changes he made.
Jack, the sermons of the different BOM characters are heavily lifted from different parts of the KJV. Therein lies the stylistic differences. Also, stylistic drift in Joseph Smith’s own style of composition as he moved the dictation of the work along is another reason. Yes the Book of Mormon was unique. But no one else attempted to create such a work (James Strang being an exception, but he has very few followers and was copy catting Joseph Smith). Joseph Smith was simply an extraordinary human being with memory and imagination capabilities beyond those of ordinary people. He had a special capability of tricking others around him. He was like L. Ron Hubbard or Sri Satthya Sai Baba. Few people in history have launched successful religious movements that have grown into the millions beyond their deaths and whose followers extol them as demigods. Humans can be tricked en masse. It is not easy to do this, but we see it happen across time and space.
“Joseph Smith couldn’t have possibly written this” is a very poor argument that Christians existed in the pre-Columbian Americas. I’m fact it is not at all an argument in favor of such a proposition. I counter this view by saying that there is no possible way that pre-Columbian Americans could have known about Jesus Christ. In fact there is no possible way pre-Columbian Americans who lived before Jesus’s birth could have known verbatim texts from the New Testament. Such an idea is preposterous.
Complex literary devices is bad evidence of historicity. Find me corroborative artifacts in the ground in the Americas and then perhaps I’ll change my mind.
The Book of Moses was written right after the BoM was published–and the difference between the two texts is so radical that it cannot be attributed to a drift in style–IMO.
Also, while complex literary devices may not be clear evidence of historicity, surely they must point to some mechanism at work that exceeds Joseph’s own ingenuity. There’s no evidence that he was aware of chiasmus or Hebraisms or wordplay or puns or what-have-you in the BoM–and yet the text is filled with such ancient literary artifacts.
Re: The KJV: There are a couple of things to keep in mind–first off, the BoM is not a scholarly translation. It was translated (purportedly) by inspiration–and so, theoretically at least, the text can be translated into whatever target language the Powers that Be see fit. Also, we should remember that many of the teachings in the New Testament are quotes or retellings of earlier texts–and so we don’t always know exactly when or where certain sayings or teachings or axioms originate. Plus, there’s Joseph’s own voice that needs to be taken into account. He was heavily influenced by the KJV–and so it shouldn’t be surprising that the translation would, in some measure, be filtered by that influence.
Also, I think it’s worth mentioning–as one who believes the BoM translation process to be inspired–that the obvious KJV passages in the text may have been planned. And what I mean is that the Lord intended that the early saints should easily recognize the quotes from the Bible in the BoM. He wanted that aspect of the translation to be clear–and not something that only scholars would be able recognize and then convey to the masses. The early saints were a Bible reading people–and having those quotations clearly marked would serve to present the Book of Mormon more as an expansion of the Biblical gospel than as a challenge to it.
Re: Archaeological Evidence: Give it time. There are many lines of evidence that vindicate many of the claims of the BoM–claims that were thought to be rather fanciful that are now viewed as standard.
And just for fun: http://bmaf.org/articles/mission_impossible__nibley
Jack, there is chiasmus in The Late War. Chiasmus is not significant in the least. If anything it seems there is all sorts of chiasmus inadvertantly appearing in texts all the time.
Hebraisms don’t show anything significant since we know that a lot of the Book of Mormon was lifted verbatim from a text that was, well, originally written in Hebrew. Ancient literary artifacts are in there because it is hugely plagiarized from the KJV.
I find it interesting that so many apologists explain the copious amount of KJV text in the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith (or God guiding Smith to) taking license to frame the text in some narrative that would be familiar to his audience. So you’re conceding that Smith did indeed write some of the Book of Mormon and didn’t translate it? A farm boy could do that? Joseph Smith is framed as an imbecile when convenient and a religious genius when convenient. Texas sharp shooting.
I’m happy to change my stance if archaeological evidence emerges. But I’m not going to stake my whole identity on a historical BOM without any evidence. And that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
One more thing, on the Book of Moses being stylistically “radically different”, really? I’ve read lots of different authors. I’ve seen a lot of different styles of writing. The Book of Moses reads a lot like the Book of Mormon. These claims by the apologists about stylistic variance in all these different places in Joseph Smith’s revelations and translations are nothing more than gross exaggerations and manipulations of data. According to Chris Johnson’s study comparing the Book of Mormon with some 100,000 different written works, the book reads the most like the Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, and the Doctrine and Covenants. All these are authored by Joseph Smith.
So many of silly argument that “refute” historicity have been refuted so many times that its barely worth addressing them. There are bad apologetics out there but just a few minutes listening to most critics shows just how weak most of those arguments truly are. Anyone who asserts that the BoM contains “verbatim texts” from the NT is operating in an alternative reality that doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
David, Mormonthink has a webpage detailing the many, many instances of clear influence of the KJV in the Book of Mormon entitled, “Finding the Bible in the Book of Mormon.” Many of these passages are verbatim. There entire Book of Mormon is threaded with references to the Bible, including the NT. Almost every Book of Mormon chapter contains KJV influence. Many chapters also contain The Late War influence including verbatim text.
Here are simply a few examples:
Matt. 7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
Matt. 26:41: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels
Mosiah 26:27: And then I will confess unto them that I never knew them; and they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels
Matt. 3:8: Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentanceActs 26:20: do works meet for repentanceAlma 5:54: they do bring forth works which are meet for repentanceAlma 9:30: bring forth works which are meet for repentanceAlma 12:15: bringeth forth fruit meet for repentance.Alma 13:13: bring forth fruit meet for repentance
Rom. 14:10-12: for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.Mosiah 27:31: Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God
I’m just scratching the surface.
Brad,
I don’t want to go “tit for tat” with you. But I’ve gotta clear up this particular detail: the chiasmus in the Late War is fabricated. it is cobbled together by pulling phrases together from all over the text–some of which are repeated multiple times throughout. It is nothing like Alma 36–which lengthy, concise, beautiful, and charged with profound meaning in the way it places the atonement of Christ at the center.
All of that said, I think we both know that there’s not enough clear empirical evidence to prove the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness. IMO–there’s only one way to really know that it’s true–and we both know that the book itself points the reader to the ultimate source of truth for that kind of knowledge.
Brad, there are many clear examples of intertextuality between the BoM and NT, which is quite a different claim than that the BoM contains verbatim texts from the NT. The best list of NT intertextuality is in the appendix to Wayment’s NT translation. Your claim was and is ridiculous, and your citation of examples only shows that you don’t actually understand the argument that you are failing to make.
David, the intertextuality argument turns Joseph Smith into an author/editor doesn’t it? You acknowledge that pre-Columbian Americans couldn’t have possibly known about texts that would appear in the New Testament hundreds of years later, right? You repeat ad nauseum that a farm boy couldn’t have constructed the Book of Mormon and then in the same breath claim that that farm boy spliced together all these KJV passages into the text? From memory? No, not possible at all. Joseph Smith didn’t know there were walls around Jerusalem. He couldn’t have been rusing Emma when he said that, right? He was an imbecile, right? Folks like you and the apologists don’t like owning up to the fact that the Book of Mormon is supposed to show that there were Christians and Jews in the pre-Columbian Americas and that you’re whole raison d’etre is to defend that. If that is the case and the Book of Mormon is clear evidence of this, then shout out from the rooftops. Tell other non-Mormon academics. Tell as many press outlets as you can. Stop wasting your time addressing the already believing. You won’t expand your audience because you know you’ll be laughed out of court. The only you’ll ever engage the non-Mormon scholarly audience is cryptically, through sideline issues, and through an endless display of motte-and-bailey tactics.
Roughly two thirds of everything Jesus says in the BoM is lifted directly from the NT, verbatim. Paul is quoted verbatim by Moroni, despite the fact that there’s no possible way Moroni could have read Paul.
That said, the Late War parallels are very weak and don’t indicate any real correlation between the two books.
Dear Brad,
There’s no question that we’d be laughed off the staged were we to focus our efforts on getting the non-latter-saint scholarly community to believe in the BoM. They’re looking for the kind of evidence we can’t give them–not in sufficient quantities at any rate. Even so, there were over 250,000 convert baptisms in 2024. But their belief in the Book of Mormon is built on a completely different premise that the one you’re suggesting we should use. And so the question that, perhaps, we should be asking ourselves is: are there other ways of knowing that are just as valid–if not more so–than those that are objectively verifiable?
But that’s probably a question for another thread.
Brad, again, it’s almost impossible to catalog the entire number of errors you make in one paragraph, so let’s only do a few of them. I’ve at no point made any statements about whether or not a farm boy could have constructed the BoM, let alone made them ad naseum. I have simply pointed out that your evidence for that position is laughably bad, and that you don’t understand your own arguments. Which brings us back to your truly mind numbing statement that the intertextuality argument turns JS into an author/editor. Every single word in that sentence is wrong. But let’s run with it. Since the KJV shows intertextuality with the Tyndale bible, that makes the men of King James the author/editors of the KJV, right? After all, by your so called logic they can’t possibly be translators since we have another text that shares intertextuality with their translation? I stand by my original statements: there are critics who make sophisticated arguments but most of the garbage you see from most critics (proudly trumpeting their university of reddit degrees) is worse than the dumbest apologetics, and that’s not in a way a defense of bad apologetics.
Mike Spendlove,
Clearly the KJV is used when the Savior repeats anything from the Bible. I have no problem with that–and I think there are good reasons for using the KJV in those instances. It reminds me of how Don Parry spoke of the process of translating the Great Isaiah Scroll. He said they decided to use the KJV as the background translation for anything that was not significantly different from the other sources for Isaiah. And only those passages that were obviously different (from those sources) would they translate into a more modern dialect. This–in their minds–would prevent unnecessary speculation over areas of the text that read differently because of a newer translation rather than because of differences in the original text.
I’m of the opinion that a similar thing is happening in the Book of Mormon–that is, in the way it utilizes the KJV. First–as I’ve stated above–I believe the Lord wanted the early saints to be aware of quotes from the Bible. This would lead them to view the BoM as a companion–rather than a challenge–to the Bible. And as with Parry’s experience in translating Isaiah the KJV would signal that the reader need not look for something significantly different between the BoM and the Bible–that is, when the former quotes the latter. And, of course, when there is something significantly different it is more detectable than it would be otherwise as it falls back in to the “Early Modern English” dialect.
Mormon quoting Paul: Yes he does quote him rather loosely in one verse. And it could be that Joseph filtered it during the translation process in such a that Mormon’s words ended up sounding more like Paul than they do in the original text. I’ve no problem with that so long as the original intent of Mormon’s words is preserved–which I believe it is. Or it could be that both Mormon and Paul are quoting from an earlier source to which they both had access–this idea makes the most sense to me. Or it could even be that both Mormon and Paul (and perhaps others) were inspired to speak of charity in a similar vein. Lot’s of possibilities.
David, in true apologist fashion, you engage in red herring fallacies and attempt to place the burden of proof on me. There is overwhelming evidence that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Multiple accounts say that they acted as scribes in the same room (or within earshot) while Joseph Smith dictated a text to them while looking at a stone in a hat. What does that tell us? Joseph Smith constructed the Book of Mormon. Furthermore the Book of Mormon does not reveal anything about the pre-Columbian Americas that can be corroborated by outside sources and makes the preposterous claim that Christians existed in the Americas even before Jesus, and that Jesus himself visited them after he had died. All of this is impossible. It heavily references the KJV, which would be impossible for pre-Columbian Americans to know about. My claim is not extraordinary. I have hardly any challenge convincing most people of my argument. It is only believing Mormons who are emotionally and socially invested in Mormonism who reject my argument. Intellectual believers, especially those who’ve spent considerable time defending the Book of Mormon’s historicity through academic reasoning seem to have the hardest time accepting my argument and get the most emotional, yourself included. Their academic training has enabled them to use a host of slippery defense-lawyer and conspiracy-theorist logic tricks and tactics against my argument. But alas, I won’t bite. For you guys are making the far more extraordinary argument. Therefore you bear a much, much greater burden of proof. A burden that you folks have long fallen embarrassingly short of fulfilling. Again, show me the evidence and I’ll change my mind. Until then I’ll invoke the Hitchens rule which holds that that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Sorry, one more comment. Tyndale? Um, did he claim to translate some text that no one had ever seen from some language no one had ever heard of written in a script no one has ever deciphered by looking at a stone in a hat and dictating the text to scribes? What the heck does Tyndale have to do with anything? How is he at all relevant to Joseph Smith? How is his translation of the Bible in any, way, shape, or form comparable to what Joseph Smith did? Yeah, the KJV translators used Tyndale to help them translate, because translating is hard. And? Red herring, red herring, red herring.
Brad, if possible, each of your post seems to actually get worse. Sigh. Again, let’s just try and hit a couple of points. You made the first post long before I posted and said stupid stuff you can’t support. So yes, I placed the burden of proof on you to support your own statements. I have at no point made any statement about what JS did or did not do; I’ve repeatedly stated that your position that JS simply plagarized the KJV and the Late War to create the BoM is laughably ignorant and has been debunked repeatedly and that your have been unable to offer any support for that position but have instead offered all manner of argument that is either entirely irrelevant or that doesn’t actually support the position you are trying to take. When I take time to explain why your argument doesn’t actually support the position, you fail to grasp the flaw and then do things like shout red herring, which is another phrase you don’t actually understand. For instance, the fact that you don’t understand why the existence of intertextuality in various translations undermines your argument that intertextuality proves that one party is plagirzaing the other rather than translating a different work is a problem with your ability to understand; not a red herring.
David, your whole approach is a fallacious motte-and-bailey tactic (look that up if you don’t know what it is). You live in the hard-to-defend bailey. And you know that. Your whole raison d’etre is that Joseph Smith translated an ancient text of pre-Columbian American Christians who wrote about Jesus Christ. That is the bailey. That is the hard-to-defend position. I come and storm the bailey and easily take it over. Instead of surrendering and acknowledging that your position has no evidence and can’t be defended, you disingenuously retreat to the easy-to-defend motte and say, “we were never talking about what Joseph Smith did or did not do, I was talking about how the KJV translators used the Tyndale translation and intertextuality. So neener, neener.”
The only reason that we’re even having this conversation is because your whole purpose in life is to defend the idea that Joseph Smith actually translated an ancient text from Reformed Egyptian written by pre-Columbian Christian Americans about Jesus Christ. Show me evidence that this text exists, or even plausibly existed, and that Joseph Smith actually translated it, and then we can talk intertextuality. Without evidence that Joseph Smith translated this supposed text, then the question of intertextuality is completely irrelevant. You have got a much bigger issue on your hand that you need to resolve first before intertextuality could even come into play.
In simple terms: no evidence of translation = Joseph Smith made it all up himself = plagiarism of the KJV.
It is truly staggering to watch someone simultaneously insist that “made it all up himself” equals “plagiarism” without any apparent awareness that those are actually opposites. You don’t have any interest in a good faith discussion and I don’t have any interest in defending a straw man proposition being mislabeled as a bailey. I’ll restate my premise again: there are a lot of bad apologetics out there and some critics who make sophisticated arguments but most of the garbage you see from most critics (proudly trumpeting their university of reddit degrees and referencing various logical fallacies they don’t understand while committing a truly staggering number of fallacies per post) is worse than the bad apologetics, and that’s not in a way a defense of bad apologetics.
David, oh no you got me! I admit, I’m a stupid, incompetent dumbass that you’ve been saying I am all along. Your arrogance was totally justified.
Restated: no evidence of translation = Joseph Smith made it all up (except the parts that are lifted from the KJV and The The Late War) = KJV texts in the BOM can only be explained as a result of Joseph Smith’s plagiarism, not as a result of ancient Americans writing things reminiscent of passages in the KJV that Joseph Smith then used KJV passages as a sort of shortcut to translation.
It is well nigh unto miraculous that anyone of any age, education, or era could orally dictate a 265,000-word book, publish the unedited first draft, and have it not be a colossally jumbled mess. It is also true that the Book of Mormon has inspired millions of people and is far more complex, nuanced, and sophisticated than many of its critics are willing to concede. Charges of plagiarism, other than the numerous and obvious direct lifts from the KJV, largely fall flat. You don’t have to be a believer to acknowledge that is a masterwork of genius, and if Joseph Smith wrote it, he was a genius indeed.
It is also undeniably true, however, that it is a wholly 19th Century creation, filled with 19th Century language, narrative constructs, and, most importantly, 19th Century theological ideas. It conveniently and tidily settles every raging 19th Century theological debate that was front and center in Joseph Smith’s environment, all of which are largely irrelevant today. When it continually talks about how it was written for our day in preparation for the Second Coming, it presumes that the Second Coming would happen when people were battling over things like infant baptism and anti-clericalism, which, in the age of the “nones” when organized religion itself is collapsing, seem almost quaint with nearly two centuries of hindsight.
On the truly pressing issues of our day – i.e. 2025, not 1830 – it is either muddled and misguided, as on racial issues, or completely silent, as with regard to feminist or LGBTQ issues. This is because it was written for Joseph Smith’s day, under the presumption by the time our day got here, Jesus would be here, too. If you want to claim that the people in its pages were not fictional characters but rather prophetic seers predicting the future, you have to account for why their prophetic powers did not extend to visions of any time past the Book of Mormon’s publication date.
While there are, indeed, tantalizing hints of possible ancient origins for some of its elements, the hard reality is that there is nothing demonstrably ancient about it, as well as legions of anachronisms that overwhelm the tantalizing hints and flatly contradict the possibility of it being the translation of anything that could have been written anywhere in pre-Columbian America.
There are those who are able to reconcile the idea that Joseph was a genius who made it all up with the idea that the hand of God was somehow still in it, and that God has co-opted Joseph’s obvious fraud for righteous purposes. (Personally, I go back and forth as to whether I am one of those people who can do that.) For anyone with any intellectual and moral integrity, that is the only avenue open to you.
Brad D, could you provide an example of plagiarism from The Late War? I’m quite sympathetic to many of your arguments, but based on what I’ve seen, the Late War plagiarism claim doesn’t hold up at all.
Well stated, Mike. I fully concede, Joseph Smith was a genius indeed. I also believe and respect that people can, do, and should derive inspiration from the Book of Mormon. However, after having studied the ancient Americas for many years, I simply see there being no way that ancient Americans would have written such a text.
Sorry, Mike, I didn’t catch your second comment. There are a number of interesting parallels between the Book of Mormon and The Late War available through a quick Google search. Here is one: http://wordtree.org/thelatewar/. I have reason to believe that The Late War influenced Joseph Smith and that some of its phrasing does appear in the Book of Mormon.
Yeah, I’ve seen that page. It’s really weak sauce. All it does is point out that both The Late War and the BoM mimic KJV English. There’s no reason, for instance, that Joseph Smith would have had to turn to The Late War beyond the KJV to find the phrase “and it came to pass,” for instance.
Pretty much all possible plagiarism suggested on that site is in the form of two or three word KJV phrases. There are no lengthy passages lifted from the Late War and no really consistent thematic elements between the two, other than the Late War is about a war and the BoM has a lot of war in it that isn’t narratively dependent on the Late War’s depiction thereof.
Mike Spendlove:
“On the truly pressing issues of our day – i.e. 2025, not 1830 – it is either muddled and misguided . . . or completely silent . . .”
As a 100% optimistic TBM I try to let the BoM tell me what the problems are that we should be most concerned with. And it’s my sense that those problems tend to run deeper than many of the issues we’re faced with these days. That’s to say, if we address the problems that the BoM is most concerned with then we’ll know how to deal everything else that needs to be addressed.
In this instance I find myself I agreeing with Jack in many ways. I love the scriptures in Mosiah that encourage us to help the begger. I love the scriptures in Alma that warn that giving ourselves credit for managing our lives well while blaming others for their own difficulties is an anti Christ attitude that disregards our specific blessings and tribulations that are a part of life that happens to us based on chance or the actions of others. I love the story of the Rameumpton stand where people who pat themselves on the back as being better than others are shown as unrighteous.
In many ways I sometimes wonder if the current church has gone astray of the clear path of following Christ in the BoM. Instead of focusing on these messages we create an idol of a specific type of family never mentioned in the BoM and create enemies of people with certain characteristics that are also never mentioned. We focus on temple ordinances that apply only to certain types of people while excluding others. These ordinances and different varieties of people are never mentioned in this book. We focus on building many beautiful great and spacious buildings, that we are specifically warned to avoid in the BoM in one sense. We climb our own Rameumpton stand and declare ourselves the only people who have the right religion.
I really don’t care about any of your arguments. I don’t care where the book came from. I just wish our people followed the messages in it better. I wish we took care of the poor. I wish we used our temples more clearly for the purposes of including others in God’s family instead of finding reasons and ways to exclude them.
Iws329,
I agree with much of what you say. We members of the church need to remember that the BoM is just as much a warning to the saints as is is to the world. One thing I would add to some of the elements you mention from the BoM is its stark reminder of how the Lord expects his people to receive his servants. IMO–pretty-much everything having to do with the story of the Lord’s people in the BoM hinges on that one precept.
My appreciation to you lws329 for making my effort to read these comments much more worthwhile. I was sustained mostly by my curiosity about how a post like this gets so many comments. Like all of us here, I have my own experiences with personal reading and study of the BoM, including a cursory investigation of some of the theories floated about, regarding how it fits, or doesn’t fit into origins beyond 20-something Joseph with a seerstone/hat or the fabled U&T. But the display of battling hubris in the comments upthread extinguished any impulse in me to engage.
I agree with all of your comment. It would take a familiar blind entitlement to find fault in it. As for me, it redeemed the waste of my investment in following this.