If a book that emerged in 1830 claims to be a translation of an ancient record but has a narrative that is built around abandoned ideas that were key topics in 1830, then it is much harder to believe that book is ancient. Especially when those ideas ended up being abandoned because of a lack of evidence or even because they were shown definitively to be false. These things point to this book being an early 19th century creation. 

Regarding Native American Identity

If you told someone today that any Native Americans are actually Israelites, they'd never take you seriously. In fact it would be offensive to try to rewrite their ancestry in such a way. But in Joseph Smith's time, a book about Native Americans being lost Israelites or proposing a story of how they came here is exactly what you'd expect! Although it was eventually disproven by DNA (and abandoned for a myriad of other reasons long before that), it was very common in Joseph’s day to identify the Native Americans as “lost Israelites” who were destined to be “gathered” and Christianized.  As Josiah Priest stated in his 1833 book "American Antiquities:" 

“The opinion that the American Indians are the descendants of the lost Ten Tribes, is now a popular one, and generally believed.” (pg. 73). 

I'm trying to keep this somewhat brief but if you'd like to relatively quickly get a grasp on just how common this belief truly was, and how many books were being written about the subject at that time, you can see my post HERE. These books claimed all sorts of (bad and debunked) evidences of Hebrew beliefs and customs among the Natives (many quoting James Adair’s “History of the American Indians” for evidences), and trying to awaken people to their duty to “gather” and “Christianize” the Natives. For people of that time these ideas seemed to them to be the obvious logical conclusion due to their belief in a literal flood that would have cleared any earlier inhabitants from the land, as well as their biblical interpretations regarding “scattered Israel.”  A "literal gathering of Israel" was a hot topic of the time, and a very core recurring them

I don't need to tell most readers here that the Book of Mormon claims that Native Americans are descendants of Israelites (Lehites). More on that in a later section. For now we'll just note that Joseph Smith claimed that the angel Moroni told him "the “indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.”  He said Moroni “informed him of the aboriginal inhabitants of this country…and from whence they came.”  He said Moroni told him directly that the Book of Mormon gave an account of “the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from which they sprang” (see Joseph’s Diary / Wentworth Letter / JS History).

All of this points to the Book of Mormon being a product of that time period. But there's more. 

Regarding Native American History (The "Moundbuilder Myth")

In Joseph’s day it was also considered “common knowledge” that the current Native Americans (supposedly more “savage,” “lazy,” and “dumb") must have completely exterminated some other more civilized (and most also believed more “white”) group of Native Americans. Why? Well, basically just because their racism led them to believe that the Native Americans they were seeing could not have built the impressive “Indian Mounds” and other complex works being discovered in various parts of the Americas. Thus, they proposed that there must have been a lost group of people (The Moundbuilders) who had been wiped out. Again, I’m trying to keep this post brief, but if you want to truly begin to appreciate this issue I highly recommend seeing my post HERE to get a feel for just how prevalent these ideas were, and how they tie in with the Book of Mormon. As an introduction I’ll provide just two examples here that are representative of the commonly expressed viewpoint:

In the 1816 Philadelphia Port Folio (a magazine) John P. Campbell noted:

“It is a very general opinion, prevailing in the western country, that there is ample proof that the country in general was once inhabited by a civilized and agricultural people… Again, it is the current opinion, that the first inhabitants of the western country were white people, and therefore cannot be denominated Indians…. It is hence not indispensable that the Aborigines should be a white people, strictly speaking, in order to account for their improvements, or their knowledge of the arts. The Indians universally disclaim these ancient works and monuments… and allege that they were erected by white people.”

As John Yates and Joseph Moulton put it in their 1824 book “History of the State of New York”:

“An exterminating war appears to have taken place between the barbarous natives… and their more refined and civilized neighbors, ending in nearly the total destruction of the latter.”

Of course, the “Mound Builder Myth” of a “lost race” was debunked by about 1890 when archeologists found that it was in fact the Indians who had built the Indian Mounds.  It was about that time when John Wesley Powell wrote a piece called “The Indians Are The Moundbuilders.”  But of course this false “common knowledge” of Joseph’s time fits quite nicely with the concepts of the Nephites and Lamanites! A more civilized (and more white) group who was completely wiped out through long wars with a less civilized group. It is notable that Joseph once equated the Nephites with the "Moundbuilders," stating in a letter to Emma that he was…

“…wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord.”

But if the “Mound Builder Myth” didn’t spell out the foundational (but false) concepts of the Book of Mormon clearly enough, a popular book by Oliver Cowdery’s own pastor does it more explicitly.  Ethan Smith’s book “View of the Hebrews” isn’t important because anybody was directly “plagiarizing” its words (though I do suspect that it directly “influenced” the Book of Mormon).  Rather, it is important primarily because it so aptly shows that the Book of Mormon was based on the popular (but false) ideas of the time.  Some quotes from the book…

“It is highly probable that the more civilized part of the tribes of Israel, after they settled in America, became wholly separated from the hunting and savage tribes of their brethren;  that the latter lost the knowledge of their having descended from the same family with themselves;  that the more civilized part continued for many centuries;  that tremendous wars were frequent between them and their savage brethren, till the former became extinct.”

“These partially civilized people became extinct. What account can be given of this, but that the savages extirpated them after long and dismal wars? …. No other hypothesis occurs to mind, which appears by any means so probable. The degrees of improvement, demonstrated to have existed among the authors of these works, and relics, who have ceased to exist, far exceed all that could have been furnished from the north-east of Asia, in those ancient times.  But however vindictive the savages must have been; however cruel and horrid in extirpating their more civilized brethren; yet it is a fact that there are many excellent traits in their original character.  There is in the minds of the native Americans a quality far superior to what is found in the minds of most other heathen on earth;  and such as might have been expected from the descendants of the ancient Israel of God…”

“…Israel brought into this new continent a considerable degree of civilization; and the better part of them long labored to maintain it.  But others fell into the hunting and consequent savage state;  whose barbarous hordes invaded their more civilized brethren, and eventually annihilated most of them, and all in these northern regions!” (note: the final battles in the Book of Mormon also took place in “the land Northward”)

“But the savage tribes prevailed;  and in time their savage jealousies and rage annihilated their more civilized brethren.”

“Of some of these I shall give a concise view, as additional arguments in favor of my theory, that some of the people of Israel who came into the western continent maintained some degree of civilization for a long time; but that the better part of the outcast tribes of Israel here finally became extinct, at least in North America, under the rage of  their more numerous savage brethren.”

Which of these seems more likely? 

1: The Book of Mormon is really historical, but the people in Joseph Smith's time and location just by chance happened to believe in a debunked myth that sounds an awful lot like the narrative of the Book of Mormon? Or...

2: Joseph Smith (like most others of his time) believed fully in the Moundbuilder Myth that turned out to be false, and it influenced a fictional story about Nephites and Lamanites? 

I propose that the fact that the Book of Mormon narrative so closely resembles and follows the ideas of the debunked Moundbuilder Myth suggests that the Book of Mormon is an early 19th century creation founded on false ideas. 

Regarding Native American Future And Destiny

The Book of Mormon also represents early 19th century ideas about what was supposed to happen to Native Americans going forward, and what Christians were supposed to be doing to help! Ethan Smith's book "View of the Hebrews" which I just quoted extensively from above is another perfect example of this! Interestingly, the Book of Mormon and "View of the Hebrews" have similar overarching goals and purposes. 

In summary, "View of the Hebrews" basically does the following: It starts by reviewing the historical "scattering" of the people of Israel. It then moves on to discussing how all lost or scattered Israelites are supposed to be "gathered" in accordance with God's biblical promises--including a whole section about how it must be a "literal gathering." Like the Book of Mormon, it extensively quotes Isaiah in support of those claims. It even notes Isaiah's teaching that even those on the "isles afar off" would be gathered, and specifically identifies that as the Americas. It then presents a list of evidences aimed at convincing people that the Native Americans are actually scattered Israelites. Ultimately, all of this is aimed at convincing American Christians that Native Americans are part of God's "chosen people" the Israelites, and that they therefore have a duty to help "gather" and Christianize the Native Americans in order to fulfill God's biblical promises of a literal gathering. It asks Christians to...

“Look at the origin of those degraded natives of your continent, and fly to their relief…Teach them the story of their ancestors; the economy of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob….showing them what has been done for their nation; and what is yet to be done by the God of their fathers, in the line of his promise.  Teach them their ancient history; their former blessings; their being cast away… and the promise of their return….”

Just as Joseph Smith claimed the Lamanites would be gathered and "Blossom as the Rose" (D&C 49:24), View of the Hebrews argues all throughout the book that...

“so it is to have a kind of literal fulfillment, upon a much greater scale, in the missions, which shall recover the ten tribes from the vast wilderness of America… as the wilderness of Judea in a small degree rejoiced and blossomed as the rose, when John the Baptist performed his ministry in it; so the wilderness and solitary place of our vast continent, containing the lost tribes of the house of Israel, will, on a most enlarged scale, rejoice and blossom as the rose, when the long lost tribes shall be found there and shall be gathered to Zion…. (pg 106-107).

Those who've studied the Book of Mormon will find all of this very familiar. The Book of Mormon similarly makes the gathering of Israel and promises to scattered Israelites a key recurring theme (In 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Jacob alone it is mentioned in nineteen chapter headings). The question of whether the "gathering of Israel" was to be literal or figurative was of course a highly discussed topic of the day, and the Book of Mormon of course settles that question in 1 Nephi 22:1-3. The Book of Mormon extensively quotes Isaiah regarding these issues, and it specifically claims that the Book of Mormon people (and others) are those Isaiah identifies as being "on the isles of the sea" (2 Nephi 10:20-22). 

The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants both claim repeatedly that a key purpose of the Book of Mormon is that it is supposed to come forth to the “remnant of our seed” so they’ll “be restored unto the knowledge of their forefathers,” and “know that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people of the Lord; and then shall they know and come to the knowledge of their forefathers, and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their redeemer." It says the book will come to them and they'll know that they are “descendants of the Jews. And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them...and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.” (2 Ne 30:3-6; 1 Ne 15:14; D&C 3:16-20; Alma 37:17-19) 

In summary, both books intended to help Native Americans recognize that they are actually Israelites, and both claim that they will be "gathered" and Christianized in accordance with biblical prophecies and promises. 

Conclusions

Learning the context from which something arose can help us see it in a completely different light. After I learned about the context the Book of Mormon came out of I could never see it the same way again. It struck me as clearly being a product of its time, with a narrative that was founded and built around false but extremely popular ideas of its time. In fact, the book's very self-conception seems to be founded on false but popular ideas of the time. 

Book of Mormon claims did not come out of the blue or out of a vacuum. Rather, the Book of Mormon presents us with exactly the sort of narrative that we would expect someone to create in 1830. A narrative that identifies Native Americans as Israelites, and a narrative that claims the existence of a lost "moundbuilder" race whom the current Native Americans must have killed off, and a narrative that aims to mobilize American Christians in the effort to help "gather" and Christianize them. Furthermore, the fact that these claims about Native American identity and history proved over time to be false serves to identify the Book of Mormon as being a fictional creation of the early 19th century. 

The book "View of the Hebrews" came up a lot here. Even if we assume Joseph Smith never read the book, it would still be a crucial book for Book of Mormon studies because it serves to demonstrate for us the popular ideas of that time period that put the Book of Mormon into context for us. I'd recommend it to anyone who is trying to better understand what the Book of Mormon is. Much of it is a dense and boring read, so some may prefer to explore a PDF of it where I've highlighted some of the interesting sections that could be skimmed through HERE. I've also created a summary document exploring those issues HERE if it interests anyone. Personally, after reading that book I found it hard to view the Book of Mormon as anything but a fictional product of its time. Apart from issues already noted there are some other interesting parallels between it and the Book of Mormon.

The book suggests that the Indians had a device “in resemblance of the Urim and Thummin,” which included a “breast plate.”  It references the legend of Quetzalcoatl—whom the text claims was given control of the government, teaches peace, fasting, no more sacrifices except firstfruits, and promises to come back and rule again.  It suggests evidence that the gospel had once been preached in America.  It makes multiple references to the “two sticks” in Ezekiel 37:15-17, and suggests that the lost 10 tribes (of whom the Natives were said to be a part) were the “stick of Ephraim,” and that their stick had not yet been recovered as promised. It reviews the concept of a great “apostasy”—referencing key LDS scriptures like Amos 8:11-12 and 2 Thess 2:3.  It references “the Great Spirit” more times than I could count (possibly an inspiration for the same in Alma 18, 19, and 22?).  As noted, it is extremely heavy on the theme of the prophesied “literal gathering” or “restoration” of the lost tribes in the “last days”—including those on the “isles of the sea” (see 2 Nephi 10:20).  Like other sources of the time it describes Native American fortifications very similarly to those in the Book of Mormon (walls and ditches).  In general, it recounts countless supposed “evidences” of Israelite customs imagined to be among the Native Americans.  For example, it suggests that the Natives had anointing ceremonies like that of the High Priests of Israel—where “the holy garments are put upon him, bear’s oil is poured on his head.” 

I don't think Joseph directly or willfully "plagiarized" anything during the creation of the Book of Mormon except for the King James Bible. But it certainly seems possible (perhaps very likely?) that Joseph read this book and was *influenced* by it. You decide. 

With that background (and it’s truly just a brief introduction), perhaps one is equipped to at least begin to understand why even prominent LDS leader and thinker BH Roberts said all of the following so many years ago:

“Moreover, on subjects widely discussed, and that deal in matters of widespread public interest, there is built up in the course of years, a community of knowledge of such subjects, usually referred to as ‘matters of common knowledge’ … Such ‘common knowledge’ existed throughout New England and New York in relation to American Indian origins and cultures… and a person of vivid and constructive imaginative power in contact with it, there is little room for doubt that it might be possible for Joseph Smith to construct a theory of origin for his Book of Mormon in harmony with these prevailing notions; and more especially since this ‘common knowledge’ is set forth in almost handbook form in the little work of Ethan Smith … It will appear in what is to follow that such ‘common knowledge’ did exist in New England, that Joseph Smith was in contact with it; that one book, at least, with which he was most likely acquainted, could well have furnished structural outlines for the Book of Mormon; and that Joseph Smith was possessed of such creative imaginative powers as would make it quite within the lines of possibility that the Book of Mormon could have been produced in that way.” (Studies of the Book of Mormon, pages 152-54):

“Did Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon?  It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or a half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith’s story of the Book of Mormon’s origin.” (Studies of the Book of Mormon, pg. 240)

“The material in Ethan Smith’s book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon… Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and suggestive contact be merely coincidence?” (pg 242)

If it interests anyone I've created a document that extensively explores how reading this book affected LDS leader BH Roberts views of the Book of Mormon. It can be found HERE.

The only way that DNA isn’t an insurmountable problem for the Book of Mormon is if we reinterpret the book in a fundamentally different way than it was originally interpreted by the church and its founders. You don’t have to be a geneticist to understand this, and LDS apologists/geneticists do not argue that point. And for this reason, this re-interpretation is exactly what has been attempted in recent decades (more details on this in a moment) in order to maintain a position of historical plausibility.

Here is the problem (which I will articulate in this section): Re-interpreting the text in these needed ways is simply not feasible because doing so runs contrary to what the text itself claims. It also runs contrary to what Joseph Smith says the angel Moroni himself told him about the book (a revelatory claim). And it also requires us to say that Joseph Smith himself misunderstood the book’s claims (hard to swallow considering that Joseph was said to have such an intimate revelatory knowledge of these people that he could go on for hours about them and their way of life).

What is this major re-interpretation that has been required?

The Original Views And Revelatory Claims:

Although now scientifically known to be impossible, the original belief and teaching of the church and its founders was that Israelites (the “Lehites” in the Book of Mormon) were the “principal ancestors” of the Native Americans. In fact, this was stated in the Book of Mormon’s introduction until 2006 when DNA evidence caused the church to quietly change this wording to say “among the ancestors” instead. But the original belief was very clearly that Native Americans were lost Israelites whose genetic ancestry was at least “principally” (if not entirely) Israelite. The original belief was also that the Book of Mormon events took place all over most of North and South America (often called a “hemispheric Book of Mormon geography”). Countless indicators show that this was the position held by the church’s founders and by Joseph Smith himself.

Joseph Smith not only clearly believed these things to be the case, he also attributed them to revelation given to him by an angel who appeared to him. He said the angel Moroni appeared to him and told him directly that the “indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.”  He said Moroni “informed him of the aboriginal inhabitants of this country…and from whence they came.”  He said Moroni told him directly that the Book of Mormon gave an account of “the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from which they sprang” (see Joseph’s Diary / Wentworth Letter / JS History).

I would say that to any reasonable person these quotes (especially the latter two) clearly indicate that Native American ancestry was supposed to be “principally” Israelite. There are also indicators that he believed the Book of Mormon events and people spanned North and South America (hemispheric). Such as when he wrote Emma a letter and told her he was “…wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord.” Or we also have two manuscript sources that indicate that Joseph identified the Lehite’s landing in Chile (with good reasons to view them as being considered “revelation” but at very least Joseph’s own views. See Dan Vogel’s great work HERE). There is also the incident where he identified a Native American skeleton as a Lamanite named "Zelph." 

A quote from Oliver Cowdery similarly indicates the original view of the church and it’s founding members. On Nov 18, 1830 an Ohio Newspaper reported Oliver teaching in a public address that the Lehites “landed on the coast of Chili 600 years before the coming of Christ, and from them descended all the Indians of America.” (S.A., “The Golden Bible, or, Campbellism Improved,” Observer and Telegraph (Hudson, OH) 1 (18 Nov. 1830): [1])

The New Views and Interpretations:

At this point the defense of the book’s historicity depends on arguing essentially the exact opposite of what was originally claimed.  It is now argued that the Lehites were such a tiny group entering into such a massive existing population of Natives that we really shouldn’t expect to find any DNA evidence of their existence. The Lehites were not the Native American’s “principal ancestors” as the book’s introduction claimed until 2006, but were simply “among them.” But to state it more plainly, the book’s historicity is now defended by saying that any Lamanite ancestry that Native Americans have is admittedly so minuscule that we can’t even expect to trace any of it genetically. And on top of that, because a “hemispheric geography” is not scientifically or archeologically defensible it is now generally argued that the Book of Mormon took place only in a very “limited geography.” (the most common view being that it took place entirely in a region of Mesoamerica–which necessitated the invention of a “two cumorah theory” claiming Moroni carried the 50-75 pound plates all the way to New York from Mesoamerica). 

We’ve already seen that in order to adopt these new and drastically different views and interpretations of the Book of Mormon we have to say that Joseph Smith himself had a fundamentally flawed view of what the Book of Mormon teaches and claims about Native American origins and genetic ancestry. And we even have to say that his revelatory claim of what he reports the angel Moroni told him was incorrect. But what about the Book of Mormon text itself? Does it even allow us to approach it honestly and still make these drastic re-interpretations? Does it allow us to claim that the Lehites were just a tiny group among millions of pre-existing non-Israelite natives? I will argue here that it clearly does not.

Textual Problems With These New Interpretations:

The Book of Mormon and the D&C both repeatedly claim that the Book of Mormon is supposed to come forth to the “remnant of our seed” so they’ll “be restored unto the knowledge of their forefathers,” and “know that they are of the house of Israel,” and know that they are “descendants of the Jews.”  It says they are a “remnant of the house of Joseph.” It says “so that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers.” (2 Ne 30:3-6; 1 Ne 15:14; D&C 3:16-20)

I think it’s a tough case to make that these verses can reasonably refer to people whose Lehite ancestry is admittedly so minuscule as to be untraceable.  For me the implication that they are supposed to be the “principal ancestors” is clear.  And even if there was a time in the Book of Mormon when “Lamanite” could refer to anyone who wasn’t politically a Nephite, it doesn’t change the fact that these verses have very clear genetic or ancestral implications.

The book suggests that the flood wiped everyone out just 4,000 years ago, and that the land was then preserved only for those who would serve God (Ether 13:2).  Given that Native American origins trace back about 15,000 years, it’s a problem if they’re wiped out 4000 years ago. One could argue an ancient writer just incorrectly bought into the myth as being literal—but it is worth noting that the writer seems to have thought there was nobody else here when the Jaredites arrived.

The book tells us that this land was preserved and consecrated as a sort of private resort only for Lehi’s family, and others who were “led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.” It clearly states that “there shall none come into this land save they be brought by the hand of the Lord.” It states that “this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.” It states that “they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they keep his commandments… there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance, and they shall dwell safely forever.” See 2 Nephi 1:5-9. I suggest that it simply doesn’t make sense to say all these things if this land is already covered from North to South by numerous existing nations who’d begun settling the land 15,000 years ago. The text indicates that the Americas were a special place preserved and kept specifically by God only for his “chosen people” whom he brought there.

It’s worth noting that the Book of Mormon doesn’t mention any encounters with these huge populations of existing natives that would have to have been here.  In fact, oddly enough, both times they DO encounter outside groups they actually turn out to be other Christians/Israelites (Jaredites/Mulekites)!!!  Honestly, what are the odds?  When both groups encountered happen to share their faith, it certainly seems to suggest that the America’s were supposed to be inhabited “principally” by these groups whom God brought here, and not by people whose genome is essentially all traced back to Asians who came 15,000 years ago–and who certainly were not Christians/Israelites.

Finally, there is the issue of the prophecies of the Book of Mormon not being fulfilled. I mean it’s absolutely fair to ask: Who are the “Lamanites” the book is going to today?  Where are these people whom the book prophesied would “be restored unto the knowledge of their forefathers,” and “know that they are of the house of Israel,” and know that they are “descendants of the Jews”?  “Blossoming as a rose?”  I mean that was the core stated purpose of the book! It’s supposed to come forth to modern Native Americans who are supposed to recognize their true heritage and be gathered back into the Christian fold. Are we proposing it’s okay to call all Native Americans Israelites or Lamanites on the imagined premise that they have some tiny bit of Lamanite ancestry that is admittedly so minuscule that it can’t be traced?  Can we reasonably say that anyone is coming to the “knowledge of their forefathers” if we now say that any Lehite ancestry they have is so tiny as to be untraceable? I propose that it is highly inappropriate to try to rebrand Native American origins and ancestry and heritage in this way.

In my view, it is a very steep uphill battle to try to square the newly required interpretations of the Book of Mormon with the claims of the book itself, and with some of Joseph’s own beliefs and revelatory claims.

The field of “source criticism” deals with looking at the evidence that an author was utilizing or in some way depending on another text during creation of their own text.  For example, there are many clear indicators that the authors of Matthew and Luke utilized the earlier gospel of Mark while creating their own gospels, and thus were later creations.  If powerful evidence exists that the creator of the Book of Mormon (or Book of Abraham) was utilizing texts that didn’t exist when the Book of Mormon is supposed to have been written, this could be problematic and could indicate a 19th century creation.  Obviously the strength of each particular example will vary.  Although we have accounts that Joseph simply read word for word what was shown him on a stone in a hat, some apologists suggest that at least some of these challenges can be accounted for by suggesting a “loose translation” or “expansion” process of translation (for example, saying that exact New Testament phrasing was borrowed if a reasonably similar message was expressed on the plate text).  But even if this view is taken, it cannot account for all problems—some of which run much deeper.  We’ll note just a few significant examples here:

The Deutero-Isaiah Problem

The Book of Mormon includes much of the book of Isaiah with the claim that it was on the “brass plates” that were in the possession of the Lehites.  It extensively quotes chapters from Isaiah 1-14, and Isaiah 48-53.  The trouble is that chapters 48-53 would not have existed yet at the time the Lehites left Jerusalem.  Scholar David Bokovoy—apparently frustrated by LDS apologists whom he felt were drastically misrepresenting and understating the power of the evidence on the issue—said the following:  “Since the 20th century, all mainstream scholars have held the position that chapters 40-66 were written after the Jewish exile into Babylon (c.a. 586 BCE).”  He added that he finds “the evidence that Isaiah 40-55 is exilic material written by later authors rather than the historical Isaiah irrefutable” (see HERE).  Of course, the creator of the Book of Mormon could not have known this at the time, but the use of Deutero-Isaiah serves as a strong data point suggesting modern creation.

Presence of 1769 KJV Bible Translation Errors, And Biblical Commentary Usage

A related issue is that many Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon contain the same translation errors that were in the 1769 KJV Bible—indicating that even though many have assumed or claimed that these Isaiah chapters reflect a more ancient and more accurate version of Isaiah, they were actually just a modern reworking of the 1769 KJV chapters.  In fact, given that it has been demonstrated that Joseph used Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary while doing his Bible translation (study at BYU and more discussion HERE), it is very possible that some of the interesting differences between Book of Mormon chapters and KJV chapters came about through consultation of biblical commentaries or family bible footnotes.  I hope more exploration will be done on this issue but in my document HERE I’ve noted some strong possibilities in this regard.

All of Joseph’s revealed scripture is dependent on the KJV version of the Bible (Moses, Abraham, and the Book of Mormon). For further information regarding the extent of the “intertextuality” of the Book of Mormon and the KJV Bible a good starting point from a faithful perspective is found in Nick Frederick’s work HERE.

Nephi's Vision of John The Apostle Writing Revelation Even Though He Didn't Write It

The Book of Mormon gives a detailed narrative where Nephi describes a vision he is given of John the Apostle writing the book of Revelation (1 Ne 14:20-27).  Of course, in Joseph’s day it it would have been assumed that it was John the apostle who wrote Revelation, but this is now thoroughly rejected by biblical scholars.  This suggests that this narrative of this vision was a fabrication by the creator of the Book of Mormon. And if a narrative like this was invented, it is fair to ask what else was invented, and to take note of the creativity that is at play.

3 Nephi 12-14 An Obvious (And In Some Ways Clumsy) Reworking of Matthew 5

3 Nephi contains a rather obvious and intentional reworking of Matthew 5.  Most of it is taken word for word from the KJV.  So from the start this text asks us to believe that the Sermon on the Mount was a cohesive sermon recorded accurately almost word for word by an early follower of Jesus even though scholars suggest Matt 5 likely began as a collection of remembered “sayings” of Jesus, which were only later arranged into a cohesive sermon.  But setting all that aside, it’s interesting to observe how 3 Nephi makes the rather obvious needed edits to Matthew 5 (e.g. changing “farthing” to “senine,” and removing references to Scribes, Pharisees, Publicans, and to “swearing by Jerusalem”).  But the Book of Mormon author failed to edit out some other less obvious references that were specific to the “Old World,” and wouldn’t have made sense to a Nephite.  For example, Jesus’ reference to “go with him twain” was specifically referencing an issue faced by Jews wherein a Roman soldier could force them to carry their things for one mile.  Or in 3 Nephi 12:22 the term “raca” is used even though it is an Aramaic term (not Hebrew or Egyptian), and even though it was a term that only had meaning in first century Jerusalem (being used to refer to someone “being in danger of the council”—or the judgement of the Sanhedrin.  It is hard to believe Jesus’ message wasn’t more personalized, and when all evidence is considered, I don’t think it can be denied that the 3 Nephi shows direct literary dependance on Matthew 5, which was intentionally reworked during the creation of the Book of Mormon.  Further exploration of the issue HERE.  Side by side comparison of the texts HERE.

Moroni Quotes Part of the Gospel of Mark That Wasn't Even Originally In The Gospel of Mark

Mormon 9:22-24 quotes Mark 16:15-18 almost word for word even though scholars broadly agree that it wasn’t even originally in Mark.  

Lots of New Testament Verses Quoted Word For Word In Perfect KJV Form Despite Not Even Existing Yet

Examples: Matthew 3:10 and Alma 5:52; Corinthians 15:53 and Mosiah 16:10; Romans 8:6 and 2 Nephi 9:39; Corinthians 15:58 and Mosiah 15:15; Corinthians 11:29 and 3 Nephi 18:29).

Alma 12 and Alma 13 Being Clearly Inspired By Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 7 

In some cases the text is not quoting whole verses as we see in the examples in the previous section, but Book of Mormon narratives are clearly coming about as a result of “expounding” on or borrowing from New Testament verses and concepts that wouldn't have existed yet.  Sometimes it is just a borrowed phrase peppered into the narrative here or there, but in other cases it is more involved and extensive.  

Consider as an example my document HERE that shows side by side comparisons of some parts of Hebrews 3 and Alma 12, and Hebrews 7 and Alma 13.  Did an ancient American prophet truly share essentially the same message with so much of the same wording as the writer of Hebrews?  At a minimum this suggests that the translation was a very “loose” process, and not something that closely reflected the actual words of these ancient American prophets.  But even if we take a “loose translation” approach, one can’t help wondering how much the original message given by these ancient people could have truly resembled that which we now have in the Book of Mormon.  In my view this suggests the translation was a creative process often drawing on biblical passages for inspiration and content.  Further analysis of this particular example can be found HERE and HERE.

Although this section doesn’t deal directly with the text as the previous sections do, the text can’t be divorced from the circumstances of its emergence, or the people involved in its emergence.  I would suggest that it is due to “presentism” that many believers can’t fathom how the witnesses could have made the statements they did if these things were not real. When we understand the culture and environment that all of this evolved from we find many answers and puzzle pieces presenting themselves to us.

CHARISMATIC CHRISTIANITY

First, this was a time of “Charismatic Christianity.”  Claims of visions, dreams, and other dramatic spiritual manifestations were a dime a dozen.  I’ll give just three examples to try to convey what sort of environment we’re dealing with.  First, consider how common it was to claim experiences like Joseph’s “first vision.”  I highly recommend skimming through the examples HERE to gain some perspective.  Second, consider the witness of eight Quaker women who all claimed to have seen an angel standing on a house holding their sacred book (HERE).  Third, consider the story of James Strang.  After Joseph Smith died Strang had little trouble convincing most of the Smith family, several apostles, John and David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Hiram Page, and about 12,000 others that he’d been called and ordained by an angel, and translated multiple ancient records from metal plates. 

This raises many questions.  If so many people at this time period claimed “visions” of God or angels, and yet so few people today claim such things, shouldn’t this give us reason to believe that there was some cultural difference that accounts for this?  Shouldn’t it suggest to us to that a “vision” to these people may have constituted something different than what people today might assume?  Perhaps at this time when “second sight” (more on this later) was part of their culture, a vision could often be something as simple as imagining something in the mind in a sort of dissociative or meditative state?  Perhaps many people of this time assigned significant meaning to such things even though people today wouldn’t be so impressed?  In any case, the fact that these types of experiences were so uniquely common at this time period understandably causes many to question their legitimacy.

TREASURE DIGGING, FOLK MAGIC, AND SECOND SIGHT

Although becoming increasingly controversial and soon beginning to fade, the early history of the church occurred at a time when the very unique “treasure digging” and “folk magic” cultures still thrived among certain portions of the population.  I don’t think anyone can be blamed for feeling that it was no coincidence that Joseph, his family, and every one of the “witnesses” all happen to have been heavily involved with the controversial “treasure digging” and “folk magic” cultures of the day.  My experience was that it was easy to dismiss the significance of these things until I really learned more about them and their connections to the early history.  Many are under the impression that the primary concern surrounding these issues is the “weirdness” of it all.  For example, the “weirdness” of translating from a seer stone.  Whether or not believers ultimately find these things concerning, there are many elephants in the room with implications that go far beyond “weirdness.”  These elephants need to be acknowledged, but let’s first introduce the basic culture and practices in question:  

Many at the time would seek after fabled treasures of various kinds that were believed to have been lost by Native Americans, Spaniards, Pirates, etc.  However, folk magic traditions were heavily involved.  Various individuals or “community seers” would claim to know the location of such things as a result of dreams.  Others claimed to have the gift of “second sight” whereby they could see treasures or lost objects in “peep stones” or “seer stones” (a form of “glass looking” or “scrying”)—usually with the stone placed into a hat.  Astrology was often consulted when planning the timing of such excursions, as many of the treasures would only be accessible during various astrological events (equinoxes, etc).  They believed in and often claimed to encounter mystical “treasure guardians” of various kinds (deceased Native Americans, Pirates etc).  They believed that special instructions had to be carefully followed to “circumvent” the treasure guardians and obtain the treasure (they might draw circles around the treasure to break the enchantment, or sacrifice an animal, or recite necessary incantations).  But if any mistakes were made, or if they were somehow outsmarted by the treasure guardians (for example, if the treasure guardian tricked them into breaking the required silence), then the treasure would spontaneously move out of reach or sink further into the earth.  For more info about these issues see HERE or you might enjoy hearing Benjamin Franklin's account of this odd craze of the time HERE.  With that very brief background, let's acknowledge the many elephants in the room.  First those regarding Joseph Smith, and then those regarding the Witnesses. 

RED FLAGS SURROUNDING JOSEPH SMITH

The first “elephant in the room” that we must acknowledge is that the role Joseph played in these matters raises perfectly reasonable questions regarding his honesty and integrity.  It is one thing to be a participant in such things, or to be convinced by or playing along with others who claim a much more intimate connection to them.  It is quite another thing to be the guy who is leading these things, and claiming special knowledge and visions of them.  Despite his official 1838 history leaving most with the false impression that the treasure digging “stories” arose from a one time event where he was basically a hired shovel for Josiah Stowell, loads of evidence suggests that Joseph functioned as a community “treasure seer” and “finder of lost objects” for at least three years.  There are numerous accounts of the Smith’s involvement with such things (See HERE or HERE).  So the question must be asked.  Doesn’t it seem to imply willful dishonesty on Joseph’s part when he claims to see lost objects or treasures in his stone?  If not dishonesty, then at least a much more significant degree of delusion than that which was demonstrated by other participants?  It is fair to ask, do you believe he could actually see lost objects or treasures in his stone?  Since it is the most prominent and best documented case, lets take the Stowell situation as an example (we not only have eyewitness statements, but also a court record regarding the ordeal).  Emma Smith’s brother stated that “Joe Smith never handled one shovel full of earth in those diggings. All that Smith did was to peep with stone and hat, and give directions where and how to dig, and when and where the enchantment moved the treasure.”  So I ask, did this enchanted treasure truly exist?  If not, why was Joseph claiming to be able to see it in his peep stone?  Can people be blamed for feeling this suggests a history of willful dishonesty, fanciful claims, and perhaps even “con” behavior?  If a man seems to have history of convincing people to believe he sees things that are not real, then doesn’t this create understandable reasons to doubt his other incredible claims?  Especially when we have other examples of brazen dishonesty, like when he aggressively denied having more than one wife?  And when we have strong evidences that his narratives changed and developed over time as he needed them to (like the first vision narrative, or discrepancies in his canonized history). 

The second “elephant in the room” where Joseph is concerned is that the these issues are intimately tied in with the early narratives of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  It is one thing for Joseph and others to have believed in “weird” or unfounded disciplines of the time such as “water witching” or “astrology.”  No big deal.  Humans, amirite?  But can we admit that it’s quite another situation when people who happen to have a history of claiming to see enchanted “treasures” just happen to be making claims about “gold plates?”  There is an obvious (but rarely acknowledged) “tie in” here that makes this much more significant than just “weirdness."  Especially because the early historical narratives and accounts (not the later 1838 official history that is very much cleaned up) surrounding the coming forth of this book contain many strong and direct connections with treasure digging culture!  Consider the following:

The angel Moroni fits the “treasure guardian” concept a bit too well.  Treasure digs often began with seers claiming dreams coming in sets of three, and Joseph was visited by this “messenger” 3 times.  Astrology was a core part of treasure digging, with the best time for digs being full moons, especially at various events such as equinoxes.  Joseph’s claimed 1823 encounter with this messenger occurred on a full moon just prior to the autumnal equinox—and each yearly meeting with the messenger occurred at the equinox.  Just as treasure diggers had to precisely follow a particular set of instructions to bypass a treasure guardian and obtain a treasure, early accounts give various seemingly arbitrary reasons that Joseph wasn’t yet able to obtain the gold plates each year for 4 years.  For example, one recurring problem was that he had to bring with him the right person, but apparently wasn’t certain who it was—almost like a riddle he had to solve (more HERE).  In one case Joseph makes the mistake of setting the plates down in order to close the stone box, and the plates suddenly disappeared and were moved back in the box (moving treasures were a common theme of treasure digging).  He then tried again to get them from the box but the treasure guardian knocked him on his back—telling him that he hadn’t followed instructions to not let the plates out of his hands (attacks by treasure guardians were a common theme in treasure digging).  When Joseph did finally claim to have succeeded in obtaining the plates it was in the middle of the night—which was consistent with treasure digging practices.  Unusual hills were common targets for treasure diggers, and the Hill Cumorah (a glacial drumlin) had been a treasure digging target both before and after Joseph obtained the plates.  Consistent with treasure digging lore, Palmyra neighbors claimed that the Smith family spoke of large gold bars and silver plates hidden within caverns in the prehistoric man made mounds in the area, and Brigham Young claims that Oliver Cowdery told him a story of seeing a cave of this kind in the Hill Cumorah with Joseph (HERE).  6 years later when the “translation” occurs, Joseph translates using the same technique he used to tell people of imaginary treasures in the earth (peep stone in a hat). 

For a more full review of the connections between the early narratives about the coming forth of this book, and the treasure digging culture of the time, see HERE or HERE.  Can one be blamed for wondering if any of this was any more real than the enchanted treasures these folks claimed to see?  I find it absurd and even disrespectful when people so commonly act as if this is just about people being concerned about Joseph’s involvement with “weird” things.  It is far more foundational than that.

ACCOUNTING FOR THE EXPERIENCES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES

First, if Joseph and all of the “witnesses” who testified of the reality of the gold plates just happen to have been deeply involved in practices wherein it was normal and common to either believe in or claim to see things that clearly didn’t exist (sinking treasures, treasure guardians, etc), then I propose it is natural for people to be more skeptical about the reality of the gold plates (especially in a situation where nobody else was allowed to see them except this select group of people who ALL happen to have been involved in those practices, and almost all of whom came from the Smith or Whitmer families).

Second, if treasure diggers believed in a concept of “second sight” where seeing or experiencing something only in one’s “minds eye” or with “spiritual eyes” could be considered to be very real, then isn’t it reasonable for people to wonder if the gold plates were only seen and experienced by the witnesses in the same sense that Joseph would experience imagined treasures while looking at a stone in a hat?  Although this proposal may seem crazy to believers given that some accounts from Book of Mormon witnesses sound like very physical experiences, consider the following before discounting the possibility… 

THE THREE WITNESSES

It isn’t disputed that the experience of the “3 witnesses” was “visionary” in nature.  For believers that is okay, but for people who already have significant doubts weighing on them this becomes significant.  I understand the theory behind why some things may need to be seen “in vision,” but this was a physical object!  Why not just set it on the table?  Instead, they have to have “faith” to see it, and they pray until they have a visionary experience.  Very interestingly, Martin doesn’t get the vision at the same time the other two do (strongly suggesting that this is all only in the mind, and not something appearing before their eyes).  Finally, later on, he gets something that leads him to say “it is enough.”  D&C 5 is very significant here.  It suggests that Joseph feared that Martin might not be fully satisfied with the non physical nature of this witness, and might say too much to others about the nature of this witness.  Thus, D&C 5 kind of laughably tells Martin exactly what he’s allowed to say, and that he’s not allowed to say anything more! Verse 26: 

“And I the Lord command him, my servant Martin Harris, that he shall say no more unto them concerning these things, except he shall say: I have seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God; and these are the words which he shall say.” 

He then basically threatens Martin with divine condemnation if he ever denies, which seems a bit coercive. Verse 27: 

“But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” 

He also puts a lot of pressure on Martin to receive this “witness” by prophesying that if he doesn’t he will fall into transgression, and saying that if he doesn’t it is because he hasn’t been humble enough (verse 32).  That is a lot of motivation for a person to really try to force an experience of some kind even if they initially aren’t getting anything.  We also can’t overstate the importance of the fact that according to two independent witnesses, Martin did in fact one day sheepishly admit that his experience with the plates was only “in vision or imagination,” which is further qualified by saying “as a city is seen through a mountain” (see statements HERE). 

So what sort of experience do I propose that these 3 men had?  I propose it was a sort of “guided vision,” and that in this culture of “second sight” this was something they could consider to be just as real as the imaginary treasure Joseph claimed to see in his seer stone.  I propose that the history behind the revelation in D&C 76 gives us a perfect example of the sort of thing that may have occurred.  Philo Dibble gave an account of being in the room when Joseph and Sidney received the “vision” in D&C 76 (see HERE).  Dibble reports the following: 

“Joseph would, at intervals, say:  ‘What do I see?’ as one might say while looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see.  Then he would relate what he had seen or what he was looking at. Then Sidney replied, ‘I see the same.’  Presently Sidney would say ‘what do I see?’ and would repeat what he had seen or was seeing, and Joseph would reply, ‘I see the same.’” 

I propose that the experience of the 3 witnesses went similarly.  Perhaps much like he did when he acted as a treasure seer I picture Joseph describing for them a detailed picture of what he is “seeing” in his mind, and the others creating the picture in their own minds and then essentially saying “I see the same.”  For Oliver and Whitmer, this was apparently enough.  Martin seems to have been expecting something more, but finally declared “it is enough.”

THE EIGHT WITNESSES

The “eight witnesses” are generally believed to have had a very physical or non-visionary experience—but there are very good reasons to doubt this.  First, we have the multiple independent accounts of Martin Harris claiming that none of the witnesses ever saw the gold plates with their “natural eyes” but “only in vision or imagination” (which he qualifies by saying “as a city is seen through a mountain”), and claiming that the eight witnesses “hesitated to sign” the witness statement for that reason but were “persuaded to do it.”  All of this is said while Martin is still simultaneously declaring his full belief in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.  This, along with the fact that even the three witnesses (whose experience was visionary) describe their experiences in very physical sounding terms, further attests that the culture of these people allowed them describe experiences in a very real and tangible way even if seen “only in vision or imagination” (again, the accounts of Martin’s statements are HERE). 

In addition to these accounts of Harris, it’s fair to point out that if Joseph needed a group of people to sign a statement despite not having real physical gold plates, this truly was the perfect group of candidates.  Two were from Smith’s immediate family, and all the rest were from the Whitmer family—all of whom were deeply involved in the treasure digging and folk magic cultures of the time.  As Mark Twain once joked: “I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.”  Note that they didn’t write the statement themselves!  They just had to be convinced to sign their names to it (and if the multiple accounts of Martin’s statements are true, then they actually hesitated to do so).  This was a group that could have been easy enough to convince with some crudely made fake plates, but if they could claim to see imaginary occurrences during treasure digging it suggests that fake plates may not have even been necessary.  Perhaps they too were  convinced to sign such a statement simply after being walked through a sort of “guided vision”—and being part of a culture where experiencing such things in their “mind’s eye” could be interpreted by them as a very real experience.  Though this may seem very strange and unfathomable, it is no more strange or unfathomable than the “treasure digging” or “Charismatic Christianity” cultures of the time, and the things they claimed to experience in very real ways.  For more on how the witness statements can be accounted for see HERE and HERE.

It is extremely common for believers to be convinced that Joseph Smith couldn’t possibly have created the Book of Mormon himself, and this is a key reason that many feel the book must have divine origins. They sometimes demand an explanation as to how he could have done it, or challenge people to try to duplicate what he did. The issue is raised often enough that I decided I should make my thoughts available.

The truth is that I myself once adamantly felt the same way. I was thoroughly convinced that Joseph couldn’t possibly have done it, and that it was far too impressive for anyone to have done it. At this point I view the Book of Mormon as an impressive and unique accomplishment that came out of unique circumstances, but I certainly don’t believe it comes anywhere close to requiring divine intervention to explain. So what changed my mind? The short answer is that I ultimately found that I had drastically overestimated some things, and drastically underestimated others.

Some Key Overestimations:

I had severely overestimated the power of various proposed evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon as a historical record. I was mistakenly very impressed by various proposed “Hebraisms” in the text—including chiasmus—even though such things show up by chance in other modern works (addressed in next section). I was impressed by stylometry studies that supposedly showed that there had to be a number of different authors of the text, even though there are much more logical explanations for the data (see HERE). I was caught up in a sort of “paralellomania” that had me very impressed with parallels that could be drawn between the book and the geography and civilizations of Mesoamerica. But on that front there were some fundamental problems I was ignoring, and I should have been less impressed after seeing that people who proposed completely different locations for the Book of Mormon events had similarly been able to propose a lot of these same types of parallels. And finally, when I learned some complexities surrounding the Book of Mormon witness accounts and the cultural background and environment of the people involved, I found I’d been putting far too much weight on the witness accounts as well (addressed in the previous section). Generally speaking, I hadn’t really looked at the text critically. When I did, I began to have many of the same concerns that LDS leader BH Roberts had with the text (see HERE), and found it to be completely implausible as a historically based text even if it is still quite impressive in many respects when recognized as a fictional early 19th century midrash of sorts.

But other things I had severely underestimated, or even excluded completely from my analysis.

A Project of Six Years, Not 65 Days

We should not underestimate the time Joseph had to prepare for this project. People often claim the Book of Mormon was a project of 65 days. For sake of clarity, if we’re talking about the length of the time that believers call the "translation” process in which Joseph and his scribes put the words onto a manuscript, then it was actually about 15 months from the time he began the lost 116 pages to the time it was completed. After taking a break after the 116 pages were lost, the rest of the manuscript seems to have been finished in about 85 days, with a commonly given estimation that probably only 65 of those were used for actually putting words to paper. But the bigger issue we must remember is that Joseph had 6 YEARS between the time he first promised a book and the time it was “translated!”  I propose that in many ways and degrees Joseph was preparing for this project for 6 YEARS. Not 65 days. I’ll discuss some hypothetical ways he may have been preparing both before and during the dictation of this book later in this document.

A Unique Environment Prepared Joseph To Do Unique Things

We should not underestimate the way Joseph’s unique environment and circumstances molded him and prepared him to be able to do things that most of us today could not. I sometimes see kids who seem to have a seemingly impossible knowledge of subjects like sports figures or video games because they are completely absorbed in them. I imagine Joseph being the same way with religious issues. In Joseph’s time there was no TV, or sports leagues, or video games, but life revolved around religious issues! In this time of the “Great Awakening” and Revivals, high profile religious figures and ministers were the rock stars and sports icons that kids might dream of becoming. The Bible was their Harry Potter! Joseph would have grown up surrounded by biblical discussion and theological debates, both at home and at revivals. People of the time were also deeply fascinated both by the origins of the Native Americans, and the origins of the Egyptians (interesting that Joseph happens to have provided books that propose to answer both of those issues). Dan Vogel has also done great work pointing out how Joseph’s family being religiously divided may have provided him with a high degree of motivation both to explore and reconcile religious issues, and to take some of the actions that he took.

An Underestimated Intelligence

We should not underestimate Joseph’s intelligence and creative ability. I’d been sold on the simplistic and misleading narrative that Joseph was just an uneducated farm boy who couldn’t possibly have achieved this with just 3 years of education. There are a number of problems with this, and a number of issues being overlooked. First, it is fallacious to equate having little “formal education” with being uneducated. Joseph’s father was a teacher, and his three years of “formal education” were certainly not his only education. Secondly, the number of years of “formal education” one receives is not always a predictor of ones overall intelligence or creative ability. The prophet Muhammad  had no “formal education.” Abraham Lincoln had less than a year of “formal education.” Walt Whitman and Mark Twain had under five years. In Joseph Smith’s case we have his other works and publications giving us all the evidence we need of his intelligence, creative ability, resourcefulness, and ability to absorb and and then repackage information.

Playing to His Strengths—Dictating Vs Writing

We should not underestimate Joseph’s ability as a storyteller and orator. Some point out that Joseph didn’t seem to be able to write well in those early years. I think that may be true. Writing did not seem to be Joseph’s gift—at least not early on. However, that point isn’t really relevant here because writing was not the method that was used to create this book! Rather, probably for that precise reason, he found himself a scribe and instead brought the book about in a very different way that utilized unique talents that he *did* have. Joseph’s unique gift and talent was with speaking and storytelling. We know this for a number of reasons even apart from his many recorded sermons and other dictated works. His mother reports that he was honing and impressing people with these skills long before the Book of Mormon was put to paper. She says he would “occasionally” give them “some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined” about the Book of Mormon people and all aspects of their lives. Additionally, even while exploring the Methodist church at a young age his associates tell us he served as a “very passable exhorter” (exhorter being another word for a lay preacher). Writing via dictation is not the method we typically think of when we think of someone writing a book, but at that time dictating to a scribe (a letter for example) was more common. It’s also notable that Methodist preachers of the time were specifically known for not having written sermons, but rather for preparing to dictate them. Though perhaps unconventional, Joseph played to his strengths as he used a preparation and dictation method to create this book. And it’s possible that his scribe Oliver was helping to smooth things out as the book went from Joseph’s mouth to the paper.

A Unique Mind and Personality?

This is perhaps better treated in a different writeup, and I’m hesitant to even include it here because I don’t want it to distract from the rest of what is here if it’s not something that resonates with you, or something that you recognize in Joseph at this point in your journey. Ignore this section for now if that is the case. I suspect Joseph had a unique mind. I think some of the most brilliant artists and musicians and creators and thinkers we see in the world have minds that just work a bit differently. Minds that perhaps can focus in ways that others can’t, or have motivations that others don’t. Sometimes brilliant or just incredibly impressive achievements accompany those whose minds have just the right amount of “crazy” (and I don’t necessarily mean that in a bad way because sometimes it’s a beautiful thing). I think there are all sorts of things that can possibly fuel this. Sometimes it’s just a unique personality type. Sometimes it could be spectrums of autism. In Joseph’s case I am convinced that he had narcissistic tendencies. Again, if this isn’t something you’re ready to consider, then just exclude this from your analysis for now, but I sincerely believe the signs are there, and I think his narcissistic tendencies gave him both abilities and motivations that many of us can’t quite imagine.

Underestimating Human Ability

Speaking more generally, we must also remember that we all have different gifts, minds, and environments. I’m a pretty good guitar player, but there are still a lot of guitar players that I can watch and what they do literally seems impossible to me. And it very well may be impossible for me even after countless hours of practice and dedication because my brain is not quite the same as theirs or I didn’t grow up with the same influences and opportunities. Similarly, what Joseph did very well may be impossible to many of us because we don’t have the same gifts and abilities and mind that he had. We did not grow up in the same hyper-religious environment that he did. We do not have the same motivations that he did. People do things all the time that are incredibly unique or appear to be “impossible” for others to accomplish, but we don’t jump to divine origins to explain those things. Rather, we attribute them to unique circumstances and abilities and talents.

Hypothetical Preparations During the Six Year Period

Nobody will ever be able to say for certain exactly how it all happened. In my view there are a lot of possibilities, and many potential combinations and degrees of those possibilities. Only Joseph himself could know precisely what preparations occurred, and what was going on in his mind. Thus, discussing how the Book of Mormon was created necessarily involves speculation, and in some ways feels a bit silly. The problem is that many believers are convinced that there is no plausible way to account for the Book of Mormon without invoking divine or miraculous origins. Thus, in this case I feel like there is value in just offering some speculation and some possibilities to consider. We don’t have to have certain knowledge as to exactly how all the details went down in order to imagine plausible naturalistic scenarios that can account for the book.

In many ways I believe this was a project of 6 YEARS, which is how much time passed from when he first announced the book and when it was put on paper. I am not proposing that Joseph sat down 6 years prior and started writing. In fact, I suspect Joseph didn’t do much writing at all. I want to be clear that I don’t believe Joseph had anything that I think would be worthy of the term “manuscript” when it came time to “translate.” However, I do think he’d done significant preparations—many of them without even knowing he was doing it. I’ll share some of the “types” of preparations that I believe may have occurred:

First, Joseph apparently put in many hours of practice “storytelling” about the people in this book. His mother Lucy reported that "He would describe the ancient inhabitants of the continent, their dress, mode of traveling, 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." It seems to me that all this practice, and all the thought Joseph had put into the lives of these people, would have made him capable of a fair amount of improvisation on the spot when the time came to dictate the book. The art of storytelling is largely lost today, so its harder for us to imagine it. But in this time this was their form of entertainment, and a much appreciated skill.

I propose that many of Joseph’s preparations probably had no direct connection with the Book of Mormon in his mind when they were occurring. Apart from storytelling, another skill that Joseph would have developed was the skill of dictating a good sermon on the spot. We know this because he was actually a Methodist exhorter for a time. The practice of the time was not to write out or read a sermon, but to prepare and let it flow. Like storytelling, it was a highly appreciated skill in Joseph’s time. Practicing this skill would have been great preparation for dictating sermons on the spot while dictating the Book of Mormon. And perhaps he even drew on some specific sermons that he’d carefully prepared previously and felt passionate about.

Generally speaking, I propose that Joseph’s deep interest in theology and religion prepared him to be able to opine on various popular (and sometimes controversial) topics of the day.  For example, perhaps Joseph spent time outlining why he believed the atonement was theologically necessary (very arguably directly inspired by Jonathan Edwards Jr given the strong similarities—see HERE)-- and perhaps this work ultimately became the bulk of Alma 42? Or perhaps Joseph had interest in the debate about “infinite atonement” that was specifically occurring in his day, and perhaps his musings (written out or not) on this controversial topic prepared him for what became 2 Nephi 9? (see HERE).  Or perhaps Joseph had recently deeply studied the book of Hebrews before dictating Alma 12 and 13, and thus perhaps unwittingly ended up doing a sort of “midrash” or expansion on those texts when dictating Alma, causing them to be incredibly similar (see my document HERE for a comparison). Perhaps, as Dan Vogel has noted, Joseph’s concern about the religious division in his family prepared him to respond to very specific Universalist themes of the day while formulating the Book of Mormon. As noted in the above paragraph, perhaps he’d even prepared sermons of his own on these issues. Again, I’m just throwing out examples of the “kind” of thing that may have occurred.

Given Joseph’s intense interest in bringing forth “lost scripture,” perhaps to some degree he’d already tried his hand at it? Perhaps he’d already for the most part formulated the concepts for the writings of Zenos (Jacob 5), and simply had to incorporate it into the book when the time was right?  Perhaps the core ideas of it were borrowed from some other sermon about the “gathering of Israel” that he’d heard and been impressed by (this was an extremely popular topic of the time as seen for example in the book View of the Hebrews)? Maybe he’d already preached on the topic himself? Another example could be the supposedly lost words of Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3:6-15, also JST Gen. 50:27-33), in which Joseph Smith literally takes the time to write himself into the Bible by name. Perhaps he’d already worked this out ahead of time as well in his attempt to bring forth “lost scripture.” Perhaps some of this he’d even written down.

Given Joseph’s intense interest in creating his own Bible translation, perhaps he’d already spent time making note of the changes that should be made to various Isaiah chapters when they were included in the Book of Mormon? Or perhaps he’d already spent time imagining what changes would be made to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 when given by Jesus in America? Perhaps he even consulted a biblical commentary when doing this work, as we now know he did when doing his Bible translation work. (See study at BYU and more discussion HERE). Perhaps this explains some of the interesting departures from the KJV text (possibilities HERE). Perhaps he’d heard some sermons that draw on popular commentaries of the day that corrected some parts of the KJV, and made note of them?

In some ways Joseph’s general environment seems to have inspired parts of the text. For example, his mother Lucy reported that Joseph’s father had told them about a dream that sounds remarkably similar to the Tree of Life narrative in the Book of Mormon years before the Book of Mormon came about.

Although I’ve already stated that I don’t think Joseph had any sort of full manuscript worked out, I do believe it’s likely that Joseph had developed some sort of rough outline of the Book of Mormon narrative from start to finish—perhaps much of it being formulated and stored in his mind during his more mindless labor (I used to zone out and write songs while stocking shelves as a teen so that makes sense to me), or maybe at least some of it made its way into some sort of journal/notebook that he could add to during his evenings. Perhaps he’d spent time making a list of names to draw from (most in the BoM being biblical, and loads of others being variations on biblical names). I expect he’d created a rough map of BoM lands to help him keep his bearings. And interestingly, Dan Vogel has discovered very good reason to believe Joseph was actively consulting maps of his day as he worked out the story of Lehi's travels (Some map inaccuracies of the time give it away. See HERE). 

Again, we’re talking about 6 years of time that Joseph had to prepare for this book. And in a way, he’d actually been preparing for it his whole life. Obviously I’m just trying to give an idea of the “kinds” of preparation that could have occurred. Obviously I’m throwing out a lot of hypotheticals. We can’t prove any of this occurred, nor would we expect Joseph to leave proof of such things in this scenario. However, I also don’t believe we can rule them out as very real possibilities that preclude us from immediately assuming that we must invoke divine intervention to explain it.

Accounting For The “Translation” or Dictation Period Itself (Two Scenarios)

So we’ve talked about the preparations prior, but many will wonder how Joseph pulled off the estimated 65 days on which the book was actually put onto paper. Again, I can imagine a number of possibilities, and none of us can know all the details for certain. The witness accounts that we have, combined with other evidences, leave a lot of possibilities open.

LIMITATIONS OF THE WITNESS ACCOUNTS

Some claim to know a lot of things about the “translation” process for certain even though the witness accounts are limited, and even though there are strong evidences (both historical and textual) suggesting that some of them are inaccurate. Some accounts of how the translation occurred even differ greatly from each other—suggesting that either multiple methods were used, or else some accounts are inaccurate.

One of the key witnesses was Martin Harris. There are many reasons that his testimony on these kinds of issues is highly questionable, given that he testified to many other extremely off the wall things in his lifetime. But it’s also important to note that he was only present for translation during the lost 116 pages. Thus, he was not present for the translation of any of the book we now have even though his accounts are often used in portraying how the translation occurred. 

Emma similarly helped with the translation only during the lost 116 pages (it’s impossible to say how much of the rest she witnessed simply by being in close proximity). Unfortunately, I find it hard to trust her accounts completely as well given that she openly denied and lied about things as significant as Joseph Smith’s being a polygamist. Since her accounts are often used to insist that Joseph didn't consult any sources (not even the Bible) during the process, it's important to note that in context, her comments more likely were specifically a response to claims that Joseph was using something like a lost Spaulding Manuscript to help him produce the book. She was insisting that no such thing was used, but not that he did not consult a Bible during the translation process.

David Whitmer is another key witness. I don't think we can say how much of the process he personally witnessed. Did he see a lot? Just select parts? His account of Joseph reading word for word the things that would appear to him on the urim and thummim is curiously a very different picture of translation than is presented in D&C 9 where the process is made out to be more of a process of studying things out in the mind and then asking if they are right. It is also a method of translation that many modern apologists seem to reject as they adopt views of translation that are much more loose and even involve expansion. It’s difficult to square such views with Whitmer's account of Joseph being given the account word by word.

It’s interesting that the two key men involved—Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith—were both conspicuously vague about the specific methods of the translation process throughout their lives, and even when directly asked about it.  Joseph simply said it was done by “the power of God” (notably the same vague language that Martin Harris was sort of comically told he was restricted to using when speaking of his visionary experience seeing the plates. See D&C 5:26). We have just one account from Oliver, where he does declare that “day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites should have said, “Interpreters,” the history or record, called “the Book of Mormon.”

Interestingly, even faithful historians seem to agree that the actual “Urim and Thummim” was only used during the lost 116 pages, and that the rest of the translation occurred using a “peep stone” or “seer stone" in a hat. It seems that the “seer stone” ultimately became equated with the Urim and Thummim.

Again, while some claim one definitive method that was used for translation, this goes far beyond the evidence. One account has him reading word for word off the Urim and Thummim. The D&C describes a more loose process of studying it out and asking God if it’s right before presenting it. The D&C also describes a time where Oliver Cowdery tries to translate using his “dowsing rod.” If we know that these various methods were used, then we have to be open to the possibility that other methods were also used even if they didn’t make it into the historical record. If the D&C hadn’t mentioned Oliver’s attempts at translating with a dowsing rod, many would claim it was absurd to propose it as a method of translation, but it is there. This being the case, I am open to many possibilities. I do believe that at least some parts of the translation occurred with Joseph’s face in a hat the entire time, but I see no reason to believe that this had to be the case all throughout. I see no reason to believe that at parts it was not a much more loose process involving Joseph and Oliver studying and formulating things very carefully. Personally, I see evidence in the text of some parts being loosely dictated, and other parts being carefully worked out—even while consulting other sources. If nothing else, the evidence is clear that a KJV Bible was being consulted and carefully reworked (unless one wants to argue, as Brant Gardner does, that Joseph had an eidetic/photographic memory and thus consulted the Bible without physically consulting one).

Anyway, to appease those who (wrongly in my view) insist that Joseph’s face was in a hat the entire time, I will speak to a scenario where Joseph accomplishes the task in that way. But I will also propose an even easier method where this was not the case.

SCENARIO ONE: JOSEPH’S FACE IN A HAT THE ENTIRE TIME (AND NOT JUST DURING SOME PARTS)

Long story short, in this scenario we have 6 years of preparation (as discussed above) culminating in a "performance" that also involved preparations each day prior to each "translation" session. In this case the achievement would admittedly be more impressive (which is why I feel some LDS historians are still insisting this was the case despite evidence that makes it un-necessary). It would require a more impressive "performance." In such a case I imagine Joseph preparing on a daily basis for the next days portions. I imagine him doing this in much the same way that I would prepare a talk when I would speak in church. I believe he would run through an outline in his mind and perhaps tell the story in his mind until he was comfortable with it. I imagine it would be slightly different each time he did it. I think his skills with storytelling and giving sermons assisted him greatly, and believe his preparations were done in much the same way that methodist preachers of the time would prepare sermons. I think this explains the many parts of the text that show some clumsiness and evidence that they truly were being dictated. However, I do see other parts of the text that in contrast seem to be more carefully worked out. Personally I think these more likely came about with Joseph and Oliver preparing them together through a process of study and consulting sources. However, if one believes his head was in the hat the entire time one could propose that with these select parts Joseph was preparing and then memorizing them ahead of time--perhaps just doing a few paragraphs at a time. If apologists are already proposing Joseph had an eidetic memory to account for whole chapters of biblical text being used, then it wouldn't be any more of a stretch to say Joseph could do this. Another key factor in this scenario is part of David Whitmer's comments about the translation process in his book "Address to All Believers In Christ." They suggest that anytime Joseph got stuck, he could simply claim that he needed to go out into the woods to pray, at which time he could review notes, or formulate the next section in his mind, or memorize another portion, or whatever he needed to do. Whitmer:

“At times when Brother Joseph would attempt to translate, he would look into the hat in which the stone was placed, he found he was spiritually blind and could not translate. He told us that his mind dwelt too much on earthly things, and various causes would make him incapable of proceeding with the translation. When in this condition he would go out and pray, and when he became sufficiently humble before God, he could then proceed with the translation."

SCENARIO TWO: AT TIMES JOSEPH AND OLIVER ENGAGE IN A PROCESS OF ACTIVE STUDY, CONSULTATION, AND CREATION

I do believe that at times Joseph was using the head in hat method as described above. I believe the text has evidence of sections being more loosely dictated. But I also see specific parts that seem to be more carefully worked out word for word, and that are far less clumsy than other sections. Jacob 5 for example. I think it is likely that at times Joseph and Oliver engaged in a form of "translation" that involved a lot more active study and creation. D&C 9 describes for us a mode of translation that involves doing all they can to study the issue, formulating something, then asking God if it is correct. This suggests to me that these two may have at times been engaging in a much more creative process than many believe. That they could be consulting sources together. Carefully working through biblical passages while utilizing a commentary perhaps, and then writing the text as they believe it would have originally existed. Carefully writing out certain parts of the narrative (even if dictating others loosely). And I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't see this as a "revelatory" process inspired by God. 

In his 2009 conference talk LDS apostle Jeffrey R. Holland claimed that “If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity…then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived.”

Elder Holland seems to put a lot of weight on these proposed "Semitisms" in the Book of Mormon as evidence of the book's authenticity and historicity. He even chose to speak at a "Chiasmus Jubilee" that was held at BYU in 2018. What are these “Semitisms” or “Hebraisms” that Holland and others refer to, and how significant are they as “evidence” of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity? I am absolutely an advocate for exploring the best evidence that can be produced by each side and considering it for what it’s worth, but I’m concerned that many in the LDS apologetic community are leaving people who don’t know any better with drastically overstated views of the power of these alleged “Hebraisms” as evidence for the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.

THE PRESENCE OF THINGS LIKE COGNATE ACCUSATIVE, NEGATIVE QUESTIONS, CONSTRUCT STATE, COMPOUND PREPOSITIONS, AND ADVERBIALS IN THE TEXT:

I'm honestly surprised to see the folks at “Book of Mormon Central” still claiming that the presence of these things in the text represents any kind of significant evidence of the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. The claim of course is that such things are uniquely representative of Hebrew syntax, and that this suggests it has real Hebrew ties. I remember being taught such things in my classes at BYU in 2001, but at this point I can’t see putting any significant weight on such things given that we now know that Gilbert Hunt managed to have all this same Hebrew syntax in his 1816 book The Late War simply by mimicking a scriptural style of writing (see HERE). In fact, the same things show up in the 1833 version of the D&C called the "Book of Commandments" (see HERE). Thus, as evidence for authenticity, such things are simply not very significant, and the folks at Book of Mormon Central should really be more clear about that.

THE PRESENCE OF "CHIASMUS"

So what about “Chiasmus?” I’m told over and over by various people that the literary form of “chiasmus” (a kind of parallelism used in Hebrew texts) is extremely powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and that the odds of such things being there by chance are extremely low. But is that really true?

First, it's interesting (and a bit humorous) that the followers of James Strang (an “apostate” whom most of Joseph’s family, several apostles, and several Book of Mormon witnesses actually believed was Joseph’s successor rather than Brigham) have claimed multiple instances of chiasmus in Strang’s “Book of the Law” to be evidence of its “sacred origins” (see HERE) even though it isn't claimed to be an ancient work! When the example they give from Strang’s first chapter is as good as most examples given from the Book of Mormon, I think its time to consider that the reality is that humans can pull these kinds of patterns out of texts if they really want to--regardless of whether or not they are ancient.

It is demonstrable that if people want to find patterns of chiasmus badly enough, they can find it in all sorts of places even where there was obviously no conscious attempt by the author to create these patterns (although the Book of Mormon's repetitive and redundant nature make it a particularly great place to find them). I’m sure these quick examples I’ve seen can be criticized (just as the Book of Mormon ones can), but they illustrate our ability to find patterns if we want to. Here is one from writings of the prophet John Taylor (HERE). Here is one from an LDS gospel topics essay (HERE). And here is one from the aforementioned book by Gilbert Hunt (HERE). Examples have even been found in the Doctrine & Covenants (see Don Winegar’s work). There are also examples in the Book of Mormon that would seem quite impressive to people at first look, but which fall apart on further examination (for example, Brant Gardner notes that one from King Benjamin is problematic given that it comes from an oral address that responds to spontaneous audience reaction, and thus wouldn’t have been a product of forethought necessary to produce chiasmus). Jared Demke is finding all sorts of examples (HERE). All of this suggests that these things can very reasonably be attributed to chance and to the ability of humans to identify patterns when they want to.

“But what about Alma 36,” everyone asks. For most, Alma 36 is the most impressive example of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon—proposed long ago by John Welch. Many like to point to a few studies whose established criteria led them to conclude that the chiasmus in Alma 36 is too strong to reasonably attribute to chance (HERE or HERE). But Wunderli’s article HERE makes some very valid points as to why their established criteria is problematic, and why this Alma 36 chiasmus is in many respects something that was squeezed out of the text by Welch. And before you dismiss Wunderli’s take without giving his reasoning serious consideration, you really should note that even believing scholar and defender of the Book of Mormon Brant Gardner has gone on record stating the following about Alma 36:

"After examining the evidence, I take Wunderli’s side in concluding that the extended chiasmus of Alma 36 owes more to Welch’s construction than to the plate text…” (The Gift & Power, pg. 199, see footnote 7, HERE)

We also have believer Blake Ostler who acknowledges the following (note that he lists Alma 36 specifically as an example):

"Chiasmus can also be found in some nineteenth-century works, including the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Abraham (D&C 88:34-38; 98:18-38; 132:19-26; Abr. 3:16-19). Thus, the assumption that chiasmus is an exclusively ancient poetic device appears to be false. Further, many Book of Mormon chiastic passages presuppose a doctrine of Christ developed beyond anything found in the Old Testament (Mosiah 3:18-19; 5:10-12; 2 Ne. 25:2-27; Alma 36; 41:13-15).”  (The BoM as A Modern Expansion of An Ancient Source, p. 100-101)

I credit Gardner and Ostler for acknowledging some limitations here, but it’s interesting generally speaking to see many others who will gladly embrace “loose translation” approaches when they need them in order to account for obvious 19th century content in the Book of Mormon, but at the same time many of them still often want to claim that the translation process was “tight” enough that alleged Hebrew literary forms like Chiasmus (and the other examples I gave in my third paragraph) could still come through the translation. It was a “loose translation” wherever they need it to be a loose translation, and it was a “tight translation” wherever they want it to be a tight translation. Funny how that works.

I worry that organizations like Book of Mormon Central are deliberately giving their viewers a drastically inflated sense of the power of "chiasmus" as evidence for Book of Mormon authenticity.

BOOK OF MORMON NAMES AS PROPOSED EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY

Some, such as the folks at Book of Mormon Central, have proposed that the names in the Book of Mormon are significant evidence of the book’s historicity by claiming that they are in many cases consistent with real Hebrew names, and that it's unlikely that a “farm boy” like Joseph could have achieved this by chance. But is that really so? How powerful are these things as evidence? In this section I will respond directly to the claims in Book of Mormon Central's video that can be found HERE.

First of all, as the video acknowledges indirectly, 149 of the 337 names in the Book of Mormon are actually found in the Bible, leaving us with 188 unique names. But what is not acknowledged in the video is that a LOT (I admittedly haven't done an exact count myself) of those 188 unique names are just variations on biblical words and names (the same words/names but with the ending changed). The video above inexplicably goes so far as to try to claim that Sam and Josh are significant "hits" in the text even though they're just shortened versions of the biblical names Samuel and Joshua!

Next, there are no vowels in Hebrew. Only consonants. This hugely increases ones ability to invent connections where there are no actual connections. It drastically increases the number of possible words one can propose as having a legitimate Hebrew connection when in reality none exists. For example, the name Alma is proposed in the video. If we strip away the vowels that wouldn't have existed in Hebrew, we have only  l and m. In other words, an apologist must only find a word or name in Hebrew that has l and m in it, and they can claim that it could be Alma when in fact it could have been an entirely different word or name when spoken. 

The video proposes the word Irreantum as evidence, noting that LDS scholars have found two different possible legitimate ancient linguistic origins for this word that fit with its meaning in the text--one of them being Egyptian, and the other Semitic. But the fact that they can find a parallel with two different languages just suggests that if people want to invent these kind of connections where none legitimately exists, they can fairly easily do so. Because obviously both of those connections cannot be legitimate.

I find the wordplay examples in the video very unimpressive. Really stretching. Also, I think just as likely as "Nephi" deriving from some Egyptian word is that Joseph either got it from the Apocrypha which happens to use it (thinking it was a place name that meant "cleansed"), or perhaps simply came up with it by altering one of many biblical words such as Nephilim, Nephish, Nephishesim, or Nephew.

The video suggests that it's impressive that the Book of Mormon doesn't use Q, X or W in its names and that this is consistent with Hebrew names. But honestly, do you know of a lot of names with Q and X in them? I sure don't! 

It's worth noting that some of the names Joseph chose are arguably problematic and suggest that Joseph got a bit sloppy when coming up with the names of the 12 "disciples" in 3rd Nephi. It seems likely that while dictating this section Joseph was unconsciously being influenced by the New Testament. The names of three of the 12 "disciples" are actually Greek names (Jonas and Timothy, with the name Jonas actually being used for two of the 12 disciples). Interestingly, in the New Testament the name Jonas has connections with the 12 apostles as Jonas was the father of two of the 12 apostles. Two of the disciples in 3rd Nephi have names that seem like re-inventions of Matthew (Mathoni and Mathonihah) who of course was an apostle in the New Testament. Two other names (Kumen and Kumenonhi) are very similar to each other, and 3 other names are popular Old Testament names that appear nowhere else in the Book of Mormon. Dan Vogel aptly noted all these issues in his biography of Joseph Smith, concluding that "one wonders if the list was made up spontaneously and if the rapid succession of derivative names Mathoni/Mathonihah and Kumen/Kumenonhi might suggest that his creativity was being overworked."

In conclusion, I am all for people exploring the best evidence that can be put forward by both sides. Go ahead and explore and weigh these issues for whatever they are worth, but I propose that those who have allowed themselves to hear both sides of the issue will find that these proposed evidences are not nearly as signifiant as many make them out to be.

But of course, for me, the biggest factor that led me to be less impressed by such things was when I sincerely considered the evidence that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century document, and not a historical record. When I did that, I found it to be on an entirely different level than all the other “evidences” that I had once been impressed by. Things like these "Hebraisms" suddenly became extremely insignificant when viewed in context of all the other evidence. In any case, if you agree with Holland that those who feel the Book of Mormon is not historical are "foolish," "misled," and "deceived," I propose that your conclusion should have little to do with "Hebraisms" or "Semitisms."

It was one of the most common messages I heard after going public with my doubts about various aspects of my faith.  I was told over and over that “spiritual experiences” and “seeking personal revelation from God” were the ultimate sources of truth on which I had to rely.  I fully understood where they were coming from because in the recent past I’d been sharing the same message myself.  Still, it was really interesting to hear this message from the other side.  It was frustrating at times because it seemed to put up walls in many conversations.  This approach and this message allowed many to dismiss anything I said before hearing it, and this message was sometimes given specifically as the reason that they had no need to hear what had changed my perspectives before calling me deceived.  Again, I knew exactly where they were coming from, but in the midst of my journey I also knew that my believing friends simply could not understand why it was that this message and this approach to confirming truth had become complicated for me, and couldn’t help me during the crisis of faith I was experiencing.  I’d like to try to explain why it is that telling people in a faith crisis to just go back to relying on the spirit may not have the intended effect.  And for the many who wanted to understand how someone like me accounts for the “spiritual experiences” that many of us had together, I hope this might serve as an introduction.  I certainly don’t expect this post will prove anything to anyone.  I just hope it will help people understand why these things become so complicated for many.

#1) On my journey I encountered evidence that I felt undeniably contradicted very foundational things that I had a powerful “spiritual witness” of.  As any rational person would in such a situation, I naturally began questioning whether my previous paradigm for confirming truth was a legitimate and reliable one. 

#2) I realized that I was having the same experiences (sometimes very powerful) on a regular basis even on my current path away from orthodoxy, and even in conjunction with experiences specifically related to leaving the church.  Again, an experience like this should naturally lead any rational person to wonder if these experiences, whatever their origin, were ever really intended to “confirm truth claims” in the sense that I had believed.  Having the same feelings on an alternate path naturally began to suggest to me that there might be some other explanation for these things.

#3) I looked at the world around me, and found that people with all sorts of contradicting beliefs felt they had a “spiritual witness” every bit as sure and powerful as mine.  This observable reality around me suggested that this was not a reliable method of confirming truth.  How could it be if this means of confirming truth was giving people all over the world contradictory answers?  This again suggested to me that something else must be going on, and caused me to begin looking for other possible explanations for these experiences.  I think it’s very important to witness for yourself how so many other faiths encourage their followers to use the exact same process of seeking truth that Mormons do, and get the exact same results that Mormons do. To understand further PLEASE take a few moments to explore this video HERE before proceeding. Another good option HERE.

#4) I considered that people often feel things that fit the descriptions of “the spirit” from things that are (or turn out to be) fictional or grossly inaccurate.  Like when everybody was so touched at a missionary story that Elder Holland shared even though it was later retracted due to inaccuracy (see HERE).  Or when I was moved so powerfully when I saw Dobby die on Harry Potter.  I started thinking, could the Book of Mormon (or other religious narratives) make me feel similar things even if the stories are fictional?  If so, should such feelings really be interpreted as confirming the reality or historicity of these books or narratives?

#5) I observed that similar very powerful feelings could often be evoked in humans in a myriad of other situations, and when I looked for answers as to what else might be going on I realized that at least one of three key elements was almost always present when these experiences occurred.  I also realized that there are completely logical evolutionary explanations for why humans would develop powerful biological responses to these three elements (because they aid in sociality and survival).  I will discuss these three key elements below:

ELEMENT #1:  I WAS WITNESSING SOMEONE (OR SOMETHING) SUFFERING OR OTHERWISE IN NEED

When I watched the movie “Lion” I had intensely powerful feelings as I saw a small child alone and fending for himself.  In many cases people actively tap into or manipulate this part of our nature to get us to do something.  Sometimes it is used for good—like the Sarah McLachlan animal shelter commercials.  In other cases it may be used to manipulate, such as a patient convincing a doctor he’s in severe pain to get synthetic opioids to sell or abuse, or a megachurch pastor lining his pockets.  We see countless examples of animals having similar instinctual responses (HERE, HERE, HERE,  HERE).  Now, shouldn’t we fully expect that similar feelings will be evoked in many religious scenarios?  For example, if I’ve been taught that deceased people in “spirit prison” are separated from their families and can’t have the joy of reuniting with their families until I’ve been baptized on their behalf, then might I naturally experience powerful emotional feelings in conjunction with doing temple work on their behalf?  Or if an LDS youth goes on a pioneer “Trek” and experiences powerful feelings as they’re forced to watch the women do part of it by themselves (or generally to imagine the pain of the pioneers). Might this be inspiring and enriching?  Sure!  But should it truly have any connection whatsoever with the verification of LDS truth claims?  I propose that it shouldn’t.  What about when LDS videos or scripture evoke these powerful feelings by showing hardships of the early saints, or the suffering of Jesus, or other scriptural protagonists who suffered for their faith?  How often do we witness suffering, and conflate instinctual and biological feelings that follow with verification of institutional truth claims? 

ELEMENT #2:  I WAS WITNESSING AN ACT OF KINDNESS, OR COMPASSION, OR ALTRUISM:

Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist from the University of Virginia described the emotion of “elevation” as “a warm or glowing feeling in the chest, tears welling up, perhaps even chills, and a clenching of the throat, a desire to connect with the person you’ve been watching, a new inclination to participate in charitable activities. If you feel these things, chances are you have just witnessed something uplifting and may be experiencing the unofficial emotion of “elevation.”  Go on youtube and search “kindness” and see how long it takes before you’re experiencing powerful emotions (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE).  How often are the instinctual feelings that are evoked by witnessing or participating in such things being conflated with the verification of specific LDS truth claims?  If I read about or watch a video of Jesus having compassion on someone in need, might I naturally have such feelings?  If I’m convinced that Jesus suffered intensely for my “sins,” might I naturally have these powerful feelings when I think about him?  What if I hear stories of compassion in a conference talk, a testimony, or a Book of Mormon story?  Might these things once again be enriching and inspiring?  Sure!  But should they logically have any connection with the verification of specific LDS truth claims?  I propose that they should not.  Not unless the truth claim we’re confirming is that helping others makes us happy and makes the world better. 

ELEMENT #3. I WAS HAVING CONTACT WITH SOMETHING I WAS RAISED TO OR CONVINCED TO DEEPLY VALUE, OR WHICH I CONNECTED WITH POWERFUL MEMORIES, MEANING, OR NOSTALGIA

Take for example the incredible awe and euphoria that Rudy Reuttiger or his father felt seeing Notre Dame Stadium for the first time after years of waiting, and so much effort and sacrifice (see HERE or HERE).  If Rudy or his father can have such an incredibly powerful experience entering Notre Dame stadium, then shouldn’t we fully expect a Mormon kid—for whom the temple has been built up as something magical and associated with all sorts of meaning and even the eternal nature of his family—to experience powerful emotions in such a building?  Wouldn’t they naturally feel a sense of euphoria and awe just as Rudy did?  Consider the euphoria someone might feel meeting a celebrity they admire.  Might a Mormon who meets an apostle feel the same type of awe and euphoria as a child meeting Tim Tebow?  Or consider the powerful feelings often felt as we hear the national anthem and think of our American values and the sacrifices made to make them possible (and consider that those in Nazi Germany probably felt the same powerful feelings as they belted out their own anthem).  Shouldn’t a Mormon belting out “The Spirit of God” at a Temple Dedication, or a teenager singing “We’ll Bring The World His Truth” at EFY be expected to feel the same powerful feelings experienced by someone hearing the national anthem?  We have powerful responses to things we were raised or convinced to deeply value, or which we connect with powerful memories, meaning, or nostalgia.  How often are such feelings wrongly interpreted as verification of institutional truth claims?

————————-

There are evolutionary reasons that we would develop all of these feelings and responses.  The first two would quite clearly aid in our survival as a species, but all three would promote sociality or tribalism, which not only aided our survival as a species (consider wolves, dolphins, or orcas), but may also be what drove the growth of our brains.  Just a basic introduction to neuroscience can not only be fascinating, but life changing.  It can be very helpful to understand the biological and evolutionary drivers behind our desires and actions.  Systems that our brains have developed to powerfully reward certain behaviors (dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, etc) that aid (or at one time aided) the survival of our species. 

Although this post hits some basics there are many other major factors to explore that I won’t try to get into here.  Things like DMT (a powerful drug that is actually created in our brains but can also be taken artificially). Things like the effects of fasting, or sleep deprivation, or various medical issues on the brain.  Various foods or other things that could potentially cause hallucinations.  The power of the human subconscious and its ability to “bubble up” sudden strokes of inspiration.  The power of various cognitive biases.  The ability we have to be in altered states of consciousness for various reasons. The vast world of neuroscience and psychology and all they have uncovered about these issues and the wild things the human mind is capable of.  The fact that many of the experiences people report often accompany situations where people are in in extreme circumstances, such as hospital beds where they’re either being given drugs artificially or where extreme demands on the body may cause it to release various powerful substances like oxytocin or DMT in abnormally high amounts. Given that people experience “the spirit” in a myriad of ways and have differing experiences it’s obviously hard to speak to every circumstance in a brief blog post, but I feel this is a good starting point for discussion.  Again, I don’t expect these things to prove anything to believers who value spiritual experiences as the ultimate method of truth seeking. I just hope that it might help them to understand why others may struggle to feel the same.  Even LDS apostles have at times discussed how difficult it can be to distinguish emotion/biology from “spiritual experiences.” 

Please understand that generally speaking I don’t believe these experiences that people have are necessarily “fake” or “imagined.”  It’s just that I believe they come from a different source, and that I don’t attribute to these experiences the same things that believers attribute (verification of institutional truth claims). I am also not saying that these kinds of experiences can’t have value or be worth exploring. Whole books have been written about the value of exploring “spirituality” even from a completely secular and scientific perspective. 

If you’re interested in diving deeper into these issues I highly recommend the following sources:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470919.2016.1257437?scroll=top&needAccess=true 

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/techknow/articles/2015/12/8/how-to-measure-feeling-the-spirit.html 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689844/

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/wired_to_be_inspired

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232494121_The_Positive_emotion_of_elevation

https://www.mormonmatters.org/podcast-item/77-78-recognizing-the-spirit/

https://zelphontheshelf.com/open-letter-to-mormons-and-apologists-about-emotional-reasoning/

I have no problem acknowledging that Joseph Smith was very impressive and unique in many ways. He had an extraordinary mind and personality. However, when I learned more about him and his life (beyond the whitewashed stories I’d learned growing up) I was disturbed that I’d been singing “Praise to the Man” about this guy. Nobody is all good or all bad. We’re all more complicated than that. But on the whole I quickly found myself feeling unable to defend him as a decent and respectable human being, let alone as a prophet of God. To be very clear, it wasn’t that I expected him to be without flaws because he claimed to be a prophet. It was that his patterns of behavior are exceptionally disturbing when compared to those of most human beings. There is a lot of information about this man that people deserve to know before dedicating their whole lives to the church he created. I understand that dealing with history can be complicated in that not all historical accounts are accurate, and there are often multiple sides to a story. For that reason I’m intentionally focusing only on a few key issues and sources that I feel are incredibly hard to dismiss. 

HIS WORK AS A “TREASURE SEER” SUGGESTS HE WAS DISHONEST AND MANIPULATIVE AND ENGAGED IN CON BEHAVIOR FROM A YOUNG AGE

Even before officially starting the LDS/Mormon church the young Joseph Smith was already involved in practices that suggest he was using willful dishonesty and manipulation to make people think he had special powers. He worked for at least three years as a “treasure seer.” There are many accounts but even if we only consult one very well documented case (there is even a court record) it has him claiming special gifts to be able to see treasures deep in the earth that would spontaneously move to new locations under supernatural powers. Since I don’t believe these treasures existed or could spontaneously move around under the earth, I propose that Joseph was already exhibiting willful dishonesty (the only other explanation would be severe delusion) as he claimed to see such things.

“Treasure digging” or “money digging” practices that included all sorts of odd rituals, astrology, and “folk magic” were somewhat common at the time (even if controversial). Learning more about that is quite important to Mormon studies because Mormon origins have more ties to these practices than most realize (see my post HERE. for that). Generally speaking I don’t blame Joseph for buying into superstitions of his day. But it’s a very different thing to be the guy claiming to actually see the imaginary treasures moving under the earth. That to me suggests willful dishonesty. 

It’s worth noting that his method of seeing these imagined “treasures” was looking into a “seer stone” or “peep stone” in a hat (a form of glass looking or scrying)—the same method supposedly used to translate the Book of Mormon. I think it goes without saying that if a man has a verifiable history of convincing people to believe he sees things that are not real, then this creates understandable reasons to doubt his other incredible claims. Especially when those other claims also just happen to involve “treasure” (gold plates that the public isn’t allowed to see) and when the earliest narratives about church origins have more ties to this “treasure digging” and “folk magic” culture than most realize.

One last issue I’ll note in this section is that Joseph again shows his willingness to be dishonest in his official canonized 1838 history. By that time these “treasure digging” and “folk magic” practices were very much looked down upon, and so he tried to distance himself from them. In fact, evidences of folk magic origins of the church were gradually removed from official narratives. In that 1838 history Joseph tries to give the impression that these “stories” of him being a treasure digger simply arose because he was basically a hired shovel for Josiah Stowell. But the evidence powerfully contradicts this claim! The court records tell us that he acted not as a hired shovel, but specifically as a treasure seer for Josiah Stowell. We also have a statement from Emma Smith’s brother stating that “Joe Smith never handled one shovel full of earth in those diggings. All that Smith did was to peep with stone and hat, and give directions where and how to dig, and when and where the enchantment moved the treasure.” In addition, many other accounts (see HERE or HERE) tell us that he was very much involved with acting specifically as a treasure seer for at least 3 years, as even active/faithful LDS scholars will acknowledge. It is well documented, and the official history that Joseph sanctioned is dishonest. The LDS church should correct it or update it so as not to continue teaching false information to its members.

HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS YOUNG MAID FANNY ALGER BEHIND HIS WIFE’S BACK

Fanny Alger was the first of many young girls who worked as “live-in” servants or maids in Joseph and Emma’s home and ended up being romantically pursued by Joseph in secret. This relationship occurred behind his wife’s back, and before any talk of divinely sanctioned polygamy. Oliver Cowdery called the relationship a “dirty, nasty, filthy scrape,” and clearly felt that it was adulterous (and speaking out about it is a major part of what led to Oliver’s excommunication). As Richard Bushman noted, Joseph “never denied a relationship with Alger, but insisted it was not adulterous. He wanted it on record that he had never confessed to such a sin.”

Clearly Joseph claimed that God had approved of the secret relationship in some way. Personally I would hypothesize that he justified it by claiming her as a divinely given “concubine,” since he explicitly taught in the D&C that Abraham’s concubines were “accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him?” Or, as most believing apologists claim, perhaps he claimed the relationship had divine approval because a secret religious “marriage” was performed? But there is no record of him making such a claim, and claims of secret marriage occurring with Fanny don’t come until about 60 years later when Mosiah Hancock claims they had a secret ceremony in 1833 at which time she’d have been just 16 or 17, and which would mean they kept the relationship secret from Emma for a few years before being discovered. In any case, clearly Emma and Oliver did not approve. As even the very conservative and believing Brian Hales has noted: “It is apparent from what transpired that Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery either did not believe a valid plural marriage ceremony had been performed or they were unaware of it.”

There are many reports of Emma suddenly becoming aware of the situation (perhaps catching them in the barn if some accounts are accurate but that could be “hearsay”), and immediately kicking Fanny out of the house. Eliza Snow was living with the Smiths when the “fuss” (as she called it) occurred, and this would have been in 1836. Apparently Emma was so upset that Joseph sends for Oliver to come over—perhaps hoping he’d take his side, but he apparently sides with Emma. Word starts to get around among the Saints of what had occurred. By September of that year the Alger’s unexpectedly pick up and move to Indiana and Fanny suddenly marries someone else after just a 6 week courtship. Some speculate that all of this was because she was pregnant, but if so the baby does not seem to have survived. 

Do people really believe God approved of Joseph having a secret relationship with this young girl entirely behind his wife’s back? Do people believe God approved a secret teenage concubine for him with no disclosure to his wife or the church? Even if he did in fact set up a secret private marriage ceremony with this teenage girl, is that really any less disturbing? Most importantly, this was only the beginning of a pattern that continued…

JOSEPH’S GROOMING AND MANIPULATION OF OTHER YOUNG GIRLS INTO SECRETIVE RELATIONSHIPS

Joseph was “sealed” to ten women under the age of twenty. In six of those we actually have evidence of sexual relations occurring (see the conservative Brian Hales site HERE). Brian Hales says that three were 17, one was 16, and two were 14 (HERE), and these numbers don’t include Fanny Alger who would have been somewhere between 16 and 19 depending how long they kept their relationship secret. Joseph had a pattern of going after the young girls who worked as live-in maids in his house. These included Fanny Alger, Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Sarah Lawrence, Maria Lawrence, and Melissa Lott (there is evidence of sexual relations with all 6 of these, and only one was over the age of 20). Hearing some of their stories is extremely disturbing. Multiple independent accounts have Joseph telling them that God had revealed to him that he was supposed to marry them specifically, and that that God had “given them” to him before the world was created. He told some that God had sent an angel with a sword to kill him if he didn’t obey their commands to take more wives, and given that I don’t believe a divine being would do such a thing I personally conclude that this was a willful emotional manipulation of girls/women. I will provide accounts of just 2 cases that I think everyone really should know about, but a great way to explore many more stories is to check out the “Year of Polygamy” podcast or BYU professor Todd Compton’s book “In Sacred Loneliness.”

Emily Partridge was 19 when married to a 37 year old Joseph in 1843. She was essentially ambushed and pressured to marry Joseph on the spot one day even after resisting his previous advances. Keep in mind I’m choosing her as an example because she was a faithful member and believer, not someone with any vendetta toward Joseph or the church, and she reported all of this in a firsthand account that I recommend reading yourself if you doubt any of this (link HERE). I will summarize here. She reports that when she was 18 years old, after living in Joseph’s home for a year, Joseph had approached her: 

“He [Joseph] taught it to me with his own lips… I was living at his house at the time. He came into the room where I was one day, when I was in the room alone, and asked me if I could keep a secret… and so he would write me a letter, if I would agree to burn it as soon as I read it, and with that I looked frightened, for I thought there was something about it that was not just right.” 

She reported on the same incident on another occasion:

“..in the spring of 1842…Joseph said to me one day, ‘Emily, if you will not betray me, I will tell you something for your benefit.’ Of course I would keep his secret…he asked me if I would burn it if he would write me a letter. I began to think that was not the proper thing for me to do and I was about as miserable as I ever would wish to be…I went to my room and knelt down and asked my father in heaven to direct me…[At Joseph’s insistence] I could not speak to any one on earth…I received no comfort till I went back…to say I could not take a private letter from him. He asked me if I wished the matter ended. I said I did…. he said no more to me [for many months].”

Joseph was apparently using an older plural wife, Elizabeth Durfee, to act as a liaison to help him get more wives. Soon after Emily had refused Joseph’s letter Elizabeth Durfee was seemingly sent to test Emily’s ability to keep a secret. Elizabeth (who knew all about what was going on as she’d been married to Joseph for a year as a plural wife) approached Emily and claimed to have heard rumors of a practice of “spiritual wives” and asked if Emily knew anything. Emily kept the secret and didn’t say anything. The next February Emily reports that Joseph personally “taught me this principle of plural marriage, but we called it celestial marriage, and he told me that this principle had been revealed to him but it was not generally known.” A week after that she says “Mrs. Durfee came to me..and said Joseph would like an opportunity to talk with me… I was to meet him in the evening at Mr. [Heber C.] Kimballs.” When she got there Heber’s kids were sent to a neighbors home, and they pretended to send Emily as well before secretly calling her back. She said “I started for home as fast as I could so as to get beyond being called back, for I still dreaded the interview. Soon I heard Br. Kimball call, ‘Emily, Emily’ rather low but loud enough for me to hear. I thought at first I would not go back and took no notice of his calling. But he kept calling and was about to overtake me so I stopped and went back with him.” She recalled the following about what happened when they returned to the house: “I cannot tell all Joseph said, but he said the Lord had commanded [him] to enter into plural marriage and had given me to him and although I had got badly frightened he knew I would yet have him…Well I was married there and then. Joseph went home his way and I going my way alone. A strange way of getting married wasen’t it?” 

Emily reported later that she “roomed” the next night and had “carnal intercourse” with him. She and others reported that this was not the only occasion. 

Her sister Eliza was married to Joseph within just a few days. Emily reports:

“I and my sister Eliza received it [the principle of Celestial Marriage] and were married to br. Joseph about the same time, but neither of us knew about the other at the time, everything was so secret.” 

For references see Todd Compton’s book “In Sacred Loneliness,” chapter 18. Or HERE. 

Personally I see this as clear manipulation of a young girl, with Joseph simply claiming her as his under the pretense that God gave her to him—even when she clearly was not at all comfortable with the situation. 

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner is also very much worth learning about specifically to get a feel for Joseph’s behavior.  She reports that when she was only *twelve* Joseph told her she was “the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife” (I’ll let you decide whether this was a manipulative lie or an admission that he did not truly marry Fanny Alger) and she said that “he looked at me so earnestly, I felt almost afraid.” But then, when Mary was essentially a newlywed (nonmember husband), and was even pregnant with their first son, Joseph repeatedly asked her to be sealed to him, and she finally consented at the age of 23. She reports that Joseph told her an angel with a drawn sword threatened to take his life if he didn’t take more wives. To recap, Joseph Smith repeatedly asked a newlywed woman with a new baby to be sealed to him.

It’s interesting that Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner says Joseph told her she was “the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife” not only because he is supposed to have already married Fanny Alger (if not others also), but also because it seems that Joseph may have had a pattern of telling people that they were the first. The close friend of the prophet Benjamin F. Johnson (brother of one of Joseph’s plural wives Almera Johnson) reported that “In talking with my mother, he told her that when the Lord required him to move in plural marriage, that his first thought was to come and ask her for some of her daughters.” 

HIS IMPLEMENTATION OF POLYGAMY WAS NOT JUST FLAWED, BUT DISTURBINGLY UNETHICAL, MANIPULATIVE, SECRETIVE, AND DISHONEST

I am not taking issue with the practice of polygamy itself here at all. If people choose that of their own free will without being manipulated or conditioned into it then I don’t have any problem. But that was definitely not the case with Joseph.

REGARDING SECRECY AND LIES: 

Joseph kept his relationships with these numerous women very secret—telling only select trusted people, and going to extremes to try to keep these things secret not only from the public, but also from most of the church. 

Joseph Smith said the following on 26 May 1844, while having at least 30+ wives and having had sexual relationships with many of them:

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” —History of the Church, 6:411

In fact, after rumors started spreading it was even published in the D&C (as a response to the rumors) that God’s law was for people to have “one wife” and “one husband” which is of course dishonest given that Joseph was not doing this. This verse was of course later removed from the D&C! I did not know about this change to the D&C as a believing member.

We’ve already noted other extreme lengths Joseph was going to keep these things secret, such as asking young girls to burn letters he’d send to them, and using older wives as liaisons to test whether or not the young girls would in fact keep their relationship (and the practice of polygamy as a whole) secret even from other members of the church and even from their own family. Many are unaware that the key reason Joseph went to Carthage Jail was actually that he’d ordered to have a printing press destroyed that was threatening to expose the practices Joseph was engaging in! Given the extreme lengths Joseph was obviously going to keep these things so secret, it’s amazing that we have as much evidence about his sexual relationships with these women as we do, and makes me wonder how many other disturbing things we don’t know about.

Joseph was so dishonest and secretive about the issue that some groups to this day claim he didn’t practice polygamy—because of course if we take him at his word, he didn’t. The trouble is that mountains of evidence from loads of individual women tell us otherwise. That’s far too many people to call liars—especially given that most were faithful and friendly to the church.

REGARDING MANIPULATION USING GOD’S NAME

Some very important questions:

Would God really send an angel with a sword to threaten Joseph into taking more wives? If not, then Joseph was lying and willfully manipulating women/girls using God’s name when he told them this. I mean, of all the things God could send an angel with a sword for… He could have used this approach to stop instances of child sex abuse, perhaps. But no. We’re to believe instead that God pulled out the big guns in this way to ensure Joseph takes more child brides–largely in secret. Does that seem right? Personally I have to call this a clear example of Joseph manipulating people using God’s name, and I find it absolutely despicable.

Would God really tell Joseph that various teenage girls were “given” to him before this world? If not, then Joseph was lying and willfully manipulating women/girls using God’s name when he told them this. Or else Joseph had a habit of believing God was speaking to him when he was not–which is problematic for a man claiming to be God’s prophet.

Would God really threaten Emma Smith with “destruction” if she didn’t support Joseph’s taking more wives? If not, then Joseph was lying and manipulating his wife using God’s name when he told her this. 

I would love for the general public to be more aware of one particular part of LDS scripture that is incredibly cringeworthy. The end parts of section 132 have never been removed from LDS canon despite being incredibly disturbing in all that it attributes to God. In this section Joseph claims that God threatened to “destroy” his wife Emma if she doesn’t get on board with his polygamy (verse 64). He claims God will “destroy” any of Joseph’s wives who claim to be “pure” (virgins) and aren’t (verse 52). He claims God approved of many ancient prophets having “concubines” (verse 37-39). He claims that while God is allowing him many wives, Emma will be destroyed unless she cleaves to Joseph and no one else (verse 54). He claims that God has given him permission to do literally anything in his name, and that it will not be “sin,” but will be “justified” by God (verse 59). Begin reading section 132 around verse 28 where Joseph starts to justify his polygamy, and read to the end.

One bit of interesting background is verse 51 where it is clear that Joseph had offered something to Emma, but in this verse he claims that God (definitely not Joseph, right?) has now revoked that offer from her, and that it was only offered as a sort of Abrahamic test that was always going to be revoked. The church’s manuals claim that we don’t know what this was about and can only speculate. However, although it is admittedly a late source (1887), William Law’s journal claims that “Joseph offered to furnish his wife, Emma, with a substitute for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in her [mansion] house and to be well treated, etc.” You decide whether William’s claim was legit. But boy does it seem to fit the context here. Whatever the true context, Joseph obviously offered some deal to Emma, then revoked it (claimed God revoked it). Whatever the context, this feels to me like manipulation using God’s name (“oh, sorry, God took that offer back…”).

Interestingly, I see other examples of Joseph manipulating people using God’s name in the D&C—such as when he tells Martin Harris exactly what words he’s allowed to say about his experience seeing the “gold plates,” and is threatened with condemnation if he ever denies—D&C 5:26-27. (Joseph knew it wouldn’t look good if Martin shared exactly what happened—which he actually ended up doing when multiple witnesses report him admitting that nobody saw the plates in a physical sense, but rather only “in vision”).

Another example of what I consider to be religious manipulation was reported by Helen Mar Kimball who was sealed to 37 year old Joseph at age 14, and was promised salvation for herself and her family if she did so. She was clearly very uncomfortable with the idea of marrying Joseph when it was presented to her. But her father “having a great desire to be connected with the prophet Joseph, offered me to him.” And he gradually convinced this young girl that it was right. She reported Joseph saying to her “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.” She then states, “This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.” Her story is worth reading. She clearly believed in Joseph and the church, but lamented in her writings how her childhood was taken from her, as she was forbidden to go out to dances as a child because she was Joseph’s. 

REGARDING TAKING OTHER MEN’S WIVES (POLYANDRY)

Fourteen of Joseph’s wives were already married! Apologists have often chosen to assume that these cases were “eternity only sealings” that were only intended to have effect in the next life (like “don’t worry bro, your wife is only planning to be with me after we’re dead”). They propose that at least some of these sealings had the purpose of ensuring that women whose husbands were not Mormons would be sealed to believers in the next life, and have argued that these incidences of polyandry were not active or sexual relationships. However, there are problems with these apologetics. One problem is that in some of these cases Joseph was marrying or being “sealed” to women who had active Mormon husbands in good standing with the church. In fact, Joseph even sent Orson Hyde away on a mission, and then took his wife while he was away! So that eliminates any salvation based reasoning for taking Orson’s wife, and implies that he simply wanted her or decided God had given her to him. The other problem is that in at least one case, there is powerful evidence that Joseph was having sexual relations with another man’s wife. This is the case of Sylvia Sessions, whose daughter was long believed by many to be a child of Joseph Smith as she’d claimed that she was his child. DNA evidence confirmed that she was actually not Joseph’s child, which suggests she was sleeping with both men at the same time and wrongly assumed she was Joseph’s child. Dan Vogel documents these issues very well HERE

In general, Joseph didn’t even follow his own rules for polygamy in the D&C—which, for example, require men to have approval of their wives before taking additional wives. Joseph’s behaviors, unacknowledged as the abuses they were, set the tone for later prophets to behave similarly. Brigham Young’s treatment of his 55 wives was often appalling—including a 15 year old he married at age 42. Lorenzo snow later married a 15 year old at age 57, a 17 year old at 45, and a 17 and 18 year old at age 31. The polygamy stuff is one hell of a rabbit hole, created by Joseph Smith.

CONCLUSIONS:

Those are just some of the highlights of my concerns about this man. He lied to people about seeing moving treasures under the earth. He lied about his role in treasure digging in his official history. Early on he had a secret relationship with a teenager behind his wife’s back. He lied about his polygamy to the public, to his wife, and to most of the church. He took extreme measures to keep his relationships with young girls a secret—asking them to burn letters, and using liaisons to test their willingness to keep his secrets. He used God’s name to manipulate people in various ways—claiming God gave women to him, claiming God would destroy himself and others if he didn’t take more wives, claiming God would promise people salvation if they married him. He ambushed at least one young woman into a marriage she clearly wasn’t comfortable with (while secretly courting his sister at the same time). He pursued other men’s wives. An issue I didn’t discuss is the dishonesty involved with his banking scandal. And many other issues could be discussed that depend on first introducing other issues. For example, if we agree that the Book of Mormon can’t possibly be historical, then it is clear that Joseph also lied and deceived people with regard to having gold plates, or speaking personally with prophets from this fictional book. As I watch documentaries about Warren Jeffs such as “Keep Sweet, Pray & Obey,” or series like Waco regarding David Koresh, I feel like I get glimpses into just the kind of behavior Joseph Smith exhibited, as well as into the psychology that allows individuals to think it’s all normal and okay as it happens. Personally, I can’t view Joseph Smith as a decent human being, let alone a prophet of God.

When I encountered the data I've provided here I tried desperately to find some way to make it all work with my faith. My whole world was falling apart, and I was terrified of what my disbelief was going to do to all my closest relationships. As a result, I sincerely tried to find ways of looking at it all that could allow me to preserve my faith. I found that there were three basic ways of approaching the Book of Mormon from a faithful perspective. 

View #1: Historical Record / Tight Translation Process:

Traditionally, most have felt that the Book of Mormon is a fairly “tight” translation of what was on the gold plates—meaning that so far as translation into King James English allows, it closely followed the actual wording and structure on the gold plates. Multiple witnesses claimed that Joseph simply read aloud exact words that were shown to him on his “seer stone.” Thus, Joseph wasn’t personally “translating” as much as he was “dictating” whatever was made to appear on the stone (by God? Mormon? Moroni?). Some defend the “tight” translation because they feel they see “Hebraisms” in the text that could only come through with a “tight” translation (but it should be noted that these same supposed “Hebraisms” are also found in other modern books that mimic a biblical style of writing). Anyway, Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack are a few who appear to be continuing to argue for these types of traditional views of the Book of Mormon. My feeling is that these views absolutely cannot and will not continue to stand in light of the evidence available. My feeling is that even a fairly surface level exploration of the 19th century elements in the text will fairly quickly cause the most faithful believer to have to abandon these views in favor of the next approach…

View #2: Underlying Historical Record / 19th Century Content Added During A Loose Translation Process:

With traditional "tight translation" being indefensible, the next question facing the LDS community is whether or not a retreat to a “loose translation” or "expansion theory" view of translation can truly and adequately account for all the problems that are being recognized. This proposed approach isn’t new. As far back as 1987 Blake Ostler recognized that it can’t be denied that there is a lot of content in the Book of Mormon that cannot reasonably be attributed to the ancient world, and which is explicitly of an early 19th century nature. Thus, his 1987 article proposed a middle way called the “expansion theory” for Book of Mormon translation. He still believes there were real gold plates, and an underlying historical document, but believes the “translation” must have been a very “loose” one in which Joseph would (perhaps even un-knowingly) add his own “expansions” and spin on the text—thus explaining the explicit 19th century content. Some worry that this approach undermines Book of Mormon historicity, and Ostler admits that “to a certain extent it does.” In a 2015  interview Richard Bushman stated that we need to "go back to Blake Ostler's dialogue essay that says the Book of Mormon is an expanded text.” Brant Gardner’s more recent book provides a model similar to Ostler’s. 

In my view, this approach is of course far more defensible than the "tight translation" views. However, this approach was only a very temporary fallback for me that still ultimately fell short. Sure, in varying degrees this approach could theoretically account for many isolated instances of anachronistic or early 19th century content in the book. However, in some cases the anachronistic content undermines the reality or historicity of the surrounding text. For example, if the basis of a Book of Mormon sermon is rooted in 19th century theological debates, then what is even left of the sermon if those things are stripped out? Did the sermon or events leading to the sermon even happen? Or as another example, when the book claims that Nephi saw a vision of John the Apostle writing Revelation, and we now know that it wasn't written by the Apostle John, it would suggest that the entire vision was a non-historical fabrication. Countless more examples could be given of how the text sort of gets turned into unreliable historical swiss cheese once this approach is taken. However, the much larger issue with this approach (and I can't stress this enough) is that some of the 19th century content is not just part of the book, but is foundational even to the book's core underlying narrative! Even the foundational big picture narrative of the book is built on the false but very popular ideas of Joseph's day about Native Americans being Israelites, and about the eventually debunked moundbuilder myth of one group losing faith and wiping out the other. What are the odds that these false ideas would happen to be incredibly popular in Joseph's time, and that the Book of Mormon just also happens to be quite literally built around them? I'm sorry, but I can't reasonably see a way to brush that aside with any sort of expansion or loose translation theory. Neither Ostler nor Gardner adequately acknowledge or speak to the depth of those challenges.

View #3: Not Historical / Still Divinely Inspired:

Some have concluded that the Book of Mormon cannot be considered historical, but have continued to believe that it is inspired or revealed by God in varying degrees, and have argued that it still has great value as scripture. Folks like Anthony Hutchinson argued for this view long ago, and I suspect many in the Community of Christ (RLDS) take this approach. The book is viewed as having come about just like many biblical books--through a process that at least roughly resembles midrash or targumizing (I don't want to directly equate those things, but just something similar). Essentially, a re-working of biblical tradition (sometimes involving creation of entirely new narratives, and sometimes via expansion of old ones) in order to support current ideas, support particular theologies, and answer current controversies—all while making claim to ancient prophetic authority. Although there is a human creative element, many would argue there is also an element of divine inspiration. Crazy as it may sound to some, this is actually how a lot of biblical scripture came about, and it should also be noted that some LDS scholars have already taken this view of the Book of Abraham for quite some time. Others feel that when it comes to the Book of Mormon and the narratives surrounding its coming forth, such a view is difficult to hold without viewing Joseph Smith as either deceptive or deluded in some degree—and I have to sympathize with such feelings. The man claimed to have real gold plates, and claimed to see and speak with various deceased characters from the book. Thus, if we take this approach, we must acnowledge Joseph as either quite deluded, or else willfully dishonest. And it's certaintly harder to follow a religion whose founder falls into those categories. Especially when we add all of Joseph's disburbing and manipulative behaviors into the mix. 

View #4: Not Historical / Not Divinely Inspired:

This is of course where I fall. And it's not to say that some parts of this book can't be "inspiring" or that fictional ancient texts can't have some value if approached as imperfect "wisdom texts." But it is to say that I can't personally believe that God would operate in this way, or work through a man who was not only lying about having physical gold plates, but also was using his position to manipulate so many young girls into relationships with him. I also can't believe God would want us to hold literal historical belief in a book that includes sections that teach explicit racism (specifically noting curses of dark skin), or that teaches a very "manifest destiny" view of America, or makes Columbus out to be a hero, or that falsely identifies and rewrites the genetic and ancestral heritage of millions of people, or that teaches colonist ideas that Native Americans were in need of Christianity in order for them to become "white and delightsome" and "blossom as a rose." Sure, there are good and inspiring parts. But objectively speaking, it also has some very serious flaws and claims that are representative of 200 year old backwards ways of thinking.