Book Of Mormon Translation - Rock In The Hat.

[Guest bat]

Really? Do you have any accounts of these times, other than Joseph Smith's made up stories? Surely other records were made.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat@Feb 11 2004, 11:23 PM

Really? Do you have any accounts of these times, other than Joseph Smith's made up stories? Surely other records were made.

Of course and in due time (of the Lord) they will be forth coming.

2 Ne. 27: 7

7 And behold the book shall be sealed; and in the book shall be a revelation from God, from the beginning of the world to the ending thereof.

Even all the errors of the Bible will be made known when this comes forth.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 11 2004, 11:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 11 2004, 11:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 11:23 PM

Really?  Do you have any accounts of these times, other than Joseph Smith's made up stories?  Surely other records were made.

Of course and in due time (of the Lord) they will be forth coming.

2 Ne. 27: 7

7 And behold the book shall be sealed; and in the book shall be a revelation from God, from the beginning of the world to the ending thereof.

Even all the errors of the Bible will be made known when this comes forth.

Has anybody seen my tail that I have been chasing?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat+Feb 11 2004, 11:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Feb 11 2004, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Peace@Feb 11 2004, 11:26 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 11:23 PM

Really?   Do you have any accounts of these times, other than Joseph Smith's made up stories?  Surely other records were made.

Of course and in due time (of the Lord) they will be forth coming.

2 Ne. 27: 7

7 And behold the book shall be sealed; and in the book shall be a revelation from God, from the beginning of the world to the ending thereof.

Even all the errors of the Bible will be made known when this comes forth.

Has anybody seen my tail that I have been chasing?

ROFL!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat+Feb 11 2004, 09:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Feb 11 2004, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 11 2004, 09:06 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 08:10 PM

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document.  It is primarily an ancient-American document.  Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere.

What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered.

Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight.

Eat crow.

Mormon 9:34

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

You know, as well as I do, that that is referring to the written language they were using, else they wouldn't have to be worried about God finding some way to have it interpreted in the future.

Read with your eyes open, it helps.

[Guest bat]

What was 1 Nephi 3:19 referring to?

BTW, have you met any Native Americans that speak Hebrew as their native tongue?

Weren't we talking about written language, anyways?

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document. It is primarily an ancient-American document. Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

[Guest Starsky]

Actually, all JS had to have was a vivid imagination and great story telling ability--not something unknown in all of human history.

This statement is absolutely stupid! This guy was very very very young....no matter what, even if he was a genius....and you must realized that he showed absolutely no talent before or after this of being a genius of writing made up stuff of this caliber....

he was so young, he couldn't have had enough knowledge crammed into his 3rd grade education level to write such a peice.

Not only that, the doctrine is astounding...take it from someone who has been studying the gospel for 30 years indepth and has written books.

Reading the doctrine alone, astounds me....

He is a prophet...and I don't say that lightly. I am very very critical and analytical when it comes to leaders and doctrine.

Just read Alma ....or Moroni or even Mormon, it is absolutely awesomely perfect and deep doctrine.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

The "chiasmus" argument never impressed me much after I noticed chiasmus in one of the "Federalist" essays by James Madison. (No. 46.)

[srm]

Things I don't believe about the How the Book of Mormon Came About Story:

Heck, even Joseph said that if it had not happened to him, he wouldn't believe it

1) I don't believe anyone ever saw the plates...with their real eyes (spiritual ones don't count).

Do you feel that the people who spoke of seeing and handeling the plates were lying or, or, or what?

2) I don't believe the timeline story.  I think Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery co-wrote the BoM.  I think the process took a lot longer than what the Church claims.

OK, but do you have any evidence to back up your belief?

3) I can't believe Joseph Smith was dumb enough to take a copy of some Reformed Egyptian to Mr. Anthon in order for him to verify their legitimacy...especially after Joseph Smith, er, the BoM states that no one can translate Reformed Egyptian.  Don't ya get it?  Helloooooo, McFly?

Joseph didn't take it. but that aside, I think it was to verify in Martin's mind that they were of acient origin and to fulfill biblical prophecy

4) I can't believe that their are reasonable people, once they discover that Joseph Smith stuck his face in a hat and started "translating", still believe in the legitimacy of the BoM...ESPECIALLY after the way the Church has promoted the translation process (we all saw the neat painting...don't deny it...gold plates, candle light, clothe separating JS and OC...c'mon...you can admit it).

It seems that Joseph may have used more than one way to translate. The translator himself said that he used the Urim and Thummim. but why is a seer stone less credible than say the high priest using a stone to get revelation or Moses useing his staff to preform miracles or, or, or?

5) I don't believe the gold plate theory, i.e. gold plates were used to conserve space, when thirteen bazillion "And it came to passes" were included in the text of the BoM.  C'mon!!  I know I'm straying a bit, but...c'mon!!!

Where does it say that the plates were used to conserve space? Also, how do you know that 'and it came to pass' isn't a very short compact symbol in the language?

[Guest bat]

Where does it say that the plates were used to conserve space? Also, how do you know that 'and it came to pass' isn't a very short compact symbol in the language?

Do you have a "Reformed Egyptian/English translation guide" that we could use to check?

[Guest Starsky]

5) I don't believe the gold plate theory, i.e. gold plates were used to conserve space, when thirteen bazillion "And it came to passes" were included in the text of the BoM.  C'mon!!  I know I'm straying a bit, but...c'mon!!!

Where does it say that the plates were used to conserve space? Also, how do you know that 'and it came to pass' isn't a very short compact symbol in the language?

The phrase 'it came to pass' was used as a small symbol which showed a new paragraph, or end of the last written thought.

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 11 2004, 07:43 PM

2) I don't believe the timeline story. I think Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery co-wrote the BoM. I think the process took a lot longer than what the Church claims.

Yeah,

I dying for you to make that argument instead of just saying that you could. Go on AS, dazzle us.

Note: I am not actually dying. Just a figure of speech.

[srm]

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 12 2004, 02:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 12 2004, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Feb 11 2004, 07:43 PM

2) I don't believe the timeline story.  I think Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery co-wrote the BoM.  I think the process took a lot longer than what the Church claims.

Yeah,

I dying for you to make that argument instead of just saying that you could. Go on AS, dazzle us.

Note: I am not actually dying. Just a figure of speech.

I'm glad you qualified the suicide threat. If you hadn't people may start accusing mormons of being a suicide cult.

[Guest antishock82003]

I'm just putting out what I don't believe. That's all.

Do you feel that the people who spoke of seeing and handeling the plates were lying or, or, or what?

Who saw the plates with their real eyes? Who handled the plates, not in a box, and not covered with a clothe?

Joseph didn't take it. but that aside, I think it was to verify in Martin's mind that they were of acient origin and to fulfill biblical prophecy

Why would JS have them taken to a professor to be authenticated if they were untranslatable? It's silly. I personally think he made a gaffe.

The translator himself said that he used the Urim and Thummim. but why is a seer stone less credible than say the high priest using a stone to get revelation or Moses useing his staff to preform miracles or, or, or?

None of the above are credilbe. In fact, it's the lack of crediblity that is remarkable and yet we still have believers...whew...

Where does it say that the plates were used to conserve space?

The BoM states that there was limited space. Why would there be such nonsensical repitition if space was such a consideration? Silly...

About the timeline....I'm essentially forced to take JS's and his accomplices words as the God's honest Truth on this matter. Well, I don't. And I don't believe the Church's version of the story either. Out of curiosity, didn't JS and others try to sell the copyright of the BoM...wasn't it considered to be a novel at first?

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 12 2004, 03:27 PM

The BoM states that there was limited space. Why would there be such nonsensical repitition if space was such a consideration? Silly...

Like SRM said, "and it came to pass" could have been a single character like "i".

About the timeline....I'm essentially forced to take JS's and his accomplices words as the God's honest Truth on this matter.  Well, I don't.  And I don't believe the Church's version of the story either.

Hey, don't accept the Church's version. Go straight to the original documentation. It's available. Diaries, Newspaper accounts, letters, etc. It's no mystery.

Out of curiosity, didn't JS and others try to sell the copyright of the BoM...wasn't it considered to be a novel at first?

Yes he did - do get $$$ to print it (a failed prophecy on JS's part that he, in good humor attributed to either man or the devil) and no, it wasn't considered a novel - not by JS.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 12 2004, 03:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 12 2004, 03:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Feb 12 2004, 03:27 PM

The BoM states that there was limited space.  Why would there be such nonsensical repitition if space was such a consideration?  Silly...

Like SRM said, "and it came to pass" could have been a single character like "i".

About the timeline....I'm essentially forced to take JS's and his accomplices words as the God's honest Truth on this matter.  Well, I don't.  And I don't believe the Church's version of the story either.

Hey, don't accept the Church's version. Go straight to the original documentation. It's available. Diaries, Newspaper accounts, letters, etc. It's no mystery.

Out of curiosity, didn't JS and others try to sell the copyright of the BoM...wasn't it considered to be a novel at first?

Yes he did - do get $$$ to print it (a failed prophecy on JS's part that he, in good humor attributed to either man or the devil) and no, it wasn't considered a novel - not by JS.

So, you and SRM are just making up a possiblity that "And it came to pass..." might be one little symbol? Even then, when trying to consolidate an entire history on the plates, why would you still waste so much space..even an "i" takes up a lot of cumulative space.

So you have a reference to those diaires, newspapers, and other articles that would corroborate the Church's version the BoM creation story?

How would selling the copyright of the BoM be advantageous to distributing it widely? Who would retain control of it, distribution rights, and any profit?

[Snow]

AS,

-Okay, I agree with you but there is a plausible alternate way to see it.

-Yes, I have the references. In books by noted historians and scholars - not from BYU. I do not have the actual complete manuscripts (or type reproductions) but they exist.

-Since the transaction never occurred and was thus not recorded, I don't know what the intended effect would have been. The whole topic, if I recall correctly, came from one of the people involved years after the fact. Not much is known.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Feb 12 2004, 04:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Feb 12 2004, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Feb 12 2004, 03:55 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Feb 12 2004, 03:27 PM

The BoM states that there was limited space.  Why would there be such nonsensical repitition if space was such a consideration?  Silly...

Like SRM said, "and it came to pass" could have been a single character like "i".

About the timeline....I'm essentially forced to take JS's and his accomplices words as the God's honest Truth on this matter.  Well, I don't.  And I don't believe the Church's version of the story either.

Hey, don't accept the Church's version. Go straight to the original documentation. It's available. Diaries, Newspaper accounts, letters, etc. It's no mystery.

Out of curiosity, didn't JS and others try to sell the copyright of the BoM...wasn't it considered to be a novel at first?

Yes he did - do get $$$ to print it (a failed prophecy on JS's part that he, in good humor attributed to either man or the devil) and no, it wasn't considered a novel - not by JS.

So, you and SRM are just making up a possiblity that "And it came to pass..." might be one little symbol? Even then, when trying to consolidate an entire history on the plates, why would you still waste so much space..even an "i" takes up a lot of cumulative space.

So you have a reference to those diaires, newspapers, and other articles that would corroborate the Church's version the BoM creation story?

How would selling the copyright of the BoM be advantageous to distributing it widely? Who would retain control of it, distribution rights, and any profit?

It was no more necessary than a period at the end of every sentence. sheesh!

And you know you are more than welcome to believe what you want.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[Cal]

Originally posted by bat@Feb 11 2004, 07:02 PM

Cal,

Surely you have faith that there are GI Joe guys with VelocaRaptor (sp) heads living behind my dresser. I'd show you, but I think they only come out when nobody else is here.

bat---yeah, but you ought to see the little green guys that live in my refrigerator, they can do the most amazing things. They can even make my food spoil. I KNOW it can't be fungus, because, as Peace would say, those scientists don't know anything!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 11 2004, 07:05 PM

Actually, all JS had to have was a vivid imagination and great story telling ability--not something unknown in all of human history.

You really must be kidding! If that is what you believe, then you have never really studied the BoM. You are making all your assertions about it being false on things you have heard other people say.

The BoM weaves a timeline, and has themes and sub-themes, and is laced throughout with the Abrahamic Covenant in ways that it would take more than just "someone with a vivid imagination" to come up with. Not just that, but to have it rife with archaic Jewish poetry that was not even discovered as a type of poety till about 15 years ago, so good old Joe couldn't have thought it up.

Do some real studying before you come here and spout nonsense.

Jenda--

Maybe it is you that needs to study the whole issue and the circumstances around the production of the BoM. By the way I have read the BoM so many times I have lost track, so please don't make assumptions you haven't investigated.

But--consider this---JS was intimately familiar with the Bible--he quoted it extensively in the BoM (or maybe you hadn't noticed--perhaps YOU need to read it a bit more with a more OBJECTIVE eye). Why do you think it so unusual that he would have repeated some of the patterns present in the Bible. The Bible was the primary literature of the 1800's and many people knew its contents.

All it really took was a great imagination and the ability to weave an intricate story. The fact that someone writes something most of us couldn't hardly proves that it comes from a supernatural source. There is lots of impressive literature in the world--you don't need "other world" explanations for all of it. Give the human mind and imagination some credit.

On top of that look at things like 1) the ultra-specific nature of prophesies of things that had ALREADY happened by JS' time and the shortage of anything SPECIFIC after as well as 2) many of the issues resolved by the BoM were issues hotly debated in the society of New England at the time of JS (what a coincidence that the Native Americans we discussing the same things 1500 years ago) 3) He described a Hebrew people whose scribes seemed to know little about common Hebrew customs--at least not even mentioned.. 4) The native americans the supposed Moroni described as Lamanites (and therefore Hebrews) have no genetic connection to the middle east. 5) When translating what was supposed to be Isaiah off the Plates of Laban, JS included the translation errors of the King James version. How interesting?

These are raise serious questions about the authenticity of the BOM.

[Cal]

Originally posted by bat@Feb 11 2004, 07:22 PM

Jenda,

So what would it mean if chiasmus was exhibibed in Joseph Smith's diaries and in the D&C?  You might want to check into that before asserting that this constitutes a valid evidence for the BoM's authenticity.  Unless you're going to claim that the D&C and JS's diaries are ancient texts too.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/

Jenda--I've never understood why mormons would think that Chiasmus in the BoM is anything unusual. The Bible had it, JS was familiar with the Bible so he, either intentionally or subconscieously, included it as an aliterative style. I have NO problem believing that JS was an extremely bright guy, with an incredible memory and imagination. However, none of that makes what he did "super natural".

The question is, did he have a little (or a lot) of the "con man" in him? Was he capable of "pulling a fast one on people"?

The answer to that question is, clearly he did. As a young man he went around trying to convince people he could see buried treasure in a peep stone. The question is DID he do that when it comes to the BoM story?

Let's put it this way, Jenda--do you think JS could actually see buried treasure in a peep stone as he told people he could? If you believe the rest of what he said, why don't you believe that?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 11 2004, 08:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 11 2004, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 07:22 PM

Jenda,

So what would it mean if chiasmus was exhibibed in Joseph Smith's diaries and in the D&C?  You might want to check into that before asserting that this constitutes a valid evidence for the BoM's authenticity.  Unless you're going to claim that the D&C and JS's diaries are ancient texts too.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/

Nope, they aren't ancient texts. But, as many before me have asserted, once Joseph translated the BoM, his speech patterned itself after that language when he received and transcribed revelations from the Lord. That happens in lots of cases. So I wouldn't use it to disprove it, either.

Jenda--this statement strongly bolsters what I said about how JS could have used chiamus as result of his familiarity with the Bible. You are saying that he used chiamus in the DC because of how familiar he was with its use in the BoM. Well, just push it back and apply that to his familiarity with the Bible and what do you get?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 11 2004, 09:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 11 2004, 09:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 08:10 PM

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document.  It is primarily an ancient-American document.  Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere.

What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered.

Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight.

Jenda--are you familiar with the fact that JS actually made a copy of some of these BoM heiroglyphics which is what he claimed to have shown to professor Anthon and that the church has a copy of them. The church makes no secret of it, and that Egyptologists have examined it and find that they bear no resemblance to heiroglypics of that time period--NONE. If that was "reformed eqyptian", it must have been so "reformed" that no one could recognize them.

I think there is a much simpler explanation (Occum's Razor)--he made them up, thinking no one could contradict him since no one at the time could translate egyptian heiroglyphics anyway! (same thing with the BoA)

[Cal]

Originally posted by bat+Feb 11 2004, 09:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat @ Feb 11 2004, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 11 2004, 09:06 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat@Feb 11 2004, 08:10 PM

Finally, the critic points out that the Book of Mormon, itself, says

that the language the people used was altered, and that there are no

examples of ancient-American books written on plates of metal with

languages derived from Hebrew/Egyptian -- with or without Chiasmus.

So there is no pre-existing reason to look for "special Hebrew

Chiasmus" in the Book of Mormon because it is not primarily a Hebrew

document.  It is primarily an ancient-American document.  Any Hebrew

style is easily explained as Joseph Smith copying both style and

word-for-word from the Bible (which he did a lot).

If you are basing whether or not to believe in the BoM on this assertion, let me tell you that the critic is wrong. It says nowhere in the BoM that the language of the people was altered. Nowhere.

What it does say is that they used Egyptian heiroglyphics to write their Hebrew words because they took up less space to write. As time went on, they altered the Egyptian heiroglyphics to conform better to their usage, so that what they ended up using for the written word was no longer the same heiroglyph that they used when they left Jerusalem. It states nowhere that the language, itself, was altered.

Maybe your critic had better re-read what he claims to have read so he can get his facts straight.

Eat crow.

Mormon 9:34

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

Jenda--if, as you claim, that the BoM heiroglyphics had been so altered as to supposedly be unrecognizable to perhaps the earlier versions, then WHY could JS have Martin Harris take these to Prof. Anthon and expect him to be able to say anything intelligent about them. In other words, JS, knowing that this was not a language that conventional egyptologists would recognize, why bother to take them to Anthon in the first place. His reaction would have to be predicatable--"I don't recognize these as egyptian". Of what value is that? A better view would be that Martin Harris believed these to be legitimate egyptian characters (and was led to believe that by JS). When Anthon told MH to get lost, JS reaction what what we see in the BoM, 2 Nephi 27: 15-21, where JS attempts to discredit Anthon.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 12 2004, 10:11 AM

Actually, all JS had to have was a vivid imagination and great story telling ability--not something unknown in all of human history.

This statement is absolutely stupid! This guy was very very very young....no matter what, even if he was a genius....and you must realized that he showed absolutely no talent before or after this of being a genius of writing made up stuff of this caliber....

he was so young, he couldn't have had enough knowledge crammed into his 3rd grade education level to write such a peice.

Not only that, the doctrine is astounding...take it from someone who has been studying the gospel for 30 years indepth and has written books.

Reading the doctrine alone, astounds me....

He is a prophet...and I don't say that lightly. I am very very critical and analytical when it comes to leaders and doctrine.

Just read Alma ....or Moroni or even Mormon, it is absolutely awesomely perfect and deep doctrine.

Pure misrepresentation. First, JS wasn't all that young. He was born in 1805 i believe and the BoM came out in 1830. That made him around 24 when he was writing the BoM. Do you realize that Albert Einstein was about that age when he did his most important work?

Second, being lacking in FORMAL training DOES show up in how he wrote the BoM--it had literally thousands of grammatical errors and poorly worded passages, which have since been edited out. But, a lack in formal training has little to do with having a fertile imagination and story telling ability. It is well documented that he, from a young age, had great powers of story telling AND of persuasion. His mother recalls in her diary of how he, as a young man, would keep the family spell bound for hours telling tales of the native american indians. He was also able to "con" people into paying him money to find buried treasure with his "peep"stones.

So, don't try to sell us that big line about how ignorant, and pathetic he was. He was no such thing. From early on he showed clear indications of being a fiesty, quick thinking, imaginative story teller.

On top of that there was plenty of literature to stimulate his imagination as to the origin of american indians. Ever read "The view of the hebrew" or "manuscript found". It was a common speculation of the times that native american indians were of hebrew origin. All he had to do was "run with it". Smart guy, knew how to make a buck. The book didn't sell for what he thought he could get for it, so he organized a church--which was known to be a way to make money in those days--still works today here and there.

As to the doctrine---not so astounding, my dear. What isn't plagerized directly from the bible mostly addressed religious issues of the times in New England--infant baptism, the atonement, the nature of God, the proper way to baptize--not only that but the prophesies were mostly about stuff that had already happened, and where unrealisitcally specific about them---and has virtually nothing specific that was supposed to happen AFTER the time of JS. How interesting!