A side note about Book of Mormon names and bias

As I was looking for something online on Book of Mormon names (perhaps for a future post), I stumbled upon a web-page critical of the church and a section in there about Book of Mormon names. It is introduced with a long, polemic sentence that I want to comment on

Hugh Nibley (among other LDS Apologists) has spent his life digging for any scrap of ancient evidence that remotely resembles something mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and then he uses the few forced scraps that he thinks by twisting can coincidentally match to come to the conclusion that “Yes indeed, the Book of Mormon must be of ancient origin” while he completely ignores the wealth of information that indicates that it can’t possibly be of ancient origin.

I am not going to comment too much on the loaded language, like "twisting", "forced scraps" and "remotely", but I would strongly argue that all the attested non-biblical Hebrew names and the numerous cases of wordplay used in relation to names in the Book of Mormon, among other things, are much more than mere scraps. A more sober way of describing this endeavor by Nibley and others is simply that they are looking into ancient Semitic languages for possible meanings and sources for Book of Mormon names.

This is why I find what happens next in the article amusingly ironic. The authors go on to look for any possible source in Joseph Smith's environment that may match or resemble Book of Mormon names. By doing so, they manage to "explain" the origin of Zarahemla, for example, by combining "Zara" (from Jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1:3) and "Imla" (an obscure name mentioned in 2 Chronicles 18:7), while "Onidah" in Alma 32 is supposedly taken from the Indian tribe, "Oneida", etc. Apparently, they fail completely to see any irony in this.

When discussing Alma, for instance, the web-page identifies "Almon" from Joshua 21:18 as the most likely influence. According to the authors, Almon is also a town in Quebec, even though I am unable to find it. The authors clearly believe, then, that Joseph Smith picked up this name from Joshua 21 and changed it a bit to form a character, Alma, in his mind, that was used when dictating the Book of Mormon text to his scribe. They obviously don't mention that Alma is a Semitic name, attested in non-Biblical sources unknown at Joseph Smith's time. After all, that is just another one of those remote, forced and twisted scraps that Hugh Nibley and other apologists are digging after. The fact that Joseph happened to get another authentic Hebrew name (Alma) when changing a different Hebrew name (Almon), was probably just a fortunate coincidence or a result of secret Hebrew studies! 

I might be unfair using Alma as an example here. After all, for many of the Book of Mormon names, there are exact matches in other sources that Joseph Smith had access to. But there is really not much more than this one source: the Bible. The problem is that it has the exact same explanatory power, regardless of what you presume. If Joseph Smith made it all up, he pulled many of these names directly from the Bible. If these are authentic ancient Semitic names, it is expected that many of them match the Bible. The fact that we observe matching names between the Book of Mormon and the Bible is perfectly reasonable either way and does not favor one theory more than the other. At least not that fact alone. I would still argue that Joseph Smith finding and memorizing (because he had no notes and manuscript available during the dictation, according to witnesses) such obscure Old Testament names seems unlikely. But someone with a preconceived belief is typically mostly focused on how the observations support their conclusions. Which brings me to the next sentence from this web-page, just after the one I quoted in the beginning, and just as ironic as the first.

As a side note: the very interesting thing about apologists, whether they be Creation, Christian, or Mormon Apologist seems to make no difference, is they already have their conclusions formed BEFORE they look at the evidence. It seems to me that it should be the other way around. One should form conclusions after weighing the evidence rather than ignoring most of the evidence and searching until you can find some small piece of evidence to support your already drawn conclusions.

Do the author(s) want us to think that they started with no preconceived notion whatsoever about the truthfulness and authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text? That no bias was involved when searching for names in Joseph Smith's millieu rather than ancient Semitic sources? That they arrived at the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was false only after they had found those names?

The truth is, we all have our biases, and it is inevitable. I cannot erase my past experiences, observations and current knowledge and pretend that there is a 50/50 probability that the Book of Mormon is true/false. Nobody can. Even those who hear about it for the first time will have their initial thoughts shaped by their worldview. What seems to be a common misconception among critics is that their position is the rational and therefore unbiased one. In reality, there is no default or neutral position. They do exactly what they accuse believers of. In this case, we have two very illustrative, even comical, examples of that.

I think some critics would argue against my statement that there is no default position, because the scientific method suggests that the null hypothesis usually should be that something did not happen. So the critic would perhaps argue that the null hypothesis should be that the Book of Mormon is not ancient. But starting with that position, they should, according to the scientific method, look for evidence against it. Besides, I might just as well set up the equally valid null hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is not of modern origin, and demonstrate yet again that this is all about our biases.

So all that we really can do is to be aware of our biases. This Book of Mormon notes blog is, as stated in the subheading, written from a faithful perspective. When we post about something that highlights the improbability that Joseph Smith could have made it up or that the Book of Mormon authors had a worldview typical for ancient Hebrews, it is coming from that faithful perspective. We don't spend time looking for flaws or evidence to support an opposing theory, just like the authors of this critical web-page I stumbled upon are not looking into ancient Semitic languages to affirm Book of Mormon names.

It is perfectly fine for both the authors of the blog (Lord Wilmore and I) and the readers to acknowledge that this is coming from a faithful perspective. I have seen many blogs and websites critical of the church, but I have rarely seen that acknowledged or directly stated. On the contrary, I have seen several claim that they are considering all the facts objectively or being only concerned with truth. If anyone claims to be coming from a neutral, completely objective and unbiased perspective, they are either lying or ignorant of their own bias.

I labelled this a side note because this is not meant to be a response to church critics blog. It is not even meant to be a Book of Mormon evidence blog per se. We just enjoy going deep into the Book of Mormon and evidence sometimes presents itself as a consequence for those who are willing to consider the possibility of its authenticity. In the end, the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is not determined by intellect, reason and science anyway. This is according to the Book of Mormon itself and so we are invited to evaluate it on its own premises.

Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God. (Jacob 4:8)

The children of Amulon and his brethren

I don't like to link to anti-church literature here, but suffice it to say that I read an article on one of the more well-known anti-church websites claiming that the Book of Mormon "text is filled with inconsistencies". Having written so much about the numerous examples of internal consistency, I become curious when such a claim is made. Not unexpectedly, the article fails completely to give these examples and it is tempting to write a full rebuttal, but I will not waste my time. But I just want to give one example of the failed critical argument here, because it demonstrates the complexity of the Book of Mormon and provides an example of an apparent weakness turning into a strength.

The article quotes Mosiah 25:12

those who were the children of Amulon and his brethren, who had taken to wife the daughters of the Lamanites, were displeased with the conduct of their fathers, and they would no longer be called by the names of their fathers, therefore they took upon themselves the name of Nephi, that they might be called the children of Nephi and be numbered among those who were called Nephites.

For those who don't remember, Amulon was the leader of the wicked priests of King Noah. They fled the land at King Noah's death and ruled over the people of Alma in the land Helam for a while. Like the verse says, they also kidnapped and married some of the daughters of the Lamanites.

The article comments:

The text does not say that the priests [Amulon and his brethren] had any children when they journeyed to Helam, but by the time Alma escaped, the priests not only had children, but they were apparently mature enough to decide that they wanted to join Alma's group in fleeing to Zarahemla

It also argues that the prophecies of Abinadi about the seed of the priests could not possibly be fulfilled since their children had joined the Nephites in Zarahemla as explained in Mosiah 25:12.

On the surface, it seems that the author has a valid point. But it is based on lack of detailed knowledge of the Book of Mormon text. The author assumes that the children of Amulon and his brethren that we read about in Mosiah 25:12, are children from the marriage with the daughters of the Lamanites. This is not the case. King Noah's priests already had wives and children (and concubines) before they fled the land and captured the Lamanite women. In Mosiah 19:11, we learn that when the Lamanites attacked, King Noah "commanded them that all the men should leave their wives and their children, and flee before the Lamanites". In verse 21 we learn that his priests were among them that had left their families and fled. 

Consequently, the children of Amulon and his brethren were among the people of Limhi, Noahs son, separated from their fathers. They were among the people who were slaves to the Lamanites and finally managed to escape and get back to Zarahemla. In the meantime, Amulon and his brethren, took the Lamanite's daughters as wives and presumably had new children. Abinadi's prophecies about the seed of the priests of Noah was of course directed at them.

Confused yet? Let's try to make an overview:

1. King Noah and his priests rule in wickedness
2. The Lamanites attack and the king and his priests leave their families and flee
3. King Noah's son, Limhi, rules as a tributary monarch in Lamanite captivity
4. The priests (Amulon and his brethren) kidnap some of the daughters of the Lamanites, marry them and probably have kids
5. Not long after, they find the people of Alma in the land of Helam and bring them into bondage
6. The people of Limhi manage to escape and flee to Zarahemla
7. Alma and his people manage to escape and flee to Zarahemla
8. In Zarahemla, the children of Amulon and his brethren want to be Nephites and not Amulonites

The critic misses the detail in #2 and assumes the kids from #4 end up in Zarahemla (#8), which admittedly would be strange, but certainly is not the case.

Conclusion: The Book of Mormon is complex! There are numerous such details in the text and it's hard to get a grip on those before you have read it a few dozen times and paid attention. This critic (who seems to be an ex-member) probably spent his youth in Sunday School, Seminary and Institute and had read the Book of Mormon multiple times, but still missed this detail. I don't think that is uncommon. What is uncommon, even remarkable, is that the 23 year old farmer with very little education dictated this text with all these details in essentially one draft without notes or manuscript. He apparently had full control over the details that the critic struggled with, even though the critic had the luxury of actually having the Book of Mormon text in front of them. Of course, I don't believe that Joseph Smith knew these details, I think the text was revealed to him and that the original author, Mormon, in this case, knew the details. But for the critics, this was Joseph Smith's invention, and the criticism backfires when it turns out that the ridiculed young farmer dictates a text so complex that the critics cannot keep track of the details.

Zenos as a common source for Malachi and Nephi?

This is copied from a long post I wrote on Reddit a while back. I thought it would fit here. Besides, this gives good background for other notes about Zenos that I will be posting this week.

There are a few passages in 1st and 2nd Nephi that seem to quote or paraphrase Malachi. Since Malachi lived after Nephi, this is a problem that critics like to point out. However, 3rd Nephi makes it clear that the Book of Mormon authors did not have the words of Malachi until Christ appeared. In 3rd Nephi 23:6, the Savior tells the Nephites that he will give them scriptures that they don’t have. In 3rd Nephi 24:1, he commands them to write the words of Malachi, “which he should tell unto them”.

If Joseph Smith were the author of the Book of Mormon, it is evident that he knew the Nephites could not have the words of Malachi because he lived after Lehi left Jerusalem.

Another relevant fact is that most scholars agree that 3rd Nephi was dictated before 1st and 2nd Nephi. That is, the Book of Mormon displays the knowledge of the Nephites not having access to Malachi’s words before those quotes in 1st and 2nd Nephi. Even to a non-believer, that should be a bit puzzling. Did Joseph Smith know that Malachi was written after 600 B.C. and then just forget a few weeks later? I think that seems very strange. But Malachi is never mentioned by name in 1st or 2nd Nephi. Did he quote or paraphrase him without mentioning him and hope nobody would notice? I also think that seems very strange. 

What about believers? For them, there are two common explanations. The first is that Nephi is not quoting or paraphrasing Malachi at all, they both just tend to use some of the same words and expressions. I am not quite sure what I think of that. Personally, I believe that the English translation of the Book of Mormon is given directly by God, but in a way that resembles familiar scriptural (i.e. KJV Bible) terms and phrases. So perhaps Jeff Lindsay is right. But I still feel that the texts are sufficiently similar to display some relationship.

The other explanation is that the Book of Mormon translation was Joseph Smith only getting ideas revealed to him that he needed to phrase in his own language, and he happened to be familiar with those passages in Malachi. I’m not going into details about that now, but I am not a big fan of this theory due to research on the Book of Mormon language, which does not seem to come from Joseph Smith at all.

I don’t think any of these explanations are completely satisfactory. That’s life sometimes. We want reasonable answers but we don’t get them.

However, a closer study of the passages in 1st and 2nd Nephi that resemble Malachi, has led me to an interesting observation: Every passage seems to be linked to the prophet, Zenos!

Let’s first look at Malachi. Chapter 4, verses 1 and 2:

For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up. But unto you that fear my name, shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall.

Colored phrases are the ones which have an exact or close match in certain 1st and 2nd Nephi passages. These are 1st Nephi 22:15, 1st Nephi 22:23-24, 2nd Nephi 25:10 and 2nd Nephi 26:4,6,9.

1st Nephi 22:15 reads like this:

…for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.

1st Nephi 22, last part of verse 23 and first part of verse 24, read like this:

they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet. And the time cometh speedily that the righteous must be led up as calves of the stall.

We observe many similarities with Malachi 4:1-2. But to put this in context, let us back up three chapters. In 1st Nephi 19:10-17, Nephi is quoting Zenos, but he often refers to him as “the prophet”. Then he goes on to quote Isaiah in chapters 20 and 21. In chapter 22, he comments on what he just quoted from Isaiah. He also keeps paraphrasing Isaiah as he comments in verses 1-14. Then from verse 15, he quotes “the prophet” several times. These quotes are not found in Isaiah. But since verse 15 and some of verses 23-24 resemble Malachi 4:1-2, many people think that this unnamed prophet is Malachi.

There are several problems with this interpretation, however. As explained before, the Book of Mormon text makes it clear that the Nephites didn’t have the words of Malachi. Also, when Nephi continues to quote “the prophet” from verse 15, there are quotes which are neither from Isaiah nor Malachi. For instance, in verse 17: “thus saith the prophet, they shall be saved, even if it so be as by fire.” This wording is not found anywhere in the Old Testament.

But what about Zenos? Since we don’t have his writings (other than what Book of Mormon prophets quote) we would not recognize if he was quoted. Also, we know he was quoted 3 chapters earlier before Nephi started quoting Isaiah and he was referred to several times as “the prophet”. It makes sense that when Nephi starts quoting “the prophet” again and we know it is not Isaiah, he is really going back to Zenos. It seems that Zenos was highly regarded on the brass plates. Except for Isaiah, he is the prophet quoted the most in the Book of Mormon. Notice in 3rd Nephi 10:16 how Zenos is “the prophet” and Zenock is… just Zenock.

It gets even more interesting when we consider the other “Malachi” quotes in the Book of Mormon. In 2nd Nephi 25:13, we read:

Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings;…

“with healing is his wings” is again a unique phrase in Malachi 4:2. But what is also unique is the notion of Christ in a sepulchre (the other colored phrase), which is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament and only one other place in the Book of Mormon: In 1st Nephi 19:10 where Nephi is quoting Zenos!

be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death

Again, there seems to be a relation between Zenos and an apparent Malachi quote.

Finally, the last passage with wording that resembles Malachi 4:1-2 is found in 2nd Nephi 26, verse 4, the end of verse 6 and beginning of verse 9:

Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble… they shall be as stubble, and the day that cometh shall consume them, saith the Lord of Hosts. But the Son of Righteousness shall appear unto them; and he shall heal them

Interestingly, this passage can be tied to Zenos too. The part between verse 4 and the end of verse 6 as quoted above, reads:

And they that kill the prophets, and the saints, the depths of the earth shall swallow them up, saith the Lord of Hosts; and mountains shall cover them, and whirlwinds shall carry them away, and buildings shall fall upon them and crush them to pieces and grind them to powder. And they shall be visited with thunderings, and lightnings, and earthquakes, and all manner of destructions, for the fire of the anger of the Lord shall be kindled against them, and they shall be as stubble…

Notice the similarities between this and the Zenos quote in 1st Nephi 19:11

For thus spake the prophet: The Lord God surely shall visit all the house of Israel at that day, some with his voice, because of their righteousness, unto their great joy and salvation, and others with the thunderings and the lightnings of his power, by tempest, by fire, and by smoke, and vapor of darkness, and by the opening of the earth, and by mountains which shall be carried up.

And all these things must surely come, saith the prophet Zenos…

It may seem that Nephi is paraphrasing Zenos in 2nd Nephi 26:5-6 where he also seems to be paraphrasing Malachi. For further evidence that this is "Zenos-language", see this previous post.

So what is going on here? Why can all the passages from 1st and 2nd Nephi, which use Malachi 4:1-2 language, be connected to Zenos? To me the answer is getting more and more obvious: Nephi is really quoting and paraphrasing Zenos and so is Malachi. If Malachi 4:1-2 borrows from Zenos, this all makes sense.

1. This is something we know prophets did, even Old Testament prophets borrowing from each other. (See e.g. Isaiah 2:2-3 and Micah 4:1-2)
2. The impossibility of the brass plates 600 B.C. quoting Malachi 400 B.C. is no longer an issue
3. It explains why all “Malachi-like” quotes in the Book of Mormon can be tied to Zenos
4. Zenos seems to have been an important prophet on the brass plates and it would make sense that he is “the prophet”, rather than Malachi, especially since we know he is referred to as such several times in the Book of Mormon

Book of Ether generations and timeline

This post reminded me of another interesting thing I found in the Book of Ether which exemplifies its consistency. I read about criticism of the Book of Ether a while back where someone had calculated that there must have been an average age of 55-60 years between these generations in the royal line. According to them, this was "absurd".

If we assume that Jared lived around 2200 B.C. and the people of Zarahemla discovered Coriantumr around 590-440 B.C. the calculation is correct. I remember having read in the Book of Ether sometimes that they begat such and such at an old age. So I looked further into it. You could say that this is another case of an apparent "weakness" in the Book of Mormon turning into a strength.

We know it's common in most ancient cultures that the firstborn son becomes the next king. In Ether 6:25-27 when the first king is chosen, this is not the case. The next kings after that are born when their father was "in his old age". See Ether 7:3, 7:7, 7:26, 8:1, 9:14 and so forth. For half of the kings, it is specifically stated that they were born when the father was old. For the rest, nothing is said about age. It seems very reasonable to conclude that the Jaredites had a tradition where the youngest son became the next king. Perhaps that started with Jared's son.

Considering the fact that kings could marry much younger women and have children with them, 55-60 years seems a very realistic average age for having their lastborn. There were probably several who were younger, but we know from the text that there were also several who were older.

For instance, in Ether 9:23-25

23 And it came to pass that Coriantum did walk in the steps of his father, and did build many mighty cities, and did administer that which was good unto his people in all his days. And it came to pass that he had no children even until he was exceedingly old.24 And it came to pass that his wife died, being an hundred and two years old. And it came to pass that Coriantum took to wife, in his old age, a young maid, and begat sons and daughters; wherefore he lived until he was an hundred and forty and two years old.
25 And it came to pass that he begat Com, and Com reigned in his stead; and he reigned forty and nine years, and he begat Heth; and he also begat other sons and daughters.

Anyway, I find it interesting how you often can study something in some detail and it doesn't make sense or seems wrong. Then you study it in more detail and see how it makes sense after all when you have carefully considered all the available information. If anyone believes that Joseph Smith was making this up, at least give him credit for doing the math and making sense of it by leaving these hints of an unusual practice of lastborn kings without explicitly stating it.

I also have to say, at the time I studied this, I didn't realize that there were others who have studied and concluded the same, but apparently there is. So perhaps you have heard about this theory of lastborn kings before. I was made aware of the fact that there is a general term for this: ultimogeniture.

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 7 (last remarks)

I have commented on all of Hamer's arguments up until part 6 of this serialized response. The rest of John Hamer’s presentation follows a different structure, so I will just make some general remarks as a response to the rest of the interview. He is telling about the oral story-telling tradition from Joseph Smith’s time. That’s fair enough, but it adds to the impression that Hamer thinks the Book of Mormon is not much more than just a collection of stories and sermons. He does not seem to be aware of its complexity, which in part has been demonstrated in this response.

Hamer goes on to argue that the timeframe for the Book of Mormon was relatively short but completely manageable. The math he does is not taking into account historical records with information about the days Joseph Smith was busy with other things, traveling, etc. and could not have worked with the translation. Other much more thorough calculations have been done in the past, taking these things into account. Their conclusion is that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon in about 65 working days, spending approximately 6 hours per day. The average time spent each day is difficult to assess, but the approximate number of days spent can be deduced from historical records. This might not be a big deal as both critics and believers obviously think that there was sufficient time to dictate and write the whole Book of Mormon in that timeframe. But there is also little doubt that there was not much time for additional research in that time period. When Joseph and Oliver were occupied with the translation in the time period from April 7^th to Mid-June, it consisted of dictating and writing essentially in one draft. This is confirmed by eye-witness accounts and the Book of Mormon manuscript.

Hamer also shows a slide with a quote from Lucy Mack Smith’s book. This gets misused a lot by critics in general. They talk, as does Hamer, about his “story-telling abilities”. Let’s look at this portion of the manuscript of Lucy’s book, available at josephsmithpapers.org:

“From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time and every evening we gathered our children togather And gave our our time up to the discussion of those things which he imparted <​un​> to us I think that <​we​> presented the most peculiar aspect of any family that ever lived upon the Earth all seated round in a circle father Mother sons and Daughters listening in breathless anxiety to the <​religious​> teachings of a boy 16 <​19​> yars of age who had never read the Bible through by course in his life for Joseph was less inclined to the study of books than any child we had but much more given to reflection and deep study We were convinced that God was about to bring to light something that we might stay our minds upon some thing that we could get a more definite idea of than anything which had been taught us heretofore and we rejoiced in it with exceeding great joy Uni the sweetest union and happiness pervaded our house no jar nor discord disturbed our peace and tranquility reigned in our midst In the course of our evening conversations Joseph would give us some of the most ammusing recitals which could be immagined he would de[s]cribe the ancient inhabitants of this continent their dress thier maner of traveling the animals which they rode The cities that were built by them the structure of their buildings with every particular of their mode of warfare their religious worship as particularly as though he had Spent his life with them it will be recollected by the reader that all that I mentioned and much more took place within the compass of one short year»

The bold text is the part presented by Hamer.

I don’t know of any other sources which describe Joseph Smith’s story telling skills.  But I would expect that if he was known as a great story-teller from a young age, there would be sources confirming that. Even Lucy’s book is not really saying anything about stories. It tells about “amusing recitals”. They involve descriptions of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent which may or may not involve stories.

But looking at the quoted paragraph, we see that there is a part in the middle (italics added) which is not quoted, which says that Joseph never had read the Bible through and was less inclined to reading than any of his siblings. Doesn’t that contradict the previous statements in the Hamer interview where Joseph Smith has “better than average, if not gifted knowledge of the Bible”? It’s interesting to see how sources are used: A paragraph in Lucy’s book is quoted in part and stretched to fit their narrative. But it skips the middle part which does not fit the narrative. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Conclusion:

In this interview by John Dehlin, John Hamer presents a lot of arguments to prove his theory that the Book of Mormon is solely the work of Joseph Smith. Most of the arguments are weak, some contradictory, some just pointless and many are plain false as demonstrated in this serialized response. The false arguments backfire since they show e.g. that the Book of Mormon demonstrates much knowledge of ancient Jewish practice, it contains language that does not seem to come from Joseph Smith and it is more complex than it first appears. When the arguments to support the theory that the Book of Mormon is an invention by Joseph Smith fall apart, the theory falls apart too. Critics may need to go back to conspiracy theories while believers can be confident in their beliefs that Joseph Smith and the witnesses told the truth and that the Book of Mormon is an authentic, ancient record translated by the gift and power of God.

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 6

Claim: "BoM – Not an isolated production"

Argument 1: "Joseph Smith displayed his capacity to compose text throughout his career, beginning with dictating revelations that ultimately became the D&C"

This argument is another contradiction. Was he “composing text” or “dictating revelations”? Those are two very different things. If he dictated revelations that became the D&C, then it means that he was able to receive the Book of Mormon text through revelation as well. If D&C was just him composing text, it still doesn’t explain the Book of Mormon very well because it’s a very different kind of text. More about that here: https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/bgv5ob/there_is_a_huge_literary_difference_between_the/

Argument 2: "After the BoM was published, he dictated the JST, later the BoA, and was dictating his own life’s history at the time of his death"

None of those come anywhere near the complexity of the Book of Mormon. If this is all Joseph Smith’s work, why start with the Magnum Opus? Highly unusual.

Claim: "Book of Mormon filled with Joseph Smithisms"

Argument 1: "The text includes Joseph Smith Sr’s vision (Lehi’s dream in 1^st Nephi 8)"

Joseph Smith Sr’s vision is found in Lucy Mack Smith’s biography long after the Book of Mormon was written. There is no known source of Joseph Sr’s vision from before the Book of Mormon. So this seems rather a case of Lucy’s recollection of her husband’s dream decades earlier being filled with Book of Mormonism. I find that far more likely than Joseph Smith incorporating his father’s dream in the Book of Mormon. Surely, he must have known that would make his family members suspicious.

Argument 2: "The text predicts a choice seer: Joseph son of Joseph (2^nd Nephi 3)"

This is useless to debate. Those who have already made up their minds that Joseph Smith invented the Book of Mormon will say this is him dictating a prophecy about himself. Those who believe in the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon believe that Joseph in Egypt actually prophesied about a future Joseph.

Argument 3: "The text predicts the Martin Harris and Charles Anthon story (2^nd Nephi 27:6-12)"

Same as the previous section. Except this is also found in Isaiah 29 which was written way before the Harris-Anthon event.

Isaiah 29:11-12: “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.“

Does Isaiah also contain Joseph Smithisms?

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 5

Critical claim: Joseph Smith is "dumb when only needed to be apologetically"

Argument 1: "And yet somehow the same Joseph Smith at age 24 is imagined to be illiterate and unable to compose stories orally"

Straw-man again. He is not illiterate, but he is poorly educated as were most farmers in 19^th century America compared with today. He can read of course, but we have no personal writings from Joseph Smith prior to the age of 26. His personal writings are not exactly literal masterpieces and they are very different from the Book of Mormon language. This is demonstrated in the links below (one of them already shared in part 3):

·         https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-can-stylometry-tell-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship

·         https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/

I don’t know of anyone who says he was unable to compose stories orally. But there is a huge difference between just a story and the Book of Mormon, as demonstrated in part 2b of my response.

Argument 2: "In fact, his background was neither especially educated and uneducated – he could read, he’d studied the Bible, he’d been tutored by Hyrum, etc."

True. For his time and social class he seems to have been pretty average. He could read and he had studied the Bible. According to his mom, he was the least inclined to reading among the siblings and had never read the Bible from cover to cover at age 18. But he could read. I don’t know of anyone who has claimed otherwise.

But I think dictating the Book of Mormon takes a lot more than being able to read and be tutored by another farmer. I don’t think Hyrum or his parents had the education or knowledge to help him with Arabian geography, Hebraisms, ancient Jewish customs, etc.

Hamer is also contradicting himself at this point. He’s going quite far in the first claim (see part 1a of my response) saying that the Book of Mormon knows almost nothing about the Bible. But when he’s making the case of Joseph Smith being smarter than people tend to think, the argument is that he has “better than average, if not gifted knowledge of the Bible” (John Dehlin’s words in the interview, but Hamer agrees). If Joseph Smith had such good knowledge of the Bible, then what is the point of the first claim? Perhaps Joseph Smith is dumb when only needed to be, critically?

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 4

The arguments here are off the mark. No long rebuttal needed. In fact, the response to the argument is shorter than the argument!

Critical question: How illiterate was Joseph Smith Jr.?

Argument 1: For many Mormons, the 38 y. old Joseph Smith was a theological genius who perceived and articulated the Plan of Salvation in a way clearer than ever before

This is a straw-man. We claim that God is a theological genius and that Joseph Smith received revelations from Him.

Argument 2: Likewise, the 15-year old Joseph Smith talked directly to God and was able to perceive that all the world’s religions were in error

This has absolutely nothing to do with literacy

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 3

Claim: "The text was/is replete with errors"

Argument 1: "The original text had thousands of grammar errors that were subsequentially corrected"

Since Hamer refers to Royal Skousen’s work during his presentation, this is also a strange argument. One of Skousen’s findings is that grammatically, the Book of Mormon text is an Early Modern English text, ca 17^th century. As such, the original language works well grammatically, perhaps apart from the Hebrew influenced syntax. But because both EModE and Hebrew grammar sounds strange or is plain wrong in 19^th century English, much of that was changed. If Joseph Smith knew he had inserted Hebrew syntax, why change it later instead of leaving it there as evidence? A reasonable answer: He didn’t know because the text was not from him.

So, the “grammar errors” seem to come from 17^th century English and Hebraisms rather than Joseph Smith’s rural dialect. See the following sources for more info:

·         https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/

·         https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/is-the-book-of-mormon-a-pseudo-archaic-text/

·         https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_do_%22if-and_conditionals%22_tell_us_about_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation%3F

If Hamer’s theory is that the Book of Mormon is an invention by Joseph Smith, this argument is really contradicting his view.

Argument 2: "The original included several substantive errors (e.g. saying Benjamin instead of Mosiah)"

He claims there are several but gives only one example. This is because there is only one example. Some critics would perhaps also argue that a few changes from “God” to “Son of God” in 1st Nephi count as substantive errors. I would argue against that, because the Son of God (Jesus Christ) is in fact a God, which is a title. Even today, we learn that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament. These 1^st Nephi passages, both before and after the change, work and are consistent with the rest of the Book of Mormon text. All throughout the Book of Mormon, there are several examples of Jesus Christ being “the Son of God”, “the Father” and “God”. The Book of Mormon even explains at least three ways in which Christ can be labeled “the Father”.

That leaves us with exactly one substantive error, unless Hamer can provide more examples. Whether the error is by Mormon or Joseph Smith is unknown and is therefore useless as an argument to back up his claims.

Argument 3: "The entirety is anachronistic from animals, crops and metals to 19^th century Christian topics"

This is an old debate and I don’t want to go too much into detail here, because it has been discussed by people much more knowledgeable than me. To be honest, I don’t know what a 19^th century Christian topic is. But if this is used as an example of an anachronism, it’s not enough to find examples from 19^th century literature discussing a certain topic found in the Book of Mormon. One must also demonstrate that this is a new topic in the 19^th century or at least not discussed in Book of Mormon times. How do you do that? There is absolutely no way to demonstrate that a “19^th century Christian topic” is an anachronism or not.

As for animals, crops and metals, it is unreasonable to expect that the names of these things found somewhere on the American continent 2-3 millennia ago, should always have an English 19th century equivalent. It is reasonable to expect that common English words for many of those things didn't even exist. But in order to not have 'cureloms' and 'ziff' all over the book, English words like 'horse' and 'wheat' are used to reflect what those things were with varying degree of accuracy.

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 2b

We are still dealing with Hamer's claim that:

"The Book of Mormon is far simpler than it first appears".

We will consider another argument he uses to back up that claim:

"Although the text includes many characters and places, the author 

only had to have a few of each in his mind at any given time as 

he tells individual stories"

If I understand his argument correctly, Hamer is saying that it really doesn’t matter that there are 200 personal names, 100 geographical names and other intricate details in the Book of Mormon, because the text only uses a few of them at a time and the stories are disjointed in a way that the author can forget about these details after one story is finished.

I have previously created a document listing examples of internal consistency in the Book of Mormon where we see one part of the text referring to another. If what John Hamer is saying is true, then we wouldn’t expect these references to be very far apart and primarily be kept within a single story. To test this, let us go to a certain point in Joseph Smith’s dictation and see what he needs to remember at this point to provide a consistent text. I.e. what details are included in the text before this snapshot in Joseph's dictation that are in onw way or another referred to at some later poin and needs remembering. For this purpose, we assume that Joseph Smith has just finished dictating Alma 54 and is about to start dictating Alma 55.

At the end of Alma 54 we are in the middle of a long war between the Nephites and Lamanites, initiated by Nephite dissenters. At this point in the dictation, Joseph Smith needs to remember names and details which have been introduced prior to chapter 55 and will be referenced from chapter 55 and on. This includes:

·         The Nephite chief captain is Moroni

·         Helaman is the ecclesiastical leader, but in these times of war has also taken command over an army in another part of the land

·         Two other Nephite captains in this war are Lehi and Teancum

·         The Lamanite chief captain is Ammaron

·         The former chief captain and Ammaron’s brother was Amalickiah. He died in chapter 51 but must still be remembered because he is referred to later, in Alma 62:35.

·         The chief judge is Pahoran. He was introduced in chapter 50 but must be kept in mind as he returns to the narrative at the end of the war in Alma.

Although these are strange and unusual names for someone in 19^th century New York, you could argue that remembering these few names and details is manageable even without notes. This is probably what John Hamer has in mind when he says: “Although the text includes many characters and places, the author only had to have a few of each in his mind at any given time as he tells individual stories”. But to the observant reader, there is more details to this story that Joseph Smith must keep in mind. He needs to remember the following:

·         Alma 51:26 lists several cities which the Lamanites conquer. Since the recapturing of all of these except for one are described specifically later in the text, Joseph Smith must remember which those are. For instance, Alma 55 describes the recapturing of Gid and preparations to recapture Morianton, both cities listed in Alma 51:26.

·         It is not enough to remember Helaman and the 2000 stripling warriors. The background is given in Alma 53:13-15 (Helaman fearing for the souls of the people of Ammon as they almost break their covenant and their sons stepping up to the challenge because they have not covenanted). These details must also be remembered because they are repeated in the letter from Helaman to Moroni in Alma 56:7-8.

·         In Alma 51:24, when the Lamanites conquer the land of Moroni, they flee to the city of Nephihah and the people in the city of Lehi also gather there. This detail must be remembered, including the names of the cities involved because Alma 59:5 reminds the reader that the people in Nephihah are gathered from Moroni and Lehi.

·         In Alma 51:19, the king-men (Amalickiah’s followers) are “taken and cast into prison”. These dissenters are the reason for the war in the first place. But they are not brought up again until Alma 62:9, which contains a very subtle reference to the “king-men who had been taken and cast into prison” even though the war is over.

·         In Alma 50:34, the land Desolation is located in the north by the narrow pass. This is something the author must keep in mind because it is consistent with Alma 63:5 and Mormon 3:5.

·         Alma 22:27 and Alma 17:1 indicates that Manti is close to Zarahemla. This is also the case when Joseph Smith later dictates Alma 58.

·         In Alma 45:21, after the previous war, Helaman proclaimed the word of God because it was expedient “that a regulation whould be made throughout the church.” In Alma 62:44, after this next period of war, Helaman proclaimed the word of God because “it had become expedient that a regulation should be made again in the church.” The “again” in Alma 62:44 clearly refers to Alma 45:21.

These are all details related to the ongoing war in Alma 54 that the casual reader might miss but that Joseph Smith needs to remember while trying to dictate a coherent text with his face in a hat. I don’t think this is a trivial task at all. By the time he gets to the chapters referring to previous details, he has already introduced new details which need remembering. The stories are intertwined, not disjointed. For instance, chapters 56-58 contain an epistle by Helaman in the southwestern part of the land before we return to Moroni and his men in the eastern parts again. In the letter, several cities that the Lamanites conquer are listed in Alma 56:14 and the recapturing described later for some of them, which means those city names must be remembered too and cannot be mixed up with the cities in the eastern parts. In addition, new people like Antipus, Gid and Teomner are introduced.

Even though this is already getting complex, there is much more. There is still a list of things Joseph Smith has dictated prior to this war, but still need to be remembered because they are referred to at some later point. The list is based on the assumed order of Joseph Smith’s dictation after the loss of the 116 pages, where he started from Mosiah, dictated to the end of Moroni and then 1^st nephi to Words of Mormon.

·         Mosiah 1:10: “the people of Mosiah”. This refers to Mosiah I, who we learn about in Omni 1:12-19. (Note the same reference to “the people of Mosiah” in Omni 1:17). But Omni had not been dictated yet. This means that Mosiah I and his people were briefly referred to in the beginning of the dictation and then described in more detail at the very end of the dictation.

·         Mosiah 25:2: Mulek is mentioned for the first time. There is no mention of him again until a reference later in Helaman 6:10

·         Mosiah 28:19: “And this account shall be written hereafter”. Refers to the account of the Jaredites which is not given until the Book of Ether.

·         Mosiah 29:46: “making in the whole, five hundred and nine years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem.” This is the start of the reign of the judges. But this little detail must be remembered because it is needed for 3^rd Nephi 1:1 to add up: “Now it came to pass that the ninety and first year [since the start of the reign of the judges] had passed away and it was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem”. 509+91=600, which is also consistent with the 600-year prophecy given later when Joseph Smith dictated 1^st Nephi 10:4.

·         Alma 3:6 talks about Nephi, Sam, Jacob and Joseph, the righteous sons of Lehi. Only Nephi is mentioned again in the rest of the BoM. Keep in mind that Joseph Smith started dictating from Mosiah. When Sam, Jacob and Joseph are introduced later in 1^st Nephi, their names had been mentioned only once, more than 100 chapters ago, and had to match.

·         Alma 6:7 indicates that the cities of Zarahemla and Gideon are close to each other. Joseph Smith must remember this when he later dictates Alma 61:5 and Helaman 13:12-15.

·         Alma 33:15: The prophet Zenock is mentioned for the first time in the dictation. He must be ‘remembered’ at Helaman 8:20, which is the second time he is mentioned.

·         Alma 37:21: Alma is talking about the 24 plates that Limhi’s people found. This detail must be remembered later in Ether 1:2, because another reference is made to the number of plates there

·         Helaman 5:9 refers to something specific that King Benjamin said in Mosiah 3:17

·         Helaman 5:10 refers to something that occurred many chapters earlier in Alma 11:34. If Joseph Smith is inventing this, he must remember the names of those involved (Amulek and Zeezrom), where it occurred (the city of Ammonihah) and what was said (Christ would not save his people in their sins)

·         Helaman 5:21: “even in that same prison in which Ammon and his brethren were cast by the servants of Limhi”. This refers to an event in Mosiah 7.

·         Helaman 6:25: Mormon comments on one of Alma’s specific commandments to his son. This is a reference to Alma 37:21-29.

·         Helaman 14:12 contains a word for word quote of King Benjamin by Samuel the Lamanite: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning” is the exact same wording as in Mosiah 3:8

·         3.Nephi 5:12 is referring to the land of Mormon, which has not been mentioned since Alma 21:1. We are used to this name of course, but at this point in the dictation, there has not been one instance of the personal name, Mormon yet. In this verse, Mormon who abridges the records, introduces himself for the first time and makes a reference to the land of Mormon by saying he is named after it.

·         3.Nephi 12:26: The English translation of the corresponding verse in Matthew 5:26 (Sermon on the Mount) is usually using penny, farthing or similar depending on the translation. In this verse, Jesus is using the Nephite currency, senine. This was introduced in Alma 11 and has only been used once since then, in Alma 30:33. As explained in Alma 11, a senine is the lowest value (smallest piece of gold) and it therefore makes sense as a Nephite substitute for “penny”.

·         Ether 1:3: The first part of the Jaredite record contains the creation account and the history from Adam to the tower of Babel. This detail was also described in Mosiah 28:17

·         Ether 12:13-17 refers to several previous people and events in the Book of Mormon, several of them prior to Alma 55 (the point in Joseph Smith dictation which is our starting point for this list)

·         Ether 15:33 talks about the people of Limhi finding the Jaredite records. This detail is found in Mosiah, but has not been mentioned since Mosiah 28:11

·         1.Nephi 1:8: Lehi sees “God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God”. Notice the exact same wording in Alma 36:22 when Alma says he saw the same as Lehi. Alma is of course the one referring to Lehi, but Joseph Smith first dictates the reference, then the original event that is referred to.

·         1.Nephi 4:35: Here we are introduced to Zoram. However, in the process of Joseph Smith’s dictation, this same Zoram has already been mentioned once in Alma 54:23. Hence, just like Nephi’s brothers, Zoram and the story of him coming along with Nephi out of Jerusalem must have been known about before Joseph Smith dictated this part.

·         1.Nephi 16:10: This is where Lehi finds Liahona outside his tent. Following Joseph Smith’s order of dictation, however, a reference to Liahona has already been made in Alma 37. Consequently, Joseph Smith dictates the Liahona story long after a reference to it.

·         1.Nephi 19:10-12: Nephi is quoting and paraphrasing the prophesies of Zenos about the natural disasters and darkness at the time of Christ’s crucifixion. This is consistent with 3.Nephi 10:14-16, which states that Zenos and Zenock in particular “spake concerning these things”.

·         Omni 1:28-30: This describes two groups from Zarahemla going to the land of Nephi. The first group was unsuccessful and returned to Zarahemla. As for the other group, nothing was heard of them again in that generation from the perspective of someone living in Zarahemla, like Amaleki. This is consistent with the information we get in Mosiah 9, where we can read a more detailed account.

·         Words of Mormon 1:12-13,18: Mormon talks about a period of contentions and wars in King Benjamin’s days, after which he manages to establish peace. This ties in neatly with Mosiah 1:1, a verse which Joseph Smith had dictated about 2.5 months earlier and completes the circle.

This is a pretty long list, and even though there are many more internal references in the Book of Mormon, this list is limited to what Joseph Smith needs to remember at the end of Alma 54, because he has already dictated these things and will later refer to them. The alternative is that Joseph Smith forgets about it and instead studies the half-finished manuscript to find these details and bring them up when he needs to refer to them. The problem with that argument is that many of these details don’t need reference, i.e. the natural progression of events does not force Joseph Smith to look these up at a certain point. Many of them are subtle details whose existence the casual reader has long forgotten. For instance, when Joseph Smith dictates Helaman 5:21, he doesn’t have to say that the prison Lehi and Nephi were cast into was the same prison that Ammon was cast into. Yet he does. So it is clear that this is a detail that the Book of Mormon author is already aware of.

My personal opinion is that those who think Joseph Smith made this up and kept all these details straight and even argue that it’s not that difficult, do not understand the complexity of the Book of Mormon and grossly underestimate the difficulty of dictating a book in one single draft. In fact, I highly doubt that John Hamer and those who agree with him are aware of all these details listed above. Consequently, if Joseph Smith made this up, he knew the Book of Mormon text much better than them already at the time when he first dictated it! How can that be?

Keep in mind that this is still just a snapshot of Joseph Smith’s dictation at the time he had just finished Alma 54. At another time, say 3^rd Nephi 19, the list would look different so he would have another set of details to remember, some overlapping with the Alma 54 list. One might argue that I chose Alma 54 because that is the most complex part resulting in the longest list of things to remember. I admit it might be one of the hardest ones because it is in the middle of a war with many city names etc to keep track of (I haven’t even listed all of them here), and I chose it to make a point of it. But I would argue that the most difficult part is not at this point in Alma but rather between Ether 1 and 6. Here Joseph Smith would need to remember the whole genealogy in Ether 1, that is 30 names, unfamiliar for the most part, in the right order, because he is telling the story of all these generations from Ether 6 and on and it is 100% consistent. Other details from the Book of Mormon dictated before Ether 6 and repeated after Ether 6 also come in addition, for instance several items from the list above would still apply.

In any case, it should be obvious that John Hamer’s claim that Joseph Smith would only need to have a few characters and places in his mind at any given time as he tells individual stories, does not hold up to scrutiny. In his presentation, this argument is made on the slide with the heading: “The Book of Mormon text is far simpler than it first appears.” Many of the items on my list of things Joseph Smith would need to keep track of, are definitely not something that easily “appear” upon the first reading. Hence, I would argue that it’s quite the opposite. The complexity of the Book of Mormon is there but you need to study it in-depth to see it. That’s why I would reverse John Hamer’s statement and argue that the Book of Mormon text is far more complex than it first appears.