# The origin of Book of Mormon **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2002, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633 "2002-10-17T07:37:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/21 "2002-10-21T11:21:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > I was alluding to the snide manner in which you presented your case, Urban Ranger. Snide? I fail to see how more matter-of-fact-ly you can make it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > I am also fully aware that those who don’t believe the LDS explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon essentially believe that Smith made up the story. Again, as these debates go, it will have to be the proponents of a certain position to show the evidence and/or proof. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > There is another way to go about these discussions. You’re a grownup now, ain’t ya? So you must know what that way is. Assume I am a 3 year old martian kid. Do explain what this mysterious way of yours is. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/22 "2002-10-21T11:36:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > But you can demonstrate this with practically any god-based religion you care to name, UR. “Where did your religion come from?” you ask the Believers, and they’ll tell you, “God gave it to us”, or words to that effect, and if you then ask them, “How do you know it was God?” all they’ll be able to tell you is, “We believe it was God,” and if you ask them to _prove_ that it was God, they won’t be able to. That’s quite a sweeping generalisation isn’t it? Among the religions I am familar with, only Judeo-Christianity (and its offshoots) has made assertions to the truthfulness of its origin. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > I can’t think of a god-based world religion offhand that can _prove_ anything at all concerning where their religion came from, other than the Muslims being able to prove that Mohammed really existed, and that he really did write stuff down in the Quran. But as for the divine revelations that he received from God and wrote down in the Quran, well, where’s their “proof” for for divine inspiration for any of that? The Christians can’t _prove_ that the Bible is divinely inspired, either. If that’s the case, why make assertions to the otherwise? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > It’s the same with the LDS, or Judaism. Nobody can _prove_ that God started their religion, certainly not to Straight Dope standards. Asking, “Where are Joseph Smith’s golden plates?” is like asking, “Where are the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments?” These seem to be different beasts. How long has it been since Joseph Smith had received his plates? It’s not like those were paper plates, either. Speaking of paper, some of the Dead Sea scrolls had been scribed on similar material. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > And saying, “Since we can’t find the golden plates, that proves that he made it all up” is like saying, “Since we can’t find the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, that proves that the Jews made it all up.” Yes, until proven otherwise. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > It’s beside the point. It’s “religion”, not “science”. It doesn’t _have_ to prove anything. Are you sure? You must be a whole lot wiser than lowly peons such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/23 "2002-10-21T13:53:54Z")
Well, I thought I was on _your_ side, or at least “keeping an open mind” neutral, but I guess I’m not, so I’ll go away now… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/24 "2002-10-21T15:06:17Z")
Why without the snideness, Master Mars. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/25 "2002-10-21T16:27:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > **Now, as I mentioned, on to steel. I hold in my hands an article from the [Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Volume 9, #2](http://farms.byu.edu/templates/library/jbmsvolume.php?jbmsid=221). The article is about Nephite metallurgy. It points out that the melting point of iron is too hot (1535 degrees C) for a primitive charcoal furnace. However, carburized steel only requires a temperature of 1200 degrees C, which is attainable with a simple forge and bellows.** I can’t read any of the articles from the link you’ve provided without subscribing to the Journal. However, I will say this: Even if carburized steel’s melting point is only 1200 degrees C, in order to **make** any kind of steel in the first place you first have to **melt iron!** ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/26 "2002-10-21T16:40:25Z")
Actually, that’s not true **tracer**. Carburized steel creates a thin layer of hardened material with the outer layer of iron. The process is called “direct iron reduction” and does **not** require the melting of iron. (Sorry that that issue of JBMS is locked. Earlier issues aren’t. And my subscription has expired, so I can’t get the soft-copy either.) ---
**Author:** ![Feynn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Feynn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Feynn)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/27 "2002-10-21T20:30:17Z")
“If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak.” Apostle George Albert Smith, Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, Page 216 How can the book of Mormon, which was translated from golden plates buried by Moroni in 421 A.D. contain text that matched the text (including translation errors) found in the KJV which was written in 1611?? ---
**Author:** ![MrMcPlad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@MrMcPlad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrMcPlad)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/28 "2002-10-21T20:39:09Z")
Nobody has talked about the [chaismus](http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml) that emarkp brought up. Maybe it was because he provided a dead link. Here’s the correct one. I’d like to see what the skeptics have to say. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2002, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/29 "2002-10-21T23:23:52Z")
**MrMcPlad:** The article you linked to quoted a _BYU Studies_ article, which said: > [@](#): > > The possibility of Joseph Smith’s noticing the form [chiasmus] accidentally is even more remote, since most biblical passages containing inverted word orders have been rearranged into natural word orders in the King James translation. Yet here are the KJV translations of two of the passages they use as examples of chiasmus: “Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped.” _Psalms 124:7_ “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” _– Isaiah 6:10_ The “palendromic” thematic nature of these passages is pretty obvious, whether or not you’ve ever heard of chiasmus. If you were someone like Joseph Smith, who had pored over the KJV Bible intently ever since your youth, it’s not at all inconceivable that you would’ve noticed the “palendromic” character of passages like the two above, and would have associated that thematic style with how something “biblical” ought to sound. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/30 "2002-10-22T00:02:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > **Carburized steel creates a thin layer of hardened material with the outer layer of iron. The process is called “direct iron reduction” and does not require the melting of iron.** Huh. I’ll be darned. So if something is “made of” carburized steel it isn’t actually steel through-and-through, it’s merely got an outer layer of carbon-impregnated steel with a core of plain old iron. Is the steel mentioned in the BoM described in sufficient detail to determine whether it is steel with an iron core or steel throughout? Oh, wait a sec – I just noticed something. You ( **emarkp** ) wrote in an earlier message: > [@](#): > > The short version is that the Bible mentions steel also, in contemporary settings (Jeremiah 15:12 for example) as well as earlier (2 Samuel 22:35 for instance). Hmmm … interesting … I note that in the NIV and Darby translations of Jeremiah 15:12 and 2 Samuel 22:35, the word is translated as **bronze** , not steel. In fact, no English translation of the Bible **other than the King James Version** uses the word “steel” in either of those passages. It seems that steel wasn’t actually mentioned in the original Old or New Testament writings at all. But it **was** mentioned, perhaps by a translator’s error, in the KJV translation. And it was the KJV translation which Joseph Smith grew up with, and which bears an eerie similarity in literary style to the BoM. Hmmm… ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/31 "2002-10-22T05:31:39Z")
> [@](#): > > The “palendromic” thematic nature of these passages is pretty obvious, whether or not you’ve ever heard of chiasmus. > > If you were someone like Joseph Smith, who had pored over the KJV Bible intently ever since your youth, it’s not at all inconceivable that you would’ve noticed the “palendromic” character of passages like the two above, and would have associated that thematic style with how something “biblical” ought to sound. Funny, I never noticed it until I read apologist writings when I was in college. I wasn’t the greatest biblical scholar, but neither did I have to clear and farm land to survive, did you? Also, as I mentioned, chiasmus really wasn’t noticed until decades after the BoM. You’re telling me that this should have been obvious to everyone–well, except for the KJV translators, since they screwed up some of the chiasmus in translation. And after centuries of analysis and commentary on the Bible, no one mentioned that poetic form. Sigh. I could accept this “well, maybe he got something right” argument once, or maybe twice. But I see it repeatedly in arguments saying Smith was some sort of savant getting so many details wrong (oh, but he screwed up with “at Jerusalem” the goof!). So many things seem obvious in retrospect, but were remarkable at the time. It gets old fast. **tracer** , if Smith could have figured it out, please produce some evidence that other people also noticed it. I mean, it should have been easy to spot if such a country bumpkin (at the age of 23) could get it right. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/32 "2002-10-22T05:32:46Z")
> [@](#): > > I note that in the NIV and Darby translations of Jeremiah 15:12 and 2 Samuel 22:35, the word is translated as bronze, not steel. True, but not conclusive. We read in the article cited by emarkp: > [@](#): > > The traditional Iron Age began in the eastern Mediterranean about 1200 BC[E]. …By [1000 BCE], Israel had mastered the technology of iron and there were smelting furnaces at Ezion-Geber at the head of the eastern arm of the Red Sea. > > Nephi may have learned these skills from the smiths in Jerusalem or from his multiple journeys between Jerusalem and the Red Sea, which required him to pass repeatedly through southern Wadi Arabah, the principal site for mining and smelting of both copper and iron in ancient Israel. > > Nephi’s furnace almost certainly never reached the smelting point of or iron (1535 C or 2795 F), but it didn’t need to. > When air is introduced into a hot mixture of iron oxides and charcoal, [carbon monoxide is formed], which is a reducing gas…tiny crystals of iron, freed of its oxygen, filter downward to accumulate at the base of the fire pit as a gray, spongy mass called a ‘bloom’ or sponge iron.’ This form of iron reduction, called the ‘direct process,’ begins at about 1200 C…The white-hot bloom can be withdrawn from the furnace and hammered (‘forged’) to squeeze out remaining slag and to weld…the iron crystals into a solid mass called ‘wrought iron.’ > > Wrought iron is not suitable for tools or weapons…Long heating of the wrought iron in direct contact with glowing charcoal, however, causes carbon atoms to diffuse into the outer layers of the iron, creating a simple form of stell (martensite). This process is called ‘carburizing,’ and repeated carburizing and forging produce and outer layer of steel that can be very hard and sharpened to a fine edge. > > Today we know that the smiths of Damascus fused together thin layers of carburized steel to form a single blade. Repeated forging produced a visible wavy pattern…in the famous Damascus steel. > > It is important to note that the direct process of iron reduction, [etc.] were technologies known throughout the Near East of Nephi’s day. All were possible for a learned or inspired man using a simple pit furnace with bellows and a simple forge. I hope that quote is reasonable. It’s a big article. Wow, now you know how to produce carburized steel! The point is that this was pretty well-known stuff in those days, whether or not the KJV is translated correctly. The BoM is not very detailed, but it does describe making bellows and fire, which would seem to point to producing the simple martensite steel, not anything fancy. Once again, I note that I don’t expect anyone to change their minds; the only way to become convinced of the truthfulness of the BoM, I am convinced, is through the influence of the Spirit. But hey, ask away. ---
**Author:** ![MrMcPlad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@MrMcPlad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrMcPlad)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/33 "2002-10-22T18:02:26Z")
> [@](#): > > The “palendromic” thematic nature of these passages is pretty obvious, whether or not you’ve ever heard of chiasmus. You really think so? I guess if you were looking for palendromes in the scriptures they wouldn’t be hard to find, but why would you look for them if you had never heard of them? Also, if Joseph Smith knew about them and wrote them into his book, why wouldn’t he flaunt them as evidence for its authenticity? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2002, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/34 "2002-10-22T19:32:07Z")
Could someone explain where the tablets have gone, and when they disappeared? Seems to me a tremendous difference between some anonymous Hebrews losing artifacts over several thousands of years and several dozen countries, and some specific Mormons losing same in a few decades while living in the same sparsely populated country. At the very least, it strikes me as suspiciously careless. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2002, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/35 "2002-10-23T05:12:12Z")
**pseudotriton ruber ruber** , I’ve been looking for original documents so I could give you a cite with an answer. I’ll keep looking, but the short explanation is that Moroni took them back after the translation was done, and that they will be returned for more translation (the portion of the book which was sealed) when we’re ready. ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2002, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/36 "2002-10-23T12:19:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139330) Monty wrote > > Since the original thread is now locked I wish to continue the discussion here. If there is a previous thread on the same topic please point me to it. > > Anyway, my contention was Joe Smith made it up. It doesn’t matter if the tablets did exist or not: there are only two possible explanations. > > The first one is indeed Joe Smith received the tablets from the Judeo-Christianity god. Even if we set aside the obvious question “Why?” there remains an equally obvious question “Really?” > > Suppose the tablets did exist. They are not in itself evidence that they came from YHWH. Joe Smith could have made them up. Those who think that the tablets are divine have the burden of proof. > > The second explanation is Joe Smith made the whole thing up. This appears to be the more sensible and logical explanation. > > [P.S. I am lumping other supernatural and/or extraterrestrial souces with exlanation number one] \*\* Another question that could be asked is could this angel who appeared to Mr. Smith have been an impersonator? A fallen angel appearing as an angel of light to deceive? According to Scripture, 2 Cor. 11:14-15, this is a possiblility. Perhaps Mr. Smith should have used the test given in 1 John 4:1-3 to find out if this angel really came from God. Just a thought, anyway. I’m not sure that I think he made it all up. ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2002, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/37 "2002-10-23T12:40:39Z")
I’ve looked up some sites on mormonism from a Christian perspective for anyone who cares to check it out. Note: I’m not saying individual mormons can’t be Christians. This is not an attack on any individual person, just info on mormonism. [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormonism.html](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormonism.html) [http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/mormonism.htm](http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/mormonism.htm) [http://aros.net/~wenglund/ldscult.htm](http://aros.net/~wenglund/ldscult.htm) These are comparing some of the teachings of mormonism to the teachings of the Bible. Please don’t take this as a personal attack. Different theories are being put forth here, this is just one of them. Perhaps Mr. Smith could have made the whole thing up like the other poster said, but I don’t lean in that direction. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2002, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/38 "2002-10-23T13:33:11Z")
Well, IMHO, I believe that the “angels” that appeared to Mr. Smith were demons. But I certainly can’t prove it. You know, Galatians 1:8,9. But re: The Origin of the Book Of Mormon: First, they cut down a tree, then they made it into paper. THEN, they printed the words on it…oh, thats not what you wanted? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2002, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/39 "2002-10-23T14:42:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*Well, IMHO, I believe that the “angels” that appeared to Mr. Smith were demons. > But I certainly can’t prove it. > You know, Galatians 1:8,9. > > But re: The Origin of the Book Of Mormon: > > First, they cut down a tree, then they made it into paper. > THEN, they printed the words on it…oh, thats not what you wanted? > 😉 \*\* I agree with you on this, **vanilla**. I think that’s exactly what they were, appearing as “angels of light” spoken of in 2 Cor. 11. Deception is satan’s goal and I’m sure he just loves keeping people confused as to what the truth is. Why do we see so many attacks on God’s word today? Because satan hates the truth and us and will do anything to deceive us, including sending one of the fallen angens (demons) to appear to someone as a beautiful angel from heaven to start a false religion. Anyone disagreeing can check out the links I posted above that share mormonism’s teachings as compared to what the Bible says. ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2002, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633/40 "2002-10-23T14:52:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*Well, IMHO, I believe that the “angels” that appeared to Mr. Smith were demons. > But I certainly can’t prove it. > You know, Galatians 1:8,9. > > But re: The Origin of the Book Of Mormon: > > First, they cut down a tree, then they made it into paper. > THEN, they printed the words on it…oh, thats not what you wanted? > 😉 \*\* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-origin-of-book-of-mormon/132633.md?page=3)