- NEW!
by Anonymous on February 18th, 2004
Most of the Book of Mormon is the record of a group of Israelites who left Jerusalem around 600 BCE, and who traveled across the ocean to some place on the American continents. They kept records of their history, their experiences, and their religion, on metal plates, which were passed from father to son.
Shortly after they arrived in the Americas, this group split into two factions, which were known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. During most of the 1000+ year history covered in this record, the Lamanites were the “bad guys”, and the Nephites were the “good guys”, though there were times when the Lamanites were good, and times when the Nephites were wicked.
Around 400 CE, with most of the Nephites having been wiped out in wars with the Lamanites, one of the last of the Nephites, a man named Mormon, compiled and edited the records of his people, added some writings of his own, and passed them on to his son, Moroni. Moroni added some writings of his own, before he buried the plates in the ground, around 421 CE.
In the early 19th century, Moroni appeared as an angel or messenger, to Joseph Smith, and led him to where the plates were buried. Under instruction and guidance from God, Joseph Smith translated a portion of the contents of these plates, and the Book of Mormon is the product of this translation.
Other than the Lehites (the group of which I have already spoken, which split into the Nephites and the Lamanites), the Book of Mormon also contains some records of two other groups who also travelled to the Americas. First of these were the Jaredites, who made their journey right after the Tower of Babel incident, and who eventually fell into wickedness and destroyed themselves.
The last surviving Jaredite was found by the third group, the Mulekites, along with the records of his people. The Mulekites eventually joined up with the Nephites, so the Jaredites' record came to be included among that of the Nephites, and now appears as the book of Ether in the Book of Mormon.
A better explanation than mine may be read at this URL: http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/explntn
by Alatea on November 25th, 2005
“Book of Mormon:
Mormons claim this book to be a record written on golden plates by prophets of a race who lived in the Americas for about 1,000 years. Joseph Smith said he found these plates in 1823 near Palmyra, NY and executed an 'exact and inerrant translation' of them with the help of an angel, two friends and special instruments.The ancient race was descended from two groups of Hebrews, the Nephites and the Lamanites, who traveled to the New World from Palestine around 600 B.C. and built a great civilization. Another people, the Jaredites, who had arrived in the Americas much earlier, exterminated the Nephites around A.D. 421. The Lamanites supposedly became the principal ancestors of the American Indians. The indigenous people discovered by Columbus are cousins of that race, reputedly cursed with dark skin for having rejected God. A major claim of the Book of Mormon is that Christ appeared in the New World shortly after His resurrection and that His second coming will preceded by a massive conversion of the American Indians to Christ, who will then exterminate gentiles who do not accept it. After that, the believing Indians and Mormons will build the New Jerusalem (in Independence, Missouri), where Christ will return to live. The Mormon Church claims this book is "another testament of Jesus Christ" that confirms the Biblical dictate to establish every fact by the mouth of two or three witnesses. Importantly, the Book of Mormon also claims that the Bible is incomplete and inaccurate:
"many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible...wherefore because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written" (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 29:3,10).
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormon-books.html
by RedJohn on November 26th, 2005
This is not intended to be a factual answer to this question, but simply an observation...
I have seen many questions and answers on the AnswerBag that seem intended to bring Mormons into disrepute. This is not the purpose of this website. Numerous websites exist that do that sort of thing. This is intended to operate as a repository of information.
The Book of Mormon originated from people who believed themselves to be chosen by the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god. The Bible, the early chapters of which form the basis of three major world religions and numerous smaller sects, was constructed by many people over a broad historical span. Some of these were written by persons who believed themselves to be ordained by their god and some were simply a recording of their history as they understood it.
The Bible was assembled from a selection of writings - various writings were selected and various writings were rejected during the creation of this document. We have divisions between the Christian and Jewish faiths, as well as between Muslims and Jews / Christians. The Book of Mormon represents another such split. Is it valid? To its believers it is.
Almost a thousand years ago, the Roman church launched a crusade to exterminate the Cathar heresy within Europe. They succeeded and the 'heretical' Cathars are all but unknown today. The first incarnations of the Protestant church would have cheerfully burned Cathars, as various Christian sects did to one another in those days. But today, one finds that progressive elements within the Anglican and United churches follow many of the paths laid down by the Cathars before their obliteration. So, tell me, who is right?
Perhaps the Mormons exist along one of these paths. Or perhaps the Jehovah Witnesses do. Or perhaps any sect based on the Christian Bible do. The source of the writings is irrelevant, since they are believed to be ordained from god.
Most people I know consider Mormons to be a fairly mainline, if small, Christian sect. They may seem secretive to some, but is this of any importance? Many religious sects have secrets restricted only to initiates. I don't lose sleep over these things.
Most Mormons that I have met seem to be pretty decent people, as are most people of most religious beliefs. They believe themselves to be a Christian sect and that's good enough for me.
If we look around the world and see the hatred brewed by various religious and non-religious sects, we should consider the position in the world that Mormons see themselves within.
Mainline Mormonism is not evil. It does not promote hatred against others. It promotes a morality that is not asocial. I would certainly prefer a family of Mormons living next door to me than, say, a family of fundamentalist, ultra-right Pentecostals who murder people who hold beliefs like mine. Yes, there are fringe elements within the Mormon faith, but so there are among every faith. The sociopaths Jim Jones and David Koresh spring to mind.
While I am areligious, I can respect persons who hold a humanistic morality as I do, be they Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, or Buddhists. I have known, socialized, and worked with persons of many faiths. All of them condemn bigotry, murder, and other crimes done for the sake of 'faith'.
Mormons are decent people. Can you say the same for yourself?
Perhaps this is not the best place to frame this response, but I will do it here to say my piece and be done with it. Let us answer these questions factually, as best as possible, without resorting to petty hatreds and bigotry.
by the big brain on September 20th, 2004
Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, dictating it from behind a curtain to a fellow named Oliver Cowdery. With the help of "Urim and Thummim" (a breastplate/glasses combo), Smith was able to see the "reformed egyptian" characters in the English alphabet. Of course, rather than letting average believers see for themselves, the "golden plates" were shown to eleven other people, who swore oaths that they had indeed seen these plates and this writing. The promise of a bunch of dead men are the authority by which the LDS "proves" that the golden plates existed and that the "revelations" contained within are divinely inspired.
This idea, of course, throws to the wind the fact-- the incontrovertible fact-- that no other writings written in "reformed egyptian" outside the BOM have ever been discovered. Apparently, Mormon (the supposed author) was privy to a written language that has eluded every non-Mormon researcher since the inception of the LDS church.
It becomes easy to realize why no evidence of tremendous battles between Jewish tribes in North America have been discovered, or why none of the metal coin described in the BOM has ever been discovered, or why there is no historical, tangible evidence of Nephite, Lehite, Jaredite or any other North American Jewish tribes predating Columbus-- Joseph Smith, a former treasure hunter and womanizer-to-the-end wrote the book.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 31st, 2009
SHORT ANSWER:
The latest research indicates that the Book of Mormon was written by Sidney Rigdon with input from Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith. It was then recited by Joseph Smith to scribes via the "Seer Stone in the Hat" trick that has been well documented and written about by Mormon Studies Scholars.
From Craig Criddle's seminal (and now peer reviewed and validated) White Paper:
"According to the Spalding-Rigdon Theory, The Book of Mormon is the product of a pious fraud perpetrated by Sidney Rigdon, aided and abetted by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The theory states that Ridgon made extensive use of materials written by Solomon Spalding (also spelled "Spaulding") to fabricate what became the 1830 version of The Book of Mormon. He then used Smith as his conduit to bring his new revelation to the attention of the public. In crafting this "American Bible", Rigdon sought to maximize the support that this new scripture would give to his particular version of Christianity."
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm
The full White Paper goes into great detail on the above summary statement and is highly recommended.
LONG VERSION:
Please use this link to read Mr. Criddle's article in it's entirety:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm
ALSO RECOMMENDED:
AUDIO/VIDEO: Art Vanick 'The Spalding Enigma'
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=76158&catid=520
AUDIO: Tom Donofrio 'Book of Mormon Tories'
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=75622&catid=520
VIDEO: Bill McKeever/Aaron Shafovaloff 'How the BoM was "Translated"'
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=74081&catid=520
WEB CLIP: Why was the Book of Mormon Written in Ancient Irish?
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=77439&catid=520
by Nate on May 31st, 2009
So far no one has answered the question. How do you explain the Book of Mormon, you who believe that it is a product of Joseph Smith's imagination? How did he produce it (540 pages of scripture) in around 3 months? How come none of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon ever changed their witness of the book, even after they left the Church? What about the historical evidence that has emerged about the Book's origins (Nahom, for example)? What about the word printing, indicating more than a dozen authors wrote the book? What about the inner consistency in terms of geography, doctrine, culture, etc.? What about the consistency with ancient Arabic life and culture, something that that there is no EVIDENCE that Joseph Smith even had access to in his rural New York state town (just a lot of speculation and conjecture)? Where did Smith, an extremely poor farmer, come up with the means to fabricate, as you are suggesting, the plates from which the translation came, and which many other witnesses saw, handled, and testified of? And when did he have the time to forge them, make them, hide them, etc., etc.? Keep in mind that all of the evidence shows that when Joseph was translating he never referred to anything, he simply dictated the words to whoever his scribe was at the time, and all of his scribes said the process was exactly the same, and even though one of them left the Church never denied what had happened with Joseph. I'm sorry, this is an extremely complex book. I've read it more than a dozen times. Have you read it once? You're going to have to do better than "imagination" and "treasure hunter."
by Moongrim on June 1st, 2009
As far as I can tell: Imagination. But not necessarily Mr. Smith's.
Aside from the archaelogical anachronisms:
References to animals, plants, metals and technologies in the Book of Mormon that archaeological or scientific studies have found no evidence of in post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian America, frequently referred to as anachronisms. Items typically listed include cattle, horses, asses, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, steel, brass, chains, iron, scimitars, and chariots.
One person has suggested that it was plaigiarised from Walt Whitman's: Leaves of Grass.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml
Yet another has made the accusation that it was plaigiarised from the book: View of the Hebrews.
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_plagerize_view.htm
And there is extensive evidence of amazing parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Bible's Book of Isaiah, even down to mistranslations of the Book of Isaiah in the Early 1800's version of the King Jame's Bible:
http://www.trialsofascension.net/mormon/plagiarism.html
by philosopher-saint on May 31st, 2009
A church pew?
[oh - I thought you wrote "*this* Book of Mormon"]
;-)
by TenLostTribes on February 6th, 2010
I'm sure that critics have said obnoxious and pathetic things about the book. Allow me to explain, there were a set of gold plates in what was called the Hill Cummorah in the time of about 400 AD. In the 1800s, an angel by the name of Moroni revealed the location to a young farm-boy Joseph Smith Jr. By the gift and power of God, he translated the record into what is today known as the Book of Mormon--which is another testament of Jesus Christ.
by lovebettafish on June 1st, 2009
Wasn't it found under the ground near a tree?
by RC loves ice cream on June 1st, 2009
Paper comes from wood.
by Dreamworx on June 1st, 2009
Mormania :D
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 1st, 2010
Here you go . . .
CRAIG CRIDDLE – “Authorship – Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?”
Streaming Audio = http://exmormonfoundation.org/files/media/2009Conference/low/2009Exmo_Saturday_Morning_CraigCriddle_low.m3u
Download Audio = http://exmormonfoundation.org/files/media/2009Conference/low/2009Exmo_Saturday_Morning_CraigCriddle_low.mp3
Presentation Slides = http://exmormonfoundation.org/files/ExmoConfTalkCriddle.pdf
Watch on YouTube = http://www.youtube.com/user/ExmormonFoundation#p/c/CC85CE4017A42CE3/0/utDU45lm210
How do I add my site to Deliverance Ministries?
by Answerbag Staff on August 16th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What is the meaning of Bishop Jugis'coat of arms?
by Answerbag Staff on August 7th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Who was St. Catherine of Siena?
by Answerbag Staff on August 2nd, 2010
| 1 person likes this
If someone comes to your door to try and sell their religion to you, do you shut the door in their face or go to the toilet? Or both?
by Kenz the Frenz on February 6th, 2012
| 4 people like this
would you accept if i invite you to Islam?why or why not.
by low_profile_princess on February 6th, 2012
| 6 people like this
You're reading Where exactly did the Book of Mormon come from?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
There is no proof of this except the words of Joseph Smith. Read Galatians 1
by TRAVIS SIMPSON on February 20th, 2004
What is your answer to Gal 1:8? angel or demon?
by wfbrad on February 24th, 2004
Galatians 1 says don't believe in an angel not preaching Paul's gospel. J.S. preaches Paul's gospel, and so did Moroni.
by Mike Walbridge on February 25th, 2004
Despite decades searching, no archeological evidence supports the Book of Mormon--quite the contrary.
by giacomo on March 30th, 2004
2 Cor.13:1 This book is the second witness of Jesus Christ. It is true!!!
by Elder Gibby on April 20th, 2004
oh shut up glacomo, your lack of faith disturbs me!
by SuLily on May 17th, 2004
Any evidence for Mulekites, Lamanites, Jaredites etc?
by Enigma on August 6th, 2004
The Bible is verifiable by secular research and archeological evidence, the Book of Mormon is not, and it is contradictory.
by Anonymous on October 8th, 2005
TRAVIS, try looking in the front of the B of M. There are 11 other men that bore witness to its authenticity.
by Glenn Blaylock on October 25th, 2005
'Quetzalcoatl' = A Great White God (Christ visits the Nephites) = The 'Tree of life' engravings (Jewish origin) etc,etc.
by Anonymous on October 26th, 2005
Every one loves a harry potter style story. Fiction is great til it's made real. LDS is sorcery based.
by Alatea on January 16th, 2006
Speculation, not established fact. No archeological evidence found to support it and logical errors in time line.
by Anonymous on November 16th, 2005
While complete bunk, this is a USEFUL answer, as it summarizes well the LDS story of where the book came from.
by Joseph Peacock on November 21st, 2005
BS
by coffee bean on November 25th, 2005
Furthermore, since this question has been resurrected anyway….
Plenty of archæological evidence has been found to support it. Just check out any map of Book of Mormon lands: some eighty sites have been identified, including at least one that still has the same name (and several others that may). And while only about 80% of the purported "logical errors in the time line” have been thoroughly trounced, the other 20% have been effectively dealt with, time and time again. The problem is not a lack of evidence; the problem is ignorance—sometimes even deliberate ignorance—thereof.
by the Otter on June 1st, 2009
Bullshit.
by Moongrim on June 1st, 2009
Okay, then disprove the evidence, so we’ll all be as enlightened as you are.
by the Otter on June 1st, 2009
If I gave you evidence, would you read it? It's obvious you've already made up your mind.
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Can_We_Trust_the_Book_of_Abraham
http://www.trialsofascension.net/mormon/plagiarism.html
http://exmormons.org/
PLENTY of evidence.
But knowing your kind, you will not acknowledge it. Instead you will claim that I'm "inspired by the devil", full of hate against the only true church, or any one of a thousand different excuses for you to wallow in your wilfull blindness.
by Moongrim on June 1st, 2009
Okay, I just read the first one. Let’s point out the undeniable factual discrepancies:
“[In 1842], Joseph finished translating the scroll and called it the Book of Abraham.” … Absolutely incorrect. Joseph never even came close to finishing the scroll. Several observers—including non-“Mormons”—stated that the scroll was so long that it stretched from one end of a large room to the other, and back. Joseph himself stated that the Book was longer than the Bible, yet we only have five chapters of a few pages each.
“Amazingly (and to everyone’s surprise), the papyri were rediscovered in one of the vault rooms of the New York’s metropolitan Museum of Art in 1966. … there could be no doubt that this was the original document from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham.” … This, too, is absolutely incorrect. Yes, papyri were discovered, but they were *not* the papyri from which the book was translated; they were the papyri that the Book of Abraham specifically refers to as *illustrations* of the concepts found therein. What’s more, these illustrations weren’t even on scrolls, and are completely written in black ink (as opposed to the papyri from which the book was translated, which was written in black and red). In other words, the papyri that showed up were indeed part of the 1835 purchase, but they bear absolutely no resemblance to the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated, a fact that is spelled out quite explicitly, in the Book itself.
The rest of the article then proves that these papyri, which bear about as much resemblance to the Book of Abraham as they do to the script of a random episode of *Spongebob Squarepants*, are—guess what!—NOT THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM! Wow, what an AMAZING discovery!
by the Otter on June 1st, 2009
Okay, I’ve now checked out the second page, as well. I’d say it’s actually quite balanced: first it presents a series of anti-LdS apologetics, then it counters with pro-LdS apologetics. Lather, rinse, repeat. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to get out of that reference except that you, yourself realize that all of your questions have been asked and answered, some of them well over a century ago. And yes, the end of the page presents a bunch of conclusions, but the conclusions are mostly unrelated to the preceding text (and often completely irrelevant, anyway, e.g. “So-and-so had a vision, so Joseph Smith must have lied about also having one. WTH?).
by the Otter on June 1st, 2009
As for the third, I’ve been there many times. It stands as undeniable proof that some people leave the Church, but anyone that doesn’t already know that has got to be pretty dang ignorant.
So bottom line: you’ve given me evidence of three things:
1) A document that the Church has always and consistently maintained is not the source of the Book of Abraham is—surprise!—not the source of the Book of Abraham.
2) There are two sides to every story, including religious belief.
3) The people on both sides of the fence know how to use the Internet.
None of these things were ever in dispute. Is there a reason you’re not even trying to disprove the copious archæological evidence we were talking about, in the first place?
Thanks.
by the Otter on June 1st, 2009