Lars Nielsen's "How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass"

[Kishkumen]

By the way, I just noticed this comparison of Book of Mormon passages with John Smith’s writings, and I have to say I am not that impressed.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_ ... s-and-Book of Mormon/

[Kishkumen]

So, started to read the book today, and, again, I am unimpressed. Sure, it is fun, but it basically raises interesting coincidences and possibilities. There is nothing that convincingly connects Kircher, Monmaur, John Smith, and Joseph Smith. I don’t see that apologists have much to worry about here, and I really hope no one loses their faith because of this book. Honestly, it’s just not that good. It is a fun read, kinda, but it has nothing earth-shattering to say. It just says, what if? Or, how could this be a coincidence?

[Dr. Shades]

I don’t see that apologists have much to worry about here, and I really hope no one loses their faith because of this book.

So, it's good for people to continue believing in Mormonism?

[Kishkumen]

So, it's good for people to continue believing in Mormonism?

I would say that most consequential life decisions are better made when they are undertaken with good information backing them up.

[Rivendale]

I just finished listening to Mormonism live with Nelson. He claims it is the most parsimonious theory. His statistical opionion is that Joseph only had about 5% authorship with Rigdon and Spalding carrying the majority? That seems tenuous especially with the scant evidence that Rigdon recieved the manuscript from the printing office. I do find the hiding of the papers compelling however because it fits right in with previous attempts. I still think John Hamer's description regarding Smith’s authorship to be more believable.

[Fence Sitter]

I look at it this way.
We have the Book of Mormon.
It was clearly created in the 19th century in a very specific 19th century milieu.
How exactly that was done is irrelevant to the fact it was a 19th century production.

[Kishkumen]

I look at it this way.
We have the Book of Mormon.
It was clearly created in the 19th century in a very specific 19th century milieu.
How exactly that was done is irrelevant to the fact it was a 19th century production.

Yes, it is definitely a 19th-century book.

[Kishkumen]

I just finished listening to Mormonism live with Nelson. He claims it is the most parsimonious theory. His statistical opionion is that Joseph only had about 5% authorship with Rigdon and Spalding carrying the majority? That seems tenuous especially with the scant evidence that Rigdon recieved the manuscript from the printing office. I do find the hiding of the papers compelling however because it fits right in with previous attempts. I still think John Hamer's description regarding Smith’s authorship to be more believable.

It is a wild ride of a book. One flimsy speculation added to another. Still, loads of fun.

[huckelberry]

I just finished listening to Mormonism live with Nelson. He claims it is the most parsimonious theory. His statistical opionion is that Joseph only had about 5% authorship with Rigdon and Spalding carrying the majority? That seems tenuous especially with the scant evidence that Rigdon recieved the manuscript from the printing office. I do find the hiding of the papers compelling however because it fits right in with previous attempts. I still think John Hamer's description regarding Smith’s authorship to be more believable.

It is a wild ride of a book. One flimsy speculation added to another. Still, loads of fun.

Rivendale, perhaps you could clarify your comment a bit for those of us who have not followed this particular theory. What papers do you mean being hidden, by whom, and when? What previous attempts of what fit in here?

Yes I have heard of a speculated Spaulding manuscript purloined by Rigdon from a printing office and secreted to Joseph Smith who somehow had a full plan of what to do with this odd gift.

I think Dr. Steuss’s observation about ideas mixing around in the general atmosphere are a better fit for the puzzle.

[Rivendale]

It is a wild ride of a book. One flimsy speculation added to another. Still, loads of fun.

Rivendale, perhaps you could clarify your comment a bit for those of us who have not followed this particular theory. What papers do you mean being hidden, by whom, and when? What previous attempts of what fit in here?

Yes I have heard of a speculated Spaulding manuscript purloined by Rigdon from a printing office and secreted to Joseph Smith who somehow had a full plan of what to do with this odd gift.

I think Dr. Steuss’s observation about ideas mixing around in the general atmosphere are a better fit for the puzzle.

Sure. Most of the information Lars gives is not new except for the Kircher parallels. Athanasius Kircher was an eccentric French writer and apparent promoter of parlor tricks that focus on measuring spiritualism. Things like (hidden) magnetic movements of objects according to a persons spirituality. He wrote several fictional writings that had the word Mormon and Nephi in them. Some stories had parallels to the Book of Mormon in which BYU apparently bought and locked them in their vaults. (Apparently spending a lot , before they were wealthy) The main problem is establishing connections between Rigdon and Smith early on and his theory requires several people involved which is borderline conspiracy theory. Kircherisms, is his term that is used to make connections between the Book of Mormon and the original writings. It seems more likely Joseph was influenced by people who were influenced by Kircher. The church hid the first vision accounts and bought fake Hofmann papers simply to hide them.edit words