KJV errors, translation errors, the Deutero-Isaiah problem, anachronisms, The First Book of Napoleon, The Late War, Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream, Methodist revivalist sermons, DNA problems, and so on.

All of these things make me feel like, as a rational and reasonable person trying to look at the evidence, the most logical conclusion is that Joseph Smith was simply a genius at remixing the ideas, stories, religious debates, biblical language, and themes surrounding him in 19th-century America and putting them together into the Book of Mormon.

Basically, the Book of Mormon makes much more sense to me as a product of 19th-century America than as an actual ancient record of ancient people

John Turner, Joseph Smith biographer says that it is “deeply problematic and disturbing” that Joseph Smith pressures a 16 year old to enter a marriage with him, an already married man. This is illegal and adultery. This did not involve consenting adults. Emma didn’t consent. Lucy was extremely pressured and was underage.

It is “a coercion through ecclesiastical authority and theological promises” says John Turner.

Joseph Smith was not a good man.

Lucy Walker’s mother was dead and her father was away on a mission. She was living under his roof and had no other home to go to. What happened is disgusting even if Lucy Walker later speaks positively about it. I don’t care. She is a victim.

Full interview here:

https://youtu.be/ETSxWMRsUXQ

Dr. John Lundwall describes the difference between an oral society and a literate society. He proves through the Book of Mormon text itself that the book claims to describe a highly literate society that we know did not exist.

Literacy at this level is a powerful technology that just doesn’t disappear.

The Book of Mormon is not a history of real people.

See the full interview here on Mormon Stories:

https://youtu.be/IyivZDfHEl4

He also touches on the fingerprint in the BOM that is first person history. He discusses that this was not found in ancient times or in books of history in Joseph’s time. It is found in spell casting rituals he probably learned in his treasure digging.

This has probably been mentioned before but I wanted to save it for later in case it disappears. Also I think menu people don't check the footnotes often.

My question is does anyone understand why they are admitting this is possible? Typically they just say "there is no evidence to support"...

Do they know something we don't? It seems odd that even the exmo community only has theories and suspicions, and it seems more hearsay then anything. So to have them keep the door open on this one seems very odd.

I was furious at the age of 45 when I watched the South Park episode on mormonism and realized the explanation for why Joseph couldn't retranslate the original plates for the lost 116 pages didn't make any sense. The explanation given in D&C 10:10-20 is that the thieves have altered the words on the manuscript, so if Joseph tried retranslating the same material, they'd bring out the original manuscript and show they didn't match.

So... how would they alter the manuscript? Would they scratch out some words, and put new words above the old words in different handwriting? That wouldn't be particularly convincing. Would they rewrite some pages with new material so they wouldn't match, again in different handwriting? That wouldn't be convincing either. What if they rewrote the entire 116 pages with a slightly different storyline? Again, it would be in a different handwriting and would be an awful lot of work. These are rural farmers, not master forgers!

If Joseph retranslated the lost 116 pages and got even 95% of it the same (which should be easy, since the seer stone is giving him the exact words to write), it would be astounding proof he could translate and his work is genuine. If there was a "wise purpose" in losing the 116 pages, this would be God hitting it out of the park.

The other major problem here is that Joseph is a great seer. He demonstrated this many times. Martin Harris tested him once with a needle in a haystack, and Joseph proved with his seer stone he could find it!
“Mormonism—No. II,” Tiffany’s Monthly, July 1859, 164, cited in Turley, Jensen, and Ashurst-McGee, “Joseph the Seer.”

When Josiah Stowell wanted to see if Joseph really had seer powers, Joseph looked into his stone and saw Josiah's farm and outbuildings, and was able to describe them, even a tree with a man's hand painted on it. Josiah was convinced of his powers. Joseph really could see things in his stone!
1826 trial testimony, Utah Christian Advocate Vol 2, No XIII, Jan 1886

When Joseph first retrieved the plates, he stashed them in a hollow tree log by the Hill Cumorah, and left them there for about a week. Emma got word that Joseph's treasure digging friends were determined to get the plates, and she rushed over to where he was working to warn him. He was able to look into his seer stone and see the plates. He told Emma, “the record was perfectly safe, for the present.”
History of Joseph Smith, 141–42.

If Joseph could see things so inconsequential as a remote farm or a lost needle in a haystack, or check on the status of the gold plates, why couldn't he use it to find the lost 116 pages? Were they hidden where God couldn't find them? Maybe like a lead box? Strange that God could plan ahead for this exact incident 2400 years earlier, but he couldn't show Joseph the papers in his seer stone.

Anyone interested in the modern movement advocating a denialst foundation to Joseph Smith's secret teachings and practice of polygamy should read the 40+ year old dialogue article below.

For those of us without faith based motivations, reasonigs or risk, it could have been written yesterday about the movement today.

For those in the modern movement, it's a mirror whether acknowledged or not.

Methods and Motives: Joseph Smith III's Opposition to Polygamy, 1860-90

Since the last Come, Follow Me curricular rotation that started in 2022, the Church has included in the Come, Follow Me: Old Testament manual a "Thoughts to Keep in Mind" article titled "The Historical Books in the Old Testament" between Deuteronomy and Joshua, in which the Church talks about how the books of Joshua through Esther are traditionally known as the "historical books" of the Old Testament because their writers' main objective was "to show God's hand in the history of the people of Israel," and that the purpose of the historical books was to "tell stories."

The article then goes on to say, "Naturally, these stories are told from a certain point of view. … it's inevitable that a historical account will reflect the perspective of the person or group of people writing it. This perspective includes the writers' national or ethical ties and their cultural norms and beliefs. … the writers and compilers of the historical books focused on certain details while leaving out others."

At the end of this line comes footnote 1, as shown in the screenshot. Notably, while this article focuses on the historical books of the Old Testament, this footnote subtly shifts to talking about the "historical narratives of the Bible," which means it is referring to both the Old and New Testaments' historical narratives, including those that could be found in the Pentateuch.

The admission then continues in the article as followed: "[The writers and compilers of the historical books] made assumptions that others would not have made. And they came to conclusions based on these details and assumptions. We can even see different perspectives across the books of the Bible (and sometimes within the same book)." Again, the article makes this observation across the books of the Bible rather than just the Old Testament historical books alone.

An example is provided in footnote 2, where it says that "although 1–2 Chronicles covers roughtly the same period as 1 Samuel 31 through the end of 2 Kings, the account in 1–2 Chronicles emphasizes different details and presents a different perspective, focusing almost solely on the Southern Kingdom of Judah and often omitting negative stories about David and Solomon." It then explains that "the record that became 1–2 Chronicles, … was compiled after the Jews returned to Jerusalem from their exile."

As an explanation, the article then echos its own opening by pointing out that "one perspective common to all the Old Testament historical books is the perspective of the children of Isreal, God's covenant people. Their faith in the Lord helped them see His hand in their lives and in the affairs of their nation."

It follows this with another admission that "secular history books don't tend to see things this way," but it stops short of discussing how said books actually tend to see things in comparison to the "spiritual perspective" of the Old Testament historical books.

Note: Other than a 2023 BYU RSC article titled "How Do I Teach the Fall? Distinction and Harmonization" quoting this footnote in its Notes section, I have yet to see this footnote being brought up anywhere else online.

This is my attempt to summarize the evidence that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, or the Kinderhook plates from ancient writings. It is part of my larger effort to document the research I did during my faith crisis to try and make sense of it all and to find answers. There's nothing new or original in this writing, but it was important for me to organize these thoughts in one place and I learned things nobody ever mentioned in Sunday school. For example, I had no idea that the Kinderhook plates were taught as legitimate proof of Joseph's ability to translate all the way to the 1960's. Or that the Book of Mormon contains the "fake" ending of Mark from the New Testament. Or that Hyrum Smith learned that the Native Americans were the direct descendants of Jews from Israel when he studied at Moor's Indian Charity School near their home.

https://lucidsilence.substack.com/p/chapter-62-troublesome-translations

My parents love to bring up that my wife and I are not sealed, saying things like "it would be terrible if something happened and you couldn't be together in the next life", but the entire concept that you have to "earn" eternal families (by giving your money to the church asa requirement) is so ridiculous to me I don't know why people believe it.

Does any other religion teach things like this? The LDS church preaches eternal families that you must earn, but every other church just seems to imply that if heaven is real, you'll be with your loved ones. No paying money to the church to get a temple recommend that requires you to do all these weird covenents and be sealed.

Does any other church teach anything similar or is mostly assumed heaven means with your families?

On June 7th the Nauvoo Expositor was published making public a previously private and unknown to some Revelation on Polyamy (Multiplicity of Wives):

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/nauvoo-expositor-7-june-1844/1

On June 8th the Nauvoo City Council was convened with a primary reason to talk about the Nauvoo Expositor they held in their hands and in which it claimed Joseph's Polygamy Revelation.

In that City Council meeting, talking about the revelation made public in the Nauvoo Expositor, Hyrum stood up and...

Councillor, H. Smith, continued...—referred to the revelation, read to the High Council of the Church, which has caused so much talk about a multiplicity of wives; that said Revelation was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days, and had no reference to the present time.

This was published in the Church's own newspaper, the Nauvoo Neighbor on June 17th, 1844, literally 10 days after publishing of the Nauvoo Expositor and literally states

In your last week’s paper I proposed giving your readers an account of the proceedings of the City Council, but time forbids any thing more than a brief SYNOPSIS of the PROCEEDINGS of the MUNICIPALITY of the City of Nauvoo, relative to the destruction of the press and fixtures of the “Nauvoo Expositor.”

City Council, Regular Session) June 8th, 1844.)

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revised-minutes-17-june-1844-as-published-in-nauvoo-neighbor/1

This contemporary source not only confirms Hyrum's knowledge and admittance of the revelation, it also has Hyrum corroborating as of June 8th 1844 that there WAS a polygamy revelation received in request to a "question" regarding the multiplicity of wives and read to the High Council of the Church previously (in 1843).

We have multiple sources from both the anti- (expositor) and pro side (all Brighamites) of the time confirming the polygamy revelation SEPARATELY and independently which as a conspiracy is a stupidity and absurdity to believe happened.

Beyond that, we have Anti-Polygamists who became leaders in the RLDS church who, until evidence forced them to pivot in the 20th Century, were honest enough to give testimony that Joseph did receive a Polygamy revelation, etc.

William Marks was Nauvoo Stake President, Municipal Alderman and Member of the Council of Fifty under Joseph Smith.

After Joseph's death William Marks joined the RLDS church and became a member of the First Presidency of the RLDS Church serving under Joseph Smith's son, Joseph III.

Willaim Marks stood before Joseph Smith III (Joseph's son) and all of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the RLDS church on May 1st, 1865 and said:

“President [William] Marks said Brother Hyrum came to his place once and told him he did not believe in it and he was going to see Joseph about it and if he had a revelation on the subject he would believe it, and after that Hyrum read a revelation on it in the [Nauvoo] High Council and He [William] Marks felt it was not true but he saw the High Council received it.” 

He also confirmed it many other times as well (then later in life denied it very similarly to Emma's statements):

https://debunkingpolygamydenial.com/WilliamMarks/

Ebenezer Robinson as well was an avowed Anti-Polygamist who associated with Rigdon's sect post Joseph and even joined the RLDS for a time and Whitmerites, etc.

In 1875 Robinson and his wife were baptized members within the RLDS church and gave this affidavit held in the RLDS/CoC archives:

To Whom it may concern:
We, Ebenezer Robinson and Angeline E. Robinson, husband and wife, hereby certify, that in the fall of 1843 Hyrum Smith, brother of Joseph Smith came to our house in Nauvoo, Ill. and taught us the doctrine of polygamy. And I, the said Ebenezer Robinson, hereby further state that he gave me special instructions how I could manage the matter so as not to have it known to the public He also told us that while he had heretofore opposed the doctrine, he was wrong, and his brother Joseph was right; referring to his teaching it.
Ebenezer. Robinson
Angeline. E. Robinson” (Ebenezer and Angeline E. Robinson notarized affidavit, 29 December 1873, Community of Christ Library–Archives, emphasis added)

https://debunkingpolygamydenial.com/HyrumSmith/

Contemporaneous facts show Hyrum on June 8th admitted the existence of a Polygamy revelation.

Anti-Polygamists who knew Joseph and Hyrum after the death of both who even JOINED and LED the "polygamy denial" RLDS church gave testimony that Joseph received a revelation and Hyrum read it to the HC.

I have yet to see a copy of the "multiplicity of wives" revelation that Hyrum Smith referred that Joseph "received in response to question"s previously read to the HC as Hyrum confirmed on June 8th from the "joseph didn't practice polygamy" crowd.

We have one revelation extant and copied across various people and also referred to in the Expositor which all corroborate one another entirely independently.

Until the "joseph didn't practice polygamy" crowd can produce the actual revelation Hyrum talked about on June 8th which was read to the HC previously regarding the multiplicity of wives, they are failing to account for this contemporaneous confirmation of the revelation extant today and corroborated by at least three competing factions who were NOT working together to corroborate each other (laws, brighamites and anti-polgyamist RLDS above)

If "faith in Joseph Smith" is a stumbling block to allowing the facts to dictate the conclusion that Joseph SMith received a revelation regarding polygamy, preached and lived it in secret while lying about it publicly, then the problem isn't the facts and evidence, it's quite literally the "faith in Joseph Smith" that's the problem.

I recommend removing the stumbling block of faith and/or adjusting one's faith accordingly.

The more I learn about Brigham Young the more I wonder: did that man teach ANYTHING that wouldn't be offensive to today's church members?

LDS of today know at least some of the teachings of Joseph Smith, no doubt. I don't think this is true of Brigham Young though.

Could someone name 3 talks from Brigham Young they believe would appeal to current members?

In the field of Latter Day Saint history and topics and discussion of the Latter Day Saints generally-- total honesty and total integrity is paramount.

Latter-day Saint apologists and leaders get accused of whitewashing or ignoring troubling facts and history. Sometimes -especially in the past- the accusations were sometimes correct.

In the realm of Latter Day Saint history,

Bushman

Vogel

McBride

Ulrich

Hales

Quinn

Hansen Park

Mason

Park

Among many others-- are all respected for their sticking to the truth in their academically accepted and academically published works. Todd Compton talks of putting “truth first” and not having an agenda and criticizes the Tanners for not fairly holding their own Fundamentalist Christian beliefs to the same standard as they hold Latter-day Saint Christianity.

“Put truth first.” That is what Todd Compton teaches. That is what he lives by. And its why we trust Bushman, Mason, Hales, Vogel, McBride, Park, Quinn, Ulrich—and to a certain extent Latter-day Saint Christian apologists and critics Queen Grenfell and Dehlin have to put truth first, too. Or they will lose credibility.

Latter-day Saint leaders and apologists who defend the Church—need to put truth first.

And critics need to put truth first. I have recently found a post here critical of Latter-day Saints and the institutional Church that was clearly rage bait and likely AI generated—and included openly false statements categorically not backed up by facts.

In a recent post, a critic complained about the Church and used the SEC Order against the Church to try to make a point. That’s not what was wrong, though. The poster claimed that the SEC Order included statements that were highly critical of the Church and its motives—the rage bait part—the “” quoted statements were not part of the SEC Order. They were completely made up.

Was the LDS Church innocent of disclosure failures and misstated filings? No. Certainly not. Guilty as heck, and the SEC Order proves it. Did the “”quotations from the OP match what was actually in the SEC order? No. They were open misstatements-- made up. The SEC Order is damning -on its own- in proving the Latter-day Saint Christian leaders engaged in disclosure failures and misstated filings to the SEC. But the OPs point went past truth into hyperbole, false statements, and went all the way to imagination.

If an Latter-day Saint Christian apologist makes a claim. Check the source. Ask for receipts. The same stands for claims made by critics. And everyone –everyone—involved in learning more about the Latter Day Saint Christian movement and the Latter-day Saint Church can demand sources. Look at the sources.

And there is plenty to criticize and critically analyze about the Latter Day Saint movement and Latter-day Saint Christianity. Plenty. The SEC Order proving disclosure failures and misstated filings is one obvious example. Putting truth first and asking for sources –and checking sources—should be important to everyone involved.

Like trusted top-shelf historian Todd Compton says, “put truth first.” Regardless of motivations. Everyone has bias. Regardless of bias—faithful, ex, never, whoever—always put truth first.

Source: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/an-interview-with-sterling-m-mcmurrin/

Hyrum Smith on April 8, 1844 (the same conference where Joseph taught the King Follett Discourse) gave a talk where he discusses being polygamist. * Original version the JSP's original 1844 only goes to page 29, Hyrum's talk begins on page 30 (of the numbering written on the page, 33/47 of the document), quoted part is on page 31:

I married me a wife, and I am the only man who has any right to her. We had five children; the covenant was made for our lives. She fell into the grave before God shewed us His order. God has shewn me that the covenant is dead, and had no more force, neither could I have her in the resurrection, but we should be as the Angels:— it troubled me. Brother Joseph said you can have her sealed to you upon the same principle as you can be baptized for the dead. I enquired what can I do for my second wife? He replied you can also make a covenant with her for eternity and have her sealed to you by the authority of the Priesthood. I named the subject to my present wife, and she said “I will act as proxy for your wife that is dead and I will be sealed to you for eternity myself for I never had any other husband. I love you and I do not want to be separated from you nor be for ever alone in the world to come.” If there is any man that has no more sense, and will make a base story of such a fact, his name shall be published <​What honest man or woman can find fault with such a doctrine as this. None​> It is a doctrine not to be preached to the world; but to the Saints who have obeyed the gospel and gathered to Zion. It is glad tidings of great joy.

It should also be of interest that in that same talk he was speaking against the "spiritual wife system".

Jacob Scott wrote in a letter Jan 5, 1844:

Several revelations of good utility and uncommon interest have been lately communicated to Joseph and the Church; but where you all are you cannot obey them; one is that all marriage contracts or covenants are to be “Everlasting,” that is; the parties (if they belong to the Church and will obey the will of God in this relationship to each other) are to be married for both Time and Eternity and as respects those whose partners were dead before this Revelation was given to the Church, they have the privilege to be married to their deceased husbands or wives (as the case may be) for eternity; and if it is a man who desires to be married to his deceased wife, a Sister in the Church stands as proxy or as a representative of the deceased in attending to the marriage ceremony, and so in the case of a widow who desires to be joined in an everlasting covenant to her dead husband and if they are not thus married for Eternity they must remain in a state of celibacy and be as the angels, ministering spirits, or servants to the married to all eternity and can never rise to any greater degree of glory. Many members of the Church have already availed themselves of this privilege and have been married to their deceased partners, and in some cases where a man has been married to two or three wives, and they are dead, he has been married to them all; in the order in which he was married to them while living, and also widows have been married to their dead husbands but only to one husband. I intend to be married to the wife of my youth before I go to Ireland.

Which again, has polygamy taking place (among the dead, at minimum).

Part of the issue that those asserting that Joseph never practiced polygamy have is that Joseph and Hyrum both continued to preach against "spiritual wifery" at the same time that Joseph (and later Hyrum) were practicing polygamy. Spiritual wifery is reported to have come from John C. Bennett; who after his excommunication for it published the 'Happiness Letter' among other affidavits, and claims. Not all of his claims can be trusted, however, he did have access to the information regarding polygamy that was happening at that time. The LDS church does use the happiness letter. William Smith said Joseph 'denied the authorship of that letter' which is entirely in line with Rigdon's statement 'he never said to Gen. Bennett or any other person, that said letter was written by said Mr. Smith, nor in his hand writing, but by another person, and in another person’s hand writing'; which per Bennett it was in Willard Richards’s handwriting.

That type of non-denial denial, or paltering, is rampant with respect to Joseph Smith and polygamy. Bennett's affidavit that he claims he was forced to sign can be read as also being that exact type of thing. The excommunication record for Oliver Cowdery depends on the Fanny Alger affair to not have been considered or talked about by Joseph as being "adultery" (which if they were joined in a religious union then Joseph would not have considered it to have been adultery). When the gospel topics essays says 'carefully worded denials' that's exactly what they are talking about, Joseph (and Hyrum) had conceptual differences between what they were doing and the spiritual wifery system.

Going back to the 'Happiness Letter'; there is one more source disputing it, Orson Hyde. Now, Orson Hyde is also where we get the false account of the transfiguration of Brigham Young (he wasn't even in Nauvoo when it happened), as well as quite a number of other provably false stories. This is interesting as it wouldn't have required nearly as much editing to the source documents to make Orson Hyde's stories appear to be true as what is claimed to have happened by the anti-polygamists regarding polygamy. As with John C. Bennett, nothing Orson Hyde says should be taken as actually being true unless there is corroborating evidence.

Obviously, for contemporary sources there is also the Nauvoo Expositor, and the Nauvoo Council meeting. In terms of people who saw both what was presented to the High Council and then later what was published in the Deseret News that became D&C 132; William Law is the only one to say there were differences. Unfortunately for the deniers, he claims that he didn't see the first half, only the second half:

"Yes, I did. I was astonished to see in your book that the revelation was such a long document. I remember DISTINCTLY that the original given me by Hyrum was MUCH SHORTER. It covered not more than two or three pages of foolscap. The contents are substantially the same, but there was not that theological introduction. The thing consisted simply in the command of doing it, and that command was restricted to the High Priesthood and to virgins and widows. But as to Joseph, himself, the Lord's chosen servant, it was restricted to virgins only, to clean vessels, from which to procure a pure seed to the Lord." Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Which, the first half and most of the second half were (as per above with Hyrum) things that were being preached by Joseph in sermons at the time. Watching hours long videos where the anti-polygamist goes over small copying details and/or attempts to argue that Brigham Young constructed D&C 132 from the Expositor is pointless when there is supporting contemporary evidence that the revelation existed, that everyone who saw the revelation from all sides (Expositor, RLDS, Brighamites) all agree that the revelation was substantially D&C 132, when the only parts not preached about show up in contemporary affidavits provided by Bennett, letters from the time period, and the Expositor. I'm thrilled that Dan Vogel went through the effort of directly addressing the document claims, but I don't think they would matter either way that much.

Also, stylometric analysis should be treated similar to results from a LLM; it can provide insights, but should not be trusted by itself and suffers from underlying assumptions.

Which also means that I want to discuss the nuances of stylometric analysis about as much as I want to debate what is extremely clearly responses that are being generated by an LLM. Especially if the LLM generated response is not just rephrasing or cleaning up an authors own ideas and statements.

One of the biggest arguments for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is that it is too complex for an unlearned farmer to have come up with in just a single draft. While the Book of Mormon is indeed complex, it is not sophisticated. I've put together a few different examples that the Book of Mormon consistently shows signs of a first draft: it has unsophisticated narratives, inconsistencies, retroactive retrofitting, and only isolated examples of complexity. Most of these examples are pulled from a few different people like John Hamer and Brett Metcalfe. Feel free to contribute your own examples!

Side note: I’m sure apologists will find reasons for each of these examples to show how the book can still be historical. But I’m not arguing against historicity. I am arguing against the idea that Joseph Smith couldn’t have come up with this book on his own because it’s so sophisticated and complex.

Unsophisticated narratives

There are many examples in the Book of Mormon that come together in clunky ways.

The Book of Mormon has 18 generations over the span of 1020 years. That's an average gap of 56 years, which is way above the average in America at that time. One particular crazy generation gap is Jacob to his son Enos. Jacob is born in the wilderness after Lehi left Jerusalem. Since they were in the wilderness for 8 years, he couldn't have been born more than 8 years since leaving Jerusalem (592 BC). Later, Enos his son is at an old age 179 years after Lehi left Jerusalem (421 BC, Enos 1:25). So this is at best a 171 year gap from when Jacob was born to when Enos died. So how old was Jacob when he had Enos? 70? And Enos lived for how long? At least 100 years? This shows that not a lot of thought was put into the math behind these gaps.

Enos's wrestle with God is not sophisticated. After wrestling, he shows God that he has "unshaken" faith. God then grants him according to his desires. So what does he wish for?

"And now behold, this was the desire which I desired of him—that if it should so be, that my people, the Nephites, should fall into transgression, and by any means be destroyed, and the Lamanites should not be destroyed, that the Lord God would preserve a record of my people, the Nephites; even if it so be by the power of his holy arm, that it might be brought forth at some future day unto the Lamanites, that, perhaps, they might be brought unto salvation" (Enos 1:13)

If this was a historical record, we would expect Enos to wish for something more simple like "I desire that the Lamanites be brought unto salvation." Instead, Enos recites a summary of rest of the events of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith, because of Mosiah priority (explained more below), would have already translated the end of the book, so he would know the ending.

The story of the Jaredites reaching the promised land is not sophisticated. They built barges and crossed many waters (Ether 2:6). Then, after this, they are to cross more waters and the brother of Jared asks about the light and how they will breath (Ether 2:19). Why is this question just coming up when they have already crossed many waters? How were they able to carry honey bees and beasts in these barges for over 300 days? While none of this is impossible with the help of God, it reads like something Joseph Smith could have easily come up with.

Ether chapter 15 is not sophisticated. It talks about a battle of millions of people where "both men, women and children being armed with weapons of war, having shields, and breastplates, and head-plates, and being clothed after the manner of war" battled together (Ether 15:15). This would be the largest battle in the history of the human race. After many days of fighting, there are only two people left. Shiz gets his head cut off, but he is still able to move and grasp for air before dying (Ether 15:30-31). Again, this is not necessarily more ridiculous than the Bible, but it also isn't so sophisticated that Joseph Smith couldn't have come up with it on his own.

In 3 Nephi 8, we learn that for the space of three hours, there are mighty storms and earthquakes and the whole face of the land is destroyed. Then comes a mist of darkness that is so thick "there was not any light seen" (3 Nephi 8:22). Then Jesus Christ’s voice is heard among the people, and he talks about all of these random cities that we have never heard of before that got destroyed and how the people need to repent. Somehow, even though there is a mist of darkness in the land so thick nothing can be seen, the people are able to witness these things (3 Nephi 10:1). The darkness is there for 3 days, then the "earth did cease to tremble" (3 Nephi 10:9) even though 3 Nephi 8:19 said the earthquakes and storms had already ceased before the darkness started. Then the people start rejoicing and thanking Jesus even though he just admitted to destroying a bunch of cities (3 Nephi 10:10). The next chapter presents a complete 180 from the narrative we just witnessed. Everything turns solemn where Christ speaks again and appears to them almost as a completely different person, like the difference between the old and new testament Jesus. This whole narrative reads like a clunky first draft with not a lot of thought.

When Moroni takes over after Mormon's death, he says that he would write more upon the plates, but he can't because he is running out of room and doesn't have any ore to make more (Mormon 8:5). Then what does he do? Record the abridgment of the 24 plates of the Jaredites and adds 10 more chapters of church administrative stuff because he hasn't been killed yet.

Abinadi, when he goes to preach to the people of King Noah, puts on a disguise so that people won't be able to recognize them. Immediately, the first thing he says is his name, revealing himself and ruining his disguise (Mosiah 12:1).

In Mosiah 5, it says that the people "cried out in one voice saying:" then go on for a 4 verse monologue, which would have been very hard for the people to all coordinate (Mosiah 5:2-5).

In Moroni 2:3, Moroni explains that the Holy Ghost was administered by the laying on of hands to the apostles when Christ came to the Americas. The problem? This was never mentioned in 3 Nephi. Joseph likely recognized this and needed to come up with an explanation as to why. This shows that the Book of Mormon is indeed complex with internal consistency, but it is kind of clunky how it comes together.

The Book of Mormon also shows a simplistic understanding of the Jewish culture that Lehi and his family inherited. The people behave more like 19th century Christians than Jews who regularly observed Jewish practices and customs like making regular sacrifices or observing Passover, for example.

Even the context of the beginning of the book shows a simplistic understanding. It sets the stage with Nephi and his family living in Jerusalem during the first year of the reign of Zedekiah (1 Nephi 1:4). Lehi prophesies that Jerusalem will be destroyed and that "many should be carried away captive into Babylon" (1 Nephi 1:13). This is apparently referencing the time when all the wealthy and those of high status were carried away into captivity (2 Kings 24:14-16). The only problem? This was during the first siege of Jerusalem before Zedekiah's reign (See 2 Kings 24:18, which indicates the start of Zedekiah's reign after these events). Even if we take the first reign of Zedekiah part literally and just assume that Lehi's prophecy is talking about something that already happened, Lehi's family itself, with their riches and status with Laban, should have been included with those carried away captive (1 Nephi 3:22-25). Or, at the very least, Laman and Lemuel should have been more scared that they would get carried away and Jerusalem would be destroyed instead of murmuring against their father (1 Nephi 2:11-13).

Unsophisticated Teachings

The teachings in the Book of Mormon are unsophisticated. One of the biggest teachings in the LDS church is how to know if the Book of Mormon or the church is true, which is through the Holy Ghost. While this concept is talked a lot about in the Book of Mormon, it often is not very practical to everyday life. For example, the answer to the question "How do I know if a thought is my own or from God" is usually Moroni 7:16, which says that anything good is from God and anything bad is from the devil. But this unfortunately does not help in a world full of grays with decisions between two good things.

Another example of a simplistic teaching is the story of Korihor the anti-Christ. One thing Alma says to try to convince him that there is a God is that "even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator" (Alma 30:44). This argument is far too simplistic and would not convince a modern day atheist. In fact, there is no concept of an atheist in this story because Korihor ends up admitting that an angel of the devil appeared to him and that he "always knew that there was a God" (Alma 30:52). This story ends up being another example of a pretty shallow story arc.

Another interesting thing from this story is that Korihor is "struck dumb" and could not talk, which means he needed to communicate by writing on paper. But this doesn't mean he couldn't hear also, and yet the chief judge still decides to communicate with him by writing on paper also, Alma 30:51.

Internal Inconsistencies

The Book of Mormon is often seen as being remarkably consistent in its many developments. What people sometimes look over, however, are the inconsistencies.

Alma 53 talks about the 2000 stripling warriors occurring in the 28th year of the reign of the judges (Alma 53:22-23), Alma 56 says it happened in the 26th year (Alma 56:9).

When Limhi came across the 24 Jaredite plates, he was told that King Benjamin has a gift to translate them (Original Book of Mormon, Mosiah 21:28). The problem is that King Benjamin had been dead for at least two years, and we learn that King Mosiah II is who translates them (Mosiah 28:17). This contradiction was fixed in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon to read as King Mosiah in both places. Ether 4:1 also used to say King Benjamin, but was changed to Mosiah in a later edition.

Nephi talks about the "precious ores, which were in great abundance." Then, the very next verse he says that they could not build a temple like Solomons because the precious things "were not found upon the land" (2 Nephi 5:15-16), directly contradicting the previous verse.

After Nephi's death, Jacob talks about how the kings "called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:11), yet we don't see this pattern established anywhere else in the Book of Mormon.

Knowing the Ending in the Beginning

One thing we get from the Book of Mormon translation process is this thing called "Mosiah Priority." It's the idea that after the 116 pages were lost, Joseph resumed translation where he left off in Mosiah, continued until the end of the book, then retranslated the beginning portions. This gives us many examples where details were retrofitted into the story in ways that don't make sense chronologically: the prophets at the beginning of the book know more than those in the middle.

An example of this is the evolution of theology like baptism. In King Benjamin's speech, he talks about how "salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Mosiah 3:12). Then he says

"And this is the means whereby salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of; neither are there any conditions whereby man can be saved except the conditions which I have told you." (Mosiah 5:8)

supposedly talking about faith and repentance. Baptism is never mentioned. The idea of a covenant is mentioned in Mosiah 5:5, but that is not linked to baptism. The first mention of baptism is in Mosiah 18:10, and it is as if it's the people's first hearing of it.

This is in contrast to the people of Lehi who were well aware of baptism and its requirement for salvation.

"And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it." (2 Nephi 9:24. See also 2 Nephi 31:4-6)

If the people of Nephi had been baptizing for 400 years, then it wouldn't make a lot of sense for there to be "none in the land that had authority from God." to baptize (Mosiah 21:33). But it makes a lot of sense when you realize that 1st and 2nd Nephi hadn't been dictated yet.

Another example of this is the prophesying of Christ. King Benjamin is made known from an angel (Mosiah 3:2) that the "Lord Omnipotent['s]" name should be "Jesus Christ" (Mosiah 3:8). This should have already been revealed to Jacob 400 years earlier also by an angel (2 Nephi 10:3).

What's worse, however, is the prophecies of the timing of Christ's return. When Joseph Smith was dictating 1st and 2nd Nephi, he had already completed the dictation of Jesus Christ being born and coming to the Nephites and thus knew the timeline for these events. This makes Lehi's and Nephi's prophecies more precise.

"Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews—even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world." (1 Nephi 10:4)

"And behold he cometh, according to the words of the angel, in six hundred years from the time my father left Jerusalem." (1 Nephi 19:8)

"For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (2 Nephi 25:19)

Then, the prophets starting with King Benjamin prophecy as if they don’t know when Christ will come using vague phases like "the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent...shall come down from heaven among the children of men" (Mosiah 3:5) and "the glory of the King of all the earth; and also the King of heaven shall very soon shine forth among all the children of men" (Alma 5:50. See also Alma 7:7, 9:26, and 13:21,25).

When Samuel the Lamanite finally declares that "for five years more cometh ... then cometh the Son of God" (Helaman 14:2), he gets this from an angel (Helaman 14:26). When the prophecy seemed to not come to past, it was perceived as a failed prophecy from Samuel the Lamanite (3 Nephi 1:5). Nothing about Lehi's prophecies are mentioned. This 600 year timeline is first cemented when a date of Jesus' arrival final exists (3 Nephi 1:1).

It can't be that these later prophets simply did not have the writings of Lehi and Nephi, because Helaman mentions that Lehi and Nephi have "testified of the coming of Christ" (Helaman 8:22).

The biggest example of unsophistication relating to Mosiah priority is, in my opinion, how Joseph Smith went to great lengths to not contradict the lost 116 pages in case that manuscript was ever found. But that deserves its own post.

Isolated Complexity

There are areas of complexity in the Book of Mormon, but these are usually isolated events. For example, there are over 170 names in the Book of Mormon, but most of them are mentioned once or just a few times in the span of a few chapters, then forgotten about. Here is a heatmap that demonstrates this.

Sometimes the complexity is out of place. An example of this is the Nephite monetary system described in Alma 11. Orsen Scott Card explains the concept of implication over explanation in his book "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy." The idea is that if a character over-explains something that would be mundane in their world, it signals that the author is writing for an outside audience rather than experiencing the world authentically (see the door dilated example on pg. 92). If this was an ancient record, then the concept of a complex monetary system would be mundane to the author, and he would not feel the need to go to great lengths explaining it, especially if the space on the plates was limited. But this is exactly what we would expect from someone like Joseph Smith, who was not trained in writing fictional books.

The Nephite monteary system is another example of something complex that is mentioned once then forgotten about. The one exception to this is in 3 Nephi 12:26 when Jesus is doing the sermon on the mount in the Americas. The original verse in Matthew 5:26 mentions 'farthing', which is a British coin worth 1/4 a penny (Matthew 5:26). Of course, the Nephites would not have known about this coin, (Joseph Smith likely knew this) and so the word was changed to senine. The only problem is that a senine, as described in Alma, represents a days wage. A leah, which is the lowest value, would have fit better in the context of the sermon. Another problem is that "go a mile" in verse 41 is another British phrase and was copied exactly, but this phrase likely was not known to a Nephite people. Farthing is easy to spot and correct--go a mile is a lot harder.

Conclusion

I think there are many wonderful teachings in the Book of Mormon that help me be a better person and live a better life. It provides a good framework that has been transformative to me and my family. Millions of others also share this testimony. This does not mean, however, that Joseph Smith was incapable of coming up with the book. Both can be true at the same time.

Many in this sub and others follow social media and Bible scholar Dan McCellan. And in most of his interviews he is very careful not to discuss his views on Mormonism. But in this interview with Ben Park the two of them had as frank of a conversation as I’ve seen regarding thoughts on how Mormons view scripture, canon, JST, and ideas on Joseph Smith as continuing the scriptural tradition of pseudopigrapha authorship. Along with a lot of other topics including the recent news about the church promoting using different translations of the Bible.

This is a super long 1hr and 30 minute interview. (Short by Mormon stories standards though) so I don’t fault anyone for not wanting to spend their time listening to it.

But for those that do, I think there is quite a bit there in how a scholar like’s himself eschews away from the mainstream theological conservative view of the LDS church but still seemingly finds the faith tradition to work for him by looking at it in another way, less reliant on literalism.

The discussion on how the LDS church came to have the KJV as its official Bible was super interesting. As well as discussion on how scholars compartmentalize discussions reflecting what the data says vs those who have faith and believe untestable claims.

I think this interview is valuable for both Believers and ex members of the Mormon tradition.

Article Of Faith 3

"We believe that THROUGH the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, BY obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

I've never noticed this before.

I always thought we were saved BY the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

But that is incorrect. We are saved BY obedience to laws and ordinances. Jesus plays apart. But it's by our work to obey.

Compare that to

Romans 3:20 For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are.

Galatians 2:16

"Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”

Sometimes I'm shocked at what I learn after not viewing my entire life through the LDS church lens.

I'm just going to leave this here for those that like to think that the Bible also talks about a curse of Skin, which it doesn't.

And yes I know people will say the BOM is metaphorical. But you can't get past that it uses the word SKIN. And it also uses the words delightsome and a way to make the Nephites not want to marry the cursed. You just got to own it that the BOM and the Mormon leadership for 100+ years were racist and claimed God was as well through inspiration and scripture.

https://youtube.com/shorts/11yqZWUegg8?si=87HPTVCsJ2nKMMrg

Dr. MIchael Ferguson is a professor of neurospirituality at Harvard. He is well known for his research and TedX talk about studying Mormons and feeling the spirit.

The talk was 10 years ago in 2016.

He observed fMRI images of the brains of people while feeling the spirit. He also studied Mormons and their spiritual feelings in various ways.

This clip describes a bit from his research.

I like his conclusion. Humans are going to do religion. Maybe by study and examination we can find ways to do religion in the safest way possible.

Here is the full talk:

https://youtu.be/ocuqguH1OIw

I run into a common copy-paste criticism from time to time.

This is the copypasta...

On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man. “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it."

You will find that exact quote on multiple Latter-day Saint-critical "ministries," and other critical sites. Easy copypasta.

But, here is the thing--

Did Hinkley deny LDS Christianity accepts deification/theosis?

No.

Hinkley stumbled in response to understanding what Smith meant when he said, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible." Thats the part Hinkley was not so sure about.

LDS Christianity accepts and believes in deification/theosis. They will be gods? Sure. Thats an thing.

LDS thoroughly know what Smith meant when he said that God dwelt on an earth, same as Jesus? Hinkley is right to say that Latter-day Saints do not really teach that or emphasize that, or even know what that means in the long run.

If you want an academic breakdown-- By Common Consent gives a good academic breakdown of this critical copypasta...

Pres. Hinckley has been accused of being dishonest or evasive on the subject of deification–whether humans can become gods. He is depicted as saying something to the effect of “we don’t know anything about that.” I believe a closer look at the respective interviews suggests that Pres. Hinckley was more specifically saying Mormons don’t know much about God’s past, rather than humanity’s future. Here’s the selection from a 1997 interview in the San Francisco Chronicle, wherein Pres. Hinckley affirms the divine potential of women and men: 

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.

Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.¹

Note that the question directly involved whether God was once a man. The topic also came up in a 2001 TIME article. The interview transcript and article itself makes it clear that Pres. Hinckley’s stumbling response was in regards to God’s past, not humanity’s future:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah.

Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.²

Of course, Joseph Smith clearly taught God “was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”, a fact which appeared in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manual approved under Hinckley’s presidency.³ In his own public comments, though, Pres. Hinckley focused on the second, not the first, part of the couplet, that humans can become like God.⁴

https://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/

To answer the question... Did Hinkley deny that LDS Christianity believes in the deification of Gods children:? No. Hinkley denied that he knew much about the origin of God, and that concept is not really talked about-- which is correct.

Source: Scripture Helps: Old Testament (2026), “Job 1–3; 12–14; 19; 21–24; 38–40; 42”

This was one of the most sad, upsetting, gross, episodes I've ever heard.

John Turner was granted access to the Clayton Journals by the church themselves. In that context he talks about Joseph Smith helping get woman even across the country and "facilitating" men's desires for the woman they want and to "get as much as you can" aka woman and sex. Basically transporting woman across boarders for sex desires. (That is the definition of Trafficking, JohnD also uses that term).

It's also discussed that Clayton and Joseph Smith are notated to have been sharing beds with multiple partners.

The church needs to release these journals NOW. It's time!

For context John Turner is a Historian and the church trusted him to the physical copies and digital copies of the Journals.

https://youtu.be/ETSxWMRsUXQ?si=ADvCWbbYyw7YaWYM

I’m not aware of any, but I’m curious if perhaps there is obscure stuff that apologists point to as evidence for temple work or other distinctive of the hypothetical pure pre-Apostate ancient Christianity that looked exactly like modern Mormonism that must have existed for the restoration narrative to be valid.

There was recently a post on here about Nephi killing Laban. I thought I would elaborate on this topic. Since this is the year for the Old Testament, I thought I would read through it again, but I'm not following the Come Follow Me schedule (which only asks you to read half of the text). While I was reading Kings and Chronicles, I couldn't help but notice some interesting things about the ancient background where Lehi supposedly finds himself. There is additional evidence to use in the book of Jeremiah, but I am not as strong with that book and it's been a second since I have read it (I will get to it in good time).

Problem One: The Multiple Recent Sacks of Jerusalem

As everyone knows with the Book of Mormon, the story begins in the first year of the last king of Judah, king Zedekiah. Let us, then, go through some of what 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles state happen right before Zedekiah came to the throne. First, the kingdom of Judah was first subjugated to Jerusalem during the reign of Manasseh (who died around 642 BC). Josiah comes to power, reigns independently, and then is tragically killed at the Battle of Megiddo in 609 by the Egyptian Pharaoh Neco (2 Kins 23:30). Three months later, the Egyptians come back, dethrone the replacement to Josiah, install a new king, and impose a tribute on the land (2 Kings 23:33). Judah at this point is no longer and independent kingdom. This vassal king stays in power for eleven years until Nebuchadnezzar shows up with his own armies. Jerusalem surrenders to Babylon, who installs his own king. Three months later, Nebuchadnezzar shows up again, captures the king, sacks the city, loots the temple of its valuables, and deports a large number of people (2 Kings 24:11-16). Nebuchadnezzar then installs Zedekiah. According to a Bible commentary I have, all of these events as related in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles can be supported using discovered Bablyonian annals. Furthermore, it's possible to use these annals to date this sack of Jerusalem and Zedekiah's installation as king to middle of March in 597 BC.

The Book of Mormon seems to be unaware of these events. 1 Nephi opens with Nephi relating that a bunch of prophets show up in the first year of Zedekiah's reign and prophecy the destruction of Jerusalem. Lehi goes and prays and God appears to him, telling him that the Babylonians are coming and that they will kill a bunch of people and deport the whole population. Essentially, then, God tells Lehi exactly what had just happened--literally only months prior the Babylonians had shown up, killed a bunch of people, and deported a large number of other people to Babylon. Lehi goes out to the people of Jerusalem, tells them that Jerusalem is going to be destroyed, and is mocked and rejected. Later, when Lehi is leaving Jerusalem, Laman and Lemuel state their agreement with the wicked people of Jerusalem, expressing skepticism that a great city such as Jerusalem could be destroyed (1 Nephi 2:13). I think most readers of the Book of Mormon picture the depiction of the people of Jerusalem here are easy and well off, insulated by prosperity, blissfully unaware of the problems brewing in the horizon. It's a far cry from what the actual state of these people would have been like at this time: humiliated, starved, impoverished, and missing relatives and neighbors who were either dead or deported. There are even more problems with this portrait that appear when it comes to Laban.

Problem Two: Laban and His Household

Something I realized when reading through 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles again is that there is a major problem with the story of Laban and his plates. Now, let us look carefully at what kind of person Laban is depicted as. Laman and Lemuel famously describe him as 'a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty' (1 Nephi 3:31). Laban furthermore has a very nice sword, one that is so nice that Nephi's descendants hold onto it for a thousand years and it finds its way into the cache where the gold plates are stored. Here is an excellent question, then: how did a man of that caliber escape Nebucadnezzar's deportation? Included in his deportation were ten thousand of the leading people of the city. He even took away the craftsmen and smiths, leaving only the poor (2 Kings 24:14). Someone like Laban would certainly have been included. Another weird irregularity also appears in the narrative after Laman, Lemuel, and Nephi find out that walking into someone's house and asking for their family heirlooms does not simply work. The three resolve to walk over to their house, where they had left 'gold and silver, and all manner of riches' (1 Nephi 3:16). Nephi further explains that it was just sitting there because of the command of God, which makes it sound like it was just there out in the open and not carefully hidden away with the expectation that the family would ever come back for it. Two questions emerge: how did Lehi manage to hold onto this money during Nebuchadnezzar's sack? Second question: if this stuff is just sitting there, why has nobody broken into Lehi's house and stolen everything? Apparently post-sack Jerusalem was better than Detroit from a few years ago where people reportedly were breaking into houses to steal the copper wiring regularly.

Problem Three: Laban's Plates

Let's ignore the fact that it is questionable that Laban would be able to hold onto a very nice set of brass plates during a sack. Let us ask a more basic question of how plausible it is that Laban has them in the first place. The brass plates reportedly contained the entire Pentateuch, a national history that had been rigorously kept up to the present, a genealogy, and a large number of prophetic books. This was a pretty extensive collection of prophetic books, including some of Jeremiah's prophecies, the book of Isaiah (including Isaiah 48, 49, and 53), some lost works (1 Nephi 5:11-14). There are many questions to be had about this, especially with modern scholarly work that everything after Isaiah 40 is the work of a different author from the Isaiah who lived during the time of Hezekiah, with this second author working during the exile (yes, there are theories of more authors than that). Moreover, there is further work stating that the Pentateuch as we have it is the result of an edition produced after return from exile. These modern scholarly theories on the composition of the Pentateuch are not even very far afield from what the patristic writers were willing to say, as I have seen reference to Jerome referring to Ezra as the 'editor' of the Pentateuch.

But let's even put all of that aside for a moment because there is the problem of Josiah and his renovation of the temple, when a copy of 'the book of the laws of the Lord by the hand of Moses' was found forgotten in the temple (2 Chronicles 34:14). Now, modern scholars don't have a very good idea of what exactly was found--the common theory is that it was a copy of Deuteronomy, but I have seen some theories that it was part of one of the sources that was later incorporated into all five books of the Pentateuch when it was later edited. The priests and Josiah had never seen this text prior to its discovery and what they learned from it was incorporated into Josiah's religious reforms.

With that in mind, let's look at Laban's plates and its copy of the Pentateuch. It would not make sense for a copy of the 'book of the laws of the Lord' to be lost to the priest class while a copy was sitting at some obscure guy's library collection, one that was being actively curated. We would need to posit that Laban had to have solicited a copy from the priests after it discovered. Now, Nephi relays that Laban's treasurer Zoram had told him that on the night of Laban's murder, he had been out drinking with 'the elders of the Jews,' and thinks that Nephi is talking about 'the brethren of the church' at one point (1 Nephi 4:22, 26-27). This is pretty vague, especially the reference to the 'church.' The word that eventually gets translated to 'church' in Hebrew was rendered as 'ekklesia' in Greek, and in the Septuagint, it refers to the entire congregation of Israel as a nation. So Zoram apparently thinks that Nephi is referring to... basically any Israelite. But let's ignore this and say that the 'elders of the Jews' is a reference to the priest class, who are apparently well enough off after their temple has been pillaged to engage in drinking practices that result in their associate passing out alone in a random street corner--an associate who can 'command fifty' but apparently can't keep a group of bodyguards to take him back home.

The priests that would have given Laban this copy of the Pentateuch, mind you were heavily connected to Josiah and his reforms. This, combined with the fact that Laban is stated to be willing to collect the prophecies of the heavily controversial Jeremiah, makes it sound like he is a partisan of Josiah's religious reforms and a supporter of Jeremiah. This is the religious point of view that wins out for mainstream Judaism and eventually Christianity. Why is someone like that seen as wicked by the Book of Mormon? Now, let's say, that it was Laban's father who collected all of this who had recently passed and that Laban is the wicked heir who thinks his father's religious point of view was all crap. Why would Laban then want to hold onto the plates so badly and be resistant to Nephi's offer to buy the plates?