Some thoughts on Joseph Smith and the writing of the Book of Mormon

I have always questioned the writing of the Book of Mormon.  I have always wanted to look at this in more detail in the future, as I have other things more pressing at this time, but here are some first thoughts on it:

FIRST STATEMENTS

First of all, let me say that I was brought up around Mormonism and was baptized as a Mormon (though I do not practice it).  Most of my relatives have been Mormon as well.  Almost all of my grandparents were converted to Mormonism in Europe and moved over here in the mid-late 1800’s.  Some of my grandparents came over to Salt Lake City pulling handcarts.  Others came on wagons.

The questioning of this is not to try to prove Mormonism wrong.  I have studied religions all over the world and have learned to respect any religion . . . I don’t know one that doesn’t have insight.  My intent, really, is to put it in a context that I can understand, according to how I tend to view things.  This entails a certain perspective toward religion and what its about.  Not only that, I seem to see something similar in the writing of the Book of Mormon as seen in other religious phenomena.

QUESTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

There are many questions about the writing of the Book of Mormon:

• Joseph Smith was shown where the tablets were by an angel but, from my understanding, he did not look at the tablets when he was interpreting them as he often interpreted the golden tablets by putting a seer stone in a hat and putting his face in the hat.  Why, then, was he given the tablets when he never looked at them?
• Much of the claims and statements of Joseph Smith and Mormonism seem a little too “generic” in format.  It professed to be the ‘true religion’ but it seems to offer very little that’s new or revolutionary.
• Its interesting, also, that much of the actual Mormon religion is not based in the Book of Mormon.  This has always stunned me as “god”, according to the claim, did a lot of trouble to bring it about.  Don’t you think the book would of been more ‘revolutionary’.
• It was also supposed to reveal the ‘true religion’ but et it is really ‘a collection of historical stories’ that don’t really seem to reveal any great insights.
• It’s a chronicle of a civilization that doesn’t match the any historical account of a people.
• Supposedly, the events took place in the south, possibly Latin America, but why was the tablets, which has the Book of Mormon written on it, placed in north-eastern part of the US?
• Joseph Smith was told that all the current religions were wrong.  Why is this one right?  I can’t really tell why this one would be so special.
• The first part of Book of Mormon has this uncanny resemblance to Josephs act of getting the tablets.

PROBLEMS WITH THE WRITING OF THE BOOK OF MORMON

To me, there have always been three problems with the writing of the Book of Mormon.  These are:

1. The golden tablets
2. The use of the seeing stone in reading the tablets
3. The question of who wrote it

1-The golden tablets

Replica of the golden tablets

The existence of the gold tablets has always made me wonder.  If they were such a religious revelation why were they hidden?  Why were they placed in the northeast US?  Why would an angel tell Joseph Smith where they were at?

I have always had this “notion”, which cannot be proved of course, that the tablets were actually something else than golden plates with hieroglyphs on them.  That is, they are something that looked like tablets and the hieroglyphs only looked like hieroglyphs.  I often wonder if it could of been something like the remnant of some farm equipment or some other tool that somehow got mislaid, forgotten, or lost.  I always try to keep a lookout for anything from those times that may resemble the tablets:  thin sheets of metal, probably brass, that are probably on three rings.  So far, I haven’t found anything that resembles it.

I often wonder if the “hieroglyphs” were actually scratches.  Perhaps it was the remnant of a tool with sheets of brass that spun around and threshed grain or something?  In so doing it would scratched the surface perhaps making the apparent “hieroglyphs” that Joseph Smith thought he saw?  No one knows.

He was also of supposed to of found wo clear stones with the golden tablets.  They were set in a rim bow, resembling eyeglasses but larger.  He called them the Urim and Thummim after Moses.  If we assume the tablets were some equipment or tool then that would most likely mean that these were the same, perhaps even somehow attached to the tablets in some way.  So far I have found nothing resembling them.  It makes me wonder if the most likely scenario was that these were just a large pair of spectacles.  Who can say?

2-The use of the seer stone in reading the tablets

The supposed seer stone Joseph Smith was supposed to of placed in a hat and used to interpret the Book of Mormon

Much has been said about Joseph Smith’s use of the seer stones in reading the tablets.  Some people say he never did use them.  He actually was using them to find things before he used them with the tablets.  This means he already had experience using them.  He was even charged for accidentally digging in another mans property which was a result of using the seer stones.  This is often used to turn him into a charlatan by people who want to disprove him and Mormonism.  In actuality, the seer stones were almost like a fad going on at the time.  People were using them to find lost items, treasures, and other things.  They were used, from what I understand, much like a “divining rod” used in dowsing.  This means, more or less, that the Book of Mormon was interpreted with a similar technique as was used in dowsing!  That’s rather interesting and another point that makes this whole thing unusual.

From my understanding he interpreted the Book of Mormon by putting the seer stone in a hat and putting his face in the hat.  In this way he somehow interpreted the “hieroglyphs”, supposedly by seeing the words on the stone.  He often did this behind a curtain.  He spoke of what he read and someone else recorded what he said and the Book of Mormon was written down.

He also had the two clear stones, set in a rim bow and resembling eyeglasses, that he found these with the tablets.  As far as I know there is no description of him using them in the interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Why were they with the tablets?

Since he was putting the seer stone in a hat and putting his face in the hat he was no, in any way, reading the tablets.  Why did he even need to have them?  In addition, I’ve had references that suggest that, by the end of interpreting the book, he may not of been using the seer stones at all.  This shows, in my opinion, that these were what I call “mediums of  inspiration” (see below).  These consist of something that starts an inspiration off.  His not using them shows that, as things got going, the inspiration took over, and he didn’t need them anymore.  This reveals, to me, that the Book of Mormon did not come from the tablets . . . it came from him . . .

3-The question of who wrote it

Joseph Smith

I tend to feel that Joseph Smith wrote The Book of Mormon in “inspiration” which was initiated by a “medium of inspiration”.  The inspiration that Joseph Smith did in writing the Book of Mormon is that he wrote down many stories that ended up becoming a book.  He did this “off the top of his head” (that is, in inspiration), without thought, all coming from deep within him.  In this way, the Book of Mormon is really a book written by Joseph Smith reflecting his “deeper self”, his spirituality, and such.  It was not written consciously nor did he “make it up”.  Many people have done similar things like this in religion.  Muhammed wrote the Koran in a similar way over many years.  There is also the Book of Utria which was written by a man talking in his sleep.  The point being that people have written books based on writing “off the top of the head” in an act of inspiration.

Inspiration

I would define inspiration as something that comes “from within a person seemingly out of nowhere”.  In actuality, it originates from within a person and, as a result, reflects that person. But because it appears to “come from nowhere” it has qualities such as:

• It is perceived as being removed from the person, almost as if it came from somewhere else
• It gives it a quality as if  a person is not in control of it

Inspiration is something that can be viewed in two ways:

1. A  non mystical inspiration.  When its not mystical it tends to create things like art, poetry, etc.
2. A mystical inspiration. This tends to be associated with god, spirituality, religions, and so on.

According to how I view things the “mystical quality” seen in mystical inspiration means it comes from what I call the “pre-self” (I’ve written various articles on this in this blog).  This is that part of us that predates a sense of self .  It is actually our “infantile self”.  It has qualities such as:

• A sense of “all”.  This is the sense that originates from the fact that, in the “pre-self” the world and the self are not differentiated . . . the world and the self are “one”.  This gives a sense of “all”, that everything is “one”.
• A sense of “livingness”.  This is a great sense of “life”.
• A sense that times is “one”.  There is no sense of past, present, and future.  Time is “one”.

These all create the sense of the “sacred”.

When inspiration originates from this part of the self it is often considered as having a “sacred” quality.  These themes, originating from the “pre-self”, are seen in religious and shamanistic phenomena.

It seems, to me, that Joseph Smith had a strong mystical character. Everything points to a spiritual-based person which he seems to of been until the day he died.  In addition, for Joseph Smith, spirituality and religion were experienced not an intellectual event.  This means that he had a more mystical character which usually means his character was close to the “pre-self”.  His behavior shows common associations with themes of the “sacred” and inspiration that is seen a lot throughout history. In fact, it seems that Joseph Smith had more involvement with the “religious inspiration” than many people who were involved in it in the past, at least in formal religions.  For many people it was a single thing, such as a “vision” or “being told something”.  Joseph Smith, on the other hand, had things such as:

• Dreams and visions
• Being told to do things
• Using available objects as a medium to write a book (stone and tablets)
• Being inspired to write a book
• Creating a belief system

It seems that he had similar inspiration phenomena that was seen with shamans which is more extensive than is often seen in more formal religions.  To be frank, I tend to view that the phenomena that created the Book of Mormon is somewhat similar to the phenomena seen with shamans.

Medium of inspiration

Then there is the importance of the “medium of inspiration”.  This is something that facilitates inspiration.  In many cases, inspiration needs something to inspire it to happen.  It can really be anything including an event or an object.  It often appears in two ways:

1. It can be something that starts the inspiration off, and then is no longer needed
2. It can be something that is continually required to keep it going

The tablets and the seer stones may of been a “medium of inspiration” for Joseph Smith.  They were objects that he found a meaning in (they looked like tablets of gold with writing in another language and the two clear stones fits the Biblical story of the Urim and Thummim).  With this belief in meaning it then “pushed” him into inspiration.  The accounts show that he needed them only to start it off but he did not need them later on.

WRITING FROM INSPIRATION

What does it mean to write from inspiration?  Probably a good comparison would be  someone speaking in hypnosis or even a dreamlike state.  It would show traits such as:

• One is not conscious or fully conscious of what they do
• What they say, or write, reflects a deeper side of them
• They are often not aware of where what they say, or write, means
• They are often not aware of where it comes from

This type of phenomena is seen all over in varying degrees. Examples include art, poetry, writing, invention, religion, and shamanism.

This “deeper side” really originates from themselves but its often influenced by society, belief, religion, situation, etc.  Even though it may be viewed as originating from “god” it really originates from the person.  This means that all the religious inspiration, which is said to be from god, actually is something that originates from the person who created it.  This does not mean that it is wrong or not insightful or has religious meaning.  Much of the insight of the world comes from this type of inspiration.  A lot of the religious inspiration is a persons inspiration or insight that is put in the context of religion.

A SCENARIO???

Based on my experience and inquiry into spiritual-like activities in people I keep seeing a scenario in my mind.  Of course, its all speculation and can’t be proved.

I would think that Joseph Smith had many mystical-like experiences before the tablets appeared and this is supported by history.  But, one day, he is walking and finds these objects:  a number of brass plates on rings that probably have scratches on them and what may of been a pair of glasses.  In a “mystical frame of mind” he see’s something sacred in them and having more meaning.  He takes them and believes that the scratches are hieroglyphs he needs to interpret.  He thinks the stones are the Urim and Thummim.  All of it fits an image in his mind which causes them to be a “medium of inspiration”.  The important thing is that he believes that they are important . . . they don’t need to be important or even be what he thinks they are.  For the “medium of inspiration” to work he only needs to believe it.  He ends up using a technique that he’s used before and which he associates with “seeing hidden things”:  the seer stone.  In this way, he looks in his hat and “out of nowhere” these stories appear, much like dreams probably, and the Book of Mormon is written.

Since he found them walking it means that he was not told about them.  But he claims that an angel told him where they were.  My own observation of this type of phenomena is that, with the “pre-self”, there is a tendency to lose a sense of time.  That is to say, time takes on a quality of “one” and blurs together.  As a result, there is a tendency where what you said today you thought you said a week ago.  I would not be surprised if this happened with Joseph Smith.  After he started interpreting the Book of Mormon it makes him feel that he was “called” to interpret it.  This recalls back the many mystical feelings he had before he found the tablets.  This causes him to start to feel that that he was directed to that spot to find the tablets.  This confusion of time seems a common phenomena with the “pre-self” and mysticism.  It creates senses of premonition, feelings that you knew the future, and so on.

ASPECTS OF THE CHARACTER OF JOSEPH SMITH

The writing of the Book of Mormon reveals a lot about the character of Joseph Smith, such as:

• He had a strong spiritual and mystical nature which means that he had a strong “pre-self” sense.
• He had many mystical-like experiences.
• He read the Bible a lot and reflected on the stories.
• He had a great interior life which made him come up with many stories.
• He was greatly influenced by using the seer stone, and the mystical finding of things, that he did early on which inspired him to use them with the golden tablets.
• He felt that there was “more” to things than he was being told.

These all led up to the writing of the Book of Mormon or so it seems to me.

AFTER EFFECTS OF WRITING THE BOOK OF MORMON

Once people found out he had written it a whole new phenomena happened.  The reaction to his discovering and interpreting the tablets, as if he was inspired by god, caused a great following.  Some people ended up having visions and mystical experiences, inspired by the writing of the Book of Mormon.  This helped to create the actual Mormon religion.  Eventually there started to develop more organizational and intellectual things as well, most of which had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.  All these things that came afterword seemed to actually create the Mormon religion, its beliefs, its organizational structure, its rituals, etc. Overall, it seems, to me, that the Book of Mormon actually had little influence on the creation of Mormonism and still doesn’t.  In actuality, the reaction to the Book of Mormon is what created Mormonism.

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen