Dr Peterson says that the only explanation for the BofM is divine. Surprising to hear he has that unbiased opinion. Please consider the evidence.

The method described of translation by this professor is bogus. Joseph never used a hat with the urim and thummim. He did have a seer stone which he found later, but the tools used to translate the Book of Mormon were a breastplate with bows and attached to the bows were two stones, one named urim the other thummim. The hat story comes from a "memory" account way after the fact and is obviously confused with the actual method.

My mother once memorized the Book of Mormon, and from all I’ve read she is not the genius that Joseph was. He had nearly four years to construct the story before he told it to others. Interestingly, the first part of the Book of Mormon was written last as Joseph had to figure out a way to replace the lost 116 pages. Another interesting thing was that the divinely inspired translating included grammatical errors – I didn’t know that God didn’t go to school, too!

To Not Quite True--If J Smith used the same seer stone he used for treasure hunting would it matter to you?

I found out this truth in a South Park episode. "Not quite true" obviously didn't know about the stone and the hat. Why did the creators of a cartoon know something that life-long members of the church don't know? It took me 35 years as a member to hear this...on South Park.

Is there any question on joseph's work? I'm sure Bro peterson would have said so.

Using the "fault-finding our way to the truth" methods of Are you sure? and Fredd, no one would ever believe anything. Anyone good debater can pick and choose facts and criticize and be contrary on any topic. No one ever said that Joseph Smith was a perfect man, or that the Book of Mormon is perfect (the spelling criticisms are pointless). "If there are faults they are the faults of men." There are better ways to find and recognize truth.

Paul: the fact remains that it is believed that Joseph translated exactly what was written on the stone. Spelling errors is not an issue, but grammar errors (especially when grammar is used as one of the defences) are quite numerous and problematic for the “most correct book” of any book. Plus, why would god invent words like "numerority"? You would think God would be more conscious of a book meant to draw people unto him than to allow such inexcusable errors!

The prof must be up for promotion. What logic. By the way, is the BoM imperfect? Why would God do that? Does She have a sense of humor?

Wow, you have to be brought up on this to believe it eh.

Paul--I was just asking because "not quite sure" specifically said it wasn't true. I was asking if that one particular fact was a big deal to him/her. I would think any rational analysis of the truth of LDS faith would require a multitude of facts to be analyzed as a whole. I was commenting on this particular one. One can never disprove the spiritual truth but the historical data can tell you if the source is trustworthy. I obviously don't think the source is trustworthy, but I acknowledge I'm assuming the version of historical facts I'm using, such as the seer stone/treasure hunting stone being one and the same, are accurate. Why have the breast plate and urin and thummin if you are going to use a rock you found digging for treasure?

"Let any man that lacks wisdom ask of God".....that's how I know it's true. I followed the same counsel given in James. Their are lots of imperfections in all our lives....Yes, the Lord does work with imperfect people. For that I am grateful.

DN: unfort. I asked God and she pointed the way to the Methodist Church. How is that possible?

There was a talk given by Russell M. Nelson in June of 1992 called "A Treasured Testament." It was printed in the Ensign (July 1993). Look it up. Elder Nelson said Joseph used a seer stone and a hat.

Dr. Peterson is more than willing to speculate (wildly!), but then when asked logical questions, he has no answers.

If Smith used the "seer stone" to translate by looking into a hat with the stone in it, how exactly does that involve translating the plates themselves?

And if he didn't need the plates to translate, why did he even have them?

Peterson's answer: "Peterson said he didn't know, except perhaps as a reassurance and an evidence to him that they existed. The plates and other objects, including the sword of Laban, may have helped him understand that the translation wasn't subjective, Peterson said."

What about Joseph's claims to have seen the angel Moroni appear in his room? He didn't have his own, private room. In the middle of the night he shared a bed with a sibling, and the room with several siblings. None of them report seeing angels nor hearing Joseph having a conversation with angels. Ever.

The stories Joseph Smith told are so full of holes it is laughable. I guess PT Barnum was right - there's one born every minute, and the LDS Church has been recruiting and baptizing them for over a century!

Fact: the Book of Mormon is a real book. Someone had to write it. Hugh Nibley would ask his students to write a book equal to it in a six week period. He never had anyone do it. All the other guesses as to how the book was written are wilder than Joseph´s. The error´s are only proof that Joseph, Oliver, et.al. were not smart enough to do it by themselves. Someone had to write it. those of you who do not believe he wrote it have you read it? I have read it maybe 25 times. each time I do I am more amazed of the book. I have read the whole bible about the same amount and I am amazed at it also. Who wrote it? God did, as well as the Bible.

in the Bible also. Translating errors included. Many believe it is the word of God too, like myself.
The truth is, those in Joseph's household, his mother, father, brothers, wife,etc. all believed Joseph was a prophet of God and that his account of the whole restoration was true, including that of his translating. Oliver Cowdrey was brought to him by the Lord and worked in the translating. He knew it was the truth. There are too many live witnesses folks to follow your logic. Like Brigham Young said, "I believe the doctrine is true!" Pray again with a sincere heart, with real intent. People of faith know the truth. It stands as a second witness for Christ. Why should you object to that, unless you are also sceptical of Him.

On to eternity... if we who covenant with the Lord stay faithful this and much more will be known. I am always at the ready to help others to know of the path marked by the Savior and brought to our times as Truth Restored. The proof is in the pudding, be it in a war zone, Turkey, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Korea, Panama, Hungary, Canada, Mexico or prisons in Arizona, Utah or Hawaii I have borne testimony of these truths. Listening to HIS words walking in meekness not just talking has brought PEACE to me. My hand of friendship is extended to bloggers who I will meet after this phase of life is finished. You will know me as Happy Camper who will hopefully have kept his covenants and be of help to you.

Cato is trying to disprove that Joseph saw an angel by pointing out that his siblings didn't see it? As if he has all the answers about what is and what isn't possible for God and His angels? That's laughable.

Does anybody here even speak a language besides English? Doesn't anybody understand what it means to translate? Translating involves first understanding the original language, and then, in your own mind, converting the same things into another language. If you have ever tried to do it, you will not criticize grammatical errors. In fact, there isn't even consensus on what perfect English is.

Obviously, when God allows men on earth to do his work, he accepts that nothing will be done perfectly.

If you believe in the Bible, you believe in things more outrageous than have happened in the short history of the LDS church. You believe in the unbelievable plagues sent to Egypt. You believe that God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. You believe that Israel was commanded to (repeatedly) commit genocide. You believe that disciples were magically given powers to speak in tongues. Is anything in the history of the LDS church harder to believe than these things?

While admittedly the professor can hardly be called an objective, non-biased commentator, the most intelligent responses detractors on this comment board have choose to reduce the argument to a "did not"-"did so" debate, as though this topic is best discussed like kindergartners in a sandbox.

Dallin H. Oaks was great in the last conference when he stated that there are some things that cannot be left to scientific proof. For example (paraphrasing here), I cannot prove scientifically that I love my parents, wife, children, etc., yet I know that I do.

Those who want scientific or other physical evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon have no understanding of the power of faith, and why this power is so important in our lives. It does no good to try to have childish arguments with these people.

Someone wants to consider the evidence.

OK, take a 2nd or 3rd grader and sit them down and have them write 500 pages of scripture in about 100 days and have it make sense. Oh, yes, write it in continuous words because the individual writing doesn't know how or where to insert things like period and commas and paragraphs. Let the printer do it and then listen to the detractors howl about changes.

Yes, Mr. Smith had a 2nd to 3rd grade education. Calling him an idiot savant won't hold water. Try another explanation for what he wrote, given his education.

I'm waiting with baited breath.

To Just Thinking (and Belgie),

Try to think more deeply. Nibley's challenge is a joke and a gimmick. I challenge you to write as many religious books as L. Ron Hubbard did in the short time he wrote so much. There is no way you could do it. That doesn't make his writings true.

To There are errors (and Belgie),

Your logic is silly. How do errors in the Bible prove that the Book of Mormon is true? It doesn't. All it does is acknowledge that religious books are erroneous and encourage people to dismiss all of them. Does that help? Is that where you want to go with this?

To Apologist,

Unless you rely on scientific proofs, you are destined to be duped by fables, lies, and myths - all in the name of "faith". By "faith" Islamic Fundamentalists do suicide bombings; by "faith" snake charmers in the deep South get bitten and die; by "faith" millions of South Americans give their livelihood to statues of Mary and "bleeding" Jesus; by "faith" thousands of Indians think a baby born with two faces is a God. Maybe if you have enough faith you can believe that Elvis is still alive!

People only gain a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon if they want to know for the right reason, and receive a witness through the Holy Ghost. It is somewhat irrelevant how we received the book, since the Lord could have provided it through many different methods.

Revelation? Maybe.

Of course, not all relevation comes from Heavenly Father...

I've always felt somewhat uneasy with people who write books trying to "prove" the Book of Mormon is true by scientific means. In my opinion it moves people away from pure faith and makes them vulnerable when they find contradictions between their study of science and their belief in religion. It also seems to lead to impositions on the school system when these same people complain that science is teaching something that contradicts a religious belief. Do both science and religion a favor, and quit trying to mix the two.

Dr. Peterson. If Joseph translated in the manner you suggest, with the seer stone, then what did he mean in the following scriptural record: JS-H 1: 35, 42, 52, 59, 62

35 "Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book." etc.

• • •

This is going to be a much commented post.

So many of us are so unacquainted with prophets and revelation that we don't understand the workings of either. We have our own blueprint of what "should be" the case when either is present, but our personal blueprint is flawed, so naturally the result will not match. It doesn't say anything about the revelation or the prophet. It just says they don't fit our self imposed mold.

Prophets are human and nor perfect. Revelation is line upon line, not a deluge.

Anyone who reads the Book of Mormon in the spirit of wanting to know can ask God and learn for himself that the professor is right as millions have. But too many prefer to speculate other reasons, methods, possibilities because they are not willing to go to the fountain. All explanations fall short except the one found in the Book of Mormon itself - "Translated by the gift and power of God".

Daniel Peterson says, "A common belief among LDS members is that Smith put up a blanket or sheet between him and the scribe, primarily Oliver Cowdery, so the scribe couldn't see Smith working with the plates. But Peterson said the only sheets that were put up were to screen the work from folks passing by the windows..."

So why is this "myth" perpetuated by Church paintings?

Dr. Peterson has done his research. He is a very informed and education man. Despite minor gramatical errors and spelling errors in the original version, one should the book for content and its teachings, which critics have a difficult time questioning. There is scientifice evidence. Just take the name Alma as a small example. The critics were really going after the use of a female name. The but critics had to change tatics, when scientists discovered an ancient document in Israel with the male name Alma on it. But then again, the Book of Mormon is a matter of faith to me.

In his article Professor Peterson claims that the people of the Book of Mormon were "a small group." This doesn't really match with what I've always been taught about all the native Americans and Polynesians being descendants of the Lamanites.

Anti- Mormon Trolls isn't a very Christian way to view people with honest doubts about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

We have grammatical errors, there is mention of beliefs altering skin pigmentation. There is mention of animals and plants that ever existed in the New world. We have genetic and linguistic studies putting the book of Mormon in doubt. Believing in science, isn't being a troll. Denying facts maybe foolish.

Smith was convinced of fraud. Stories with similarities to the BOM were in print at the time of this translation.

Then, you are faced with Smith's adulterous behavior and the immensity of Smith's ego. There is good reason to believe the BOM to be bogus.

Cato - Is "scientific proof" really as clear and irrefutable as you make it sound? For example, are all scientists throughout the world in 100% agreement regarding issues such as the causes of global warming? Are all scientists in 100% agreement on trends in animal population?

What about scientific theories of the past, like catastrophism? Some scientists today strongly dispute catastrophism, while others still hold to it? Who is right?

"Can someone tell me? raises a very good question that should not be swept under the rug?

Back in the 1929 (long before DNA tests) LDS apostle Anthony W. Ivins warned Latter-day Saints not to get the idea that all Native Americans are decendants of the Lamanites.

In 1938, William Berrett and Milton Hunter produced a book called "A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon" which says, "...the Book of Mormon deals only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations, which probably would be unknown to the writers."

I hope these quotes help a little.

Wouldn't it be great if the Book of Mormon fell off the lips of the prophet and onto the printed page without flaw, without ever a need to revise or punctuate or clarify? Wouldn't it be great if the Gold Plates were in the Smithsonian where every scholar could verify their authenticity and correctness of translation? Wouldn't it be great if everyone who ever read the book came away with this awe and delight to the extent that they knew and no one ever would doubt a bit of it? No one would even need to ask God in prayer of it's truth for it would be that obvious. No one would do wrong. All would be kind and considerate of others.

But darn. It doesn't work like that. Instead of taking a holiday God seems to want to stay involved, be consulted, develop faith in us bit by bit through observation and prayer. Works for me. How about you?

The errors were not only grammatical errors but Names were also changed. Please know your facts before making statements. Mosiah 21:28 was listed originally as King Benjamin though it should have been Mosiah. Mary goes from being "mother of god" to "mother of the son of god" and "eternal father" becomes "son of the eternal father". Does it change my opinion of the church? No, because I have faith in the truthfulness of the message over actual non-fiction. The stories of the bible continue to inspire me as well though I find Noah's ark to be fiction. The message of not following others even in the face of peer pressure holds more value than whether or not a real ark existed. We also know that there are not four corners of the earth as per the bible, but again it is about the message...heck Jesus even taught in parables. It comes down to what is the endgame? Is it meant to be a purely non-fiction book or to teach us to be good children that our heavenly parents might be proud?

He 'translated' by looking at a stone placed in a hat. Most of the time the allaged plates weren't even in the same room. He never read directly from plates.

What about the language problems in the KJ version in the bible being directly quoted in the book of mormon (Isiaih)?

I must say that I respect your decision to observe the words of the book of mormon as truth. However, I find that it seems far more risky to commit my life to something that is as you said not present, but based on faith.
We have but one life to live and live it well. I believe in conscious and moral decision conjugated with humanistic perspective- however I think it foolish to believe that one fairly simple, and poorly written book should (eventually) dictate specifics of my life. I love my coffee, I love my wine, I love my beer, and I love my fornication (with my beautiful, sweet, service loving, monogamous girlfriend)- I likewise love to serve others and see it as the best time in my life spent.

Having left the church at age 17- I have never been happier, and subsequently I have realized that like all of us the church has many flaws- we should all be respected, but likewise our questions of fact and reality should be received.

Take a look at "A View of the Hebrews" and you will know how Joseph did it.

Your idea about the B of M being about "3 small colonies" doesn't hold water. The Jaradites had a battle in which "two million" people parished. Also, the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites killed "one milion" people.

Further, Joseph Smith, in the Zelph revelation, revealed that Zelph was well known "from the east coast of America to the Rocky Mountains". Scripture and revelation don't agree with your "small 3 colonies" theory. Sorry.

All--Assume for a moment Joseph Smith and the BoM are a fraud.
1. How did Joseph write the book in six weeks? he didn't, it was written by someone else who was looking for a charismatic person to sell it. Where does six weeks come from? Is that how long he translated? Obviously if the BoM is a farce the whole timeline is shot.
2. How did someone with a 2nd or 3rd grade education write it? See number one.
3. Why use science? Nothing in science disproves the bible. certain elements are faith based, but those that are historical are generally supported by science. little if any of the Bom is supported by science.

I have read more opinions written by people who hate Moprmons, claim everything Mormonms do is from Satan, call Mormons "sons of satan:, say nMormons are not Christian. All these remarks are entered on LDS forums, and even on their own forums, such as Baptist, Assembley and other groups that were formed from committe decisions years ago.
Almost EVERYONE of these groups have their own 'interpretation; of what the Bible says and means.
I will tell you ONE thing the Bible preaches against (and ALL you fundamentalist buy into espousing: DO NOT HATE!!!
Fundies hate Mormons, Get over it! someday in the hereafter, you will be grateful for LDS believers (relatives!) who have 'baptized" you by proxy!
I have never seen a single thought or wish, related to Mormons, and was that was God-based, come from foaming Fundies.
I grew up in a Protestant sect that was known as "Free Holiness Church". I joined LDS when I was 29 (31 yrs ago). Now I hear a lot of typical Baptist,Pentecostal. Assemby hatred based on a small amt of Bible-based truth from God. Just enough to be dangerous!

I don't hate Mormons. Don't believe their religion but no where near hating them. I even married one. Don't believe a word of their faith. Don't want home teachers or visiting teachers "dropping in" unannounced. Started to hate the Mormon church but some how got the message across to leave me and my family alone. And now I don't have any feelings (other then disbelief anyone would buy this)

To the non-LDS: I am sorry you feel so compelled to cry out the fraud of the church. You're not changing the minds of the members, so I don't know your agenda. I've always been bewildered by putting so much "anti-" rhetoric effort. I am busy enough in what I believe in not to waste time in what I don't. Pick something more constructive to do.

To the LDS: Why do you keep responding??? You either attack, and sound bad and contrary to your own teachings, or you bear your testimony to the unhearing. Just stop responding and maybe the former will go away. A battle is boring without a foe.

This contention is definitely NOT Christ-like ... from either side.

To all the naysayers...you have every right to trust science or any other means you deem necessary. I have to admit I am quite entertained by alot of the responses. I have learned that those who do not want or desire to know the truth as LDS's proclaim become a bit defensive. I do remember the Prophecy that Joseph's name will be had for good and evil...PROPHECY FULFILLED! I think it is good to question...Just exercise a bit more faith and ask without fully understanding and knowing. The spirit truly does bear witness to the truth of ALL things.

For the record: God is not the only supernatural being we are taught about in the Bible. There are angels, demons, and even Satan himself. Be careful not to assume that God is the only one at work here.

Truth demands footprints. There should be evidence of a people who populated this continent. Or at least we should be able to see the continent in the story. Until we see this evidence there is no real point in having this discussion.

I truly love the LDS people.

to Cato: Hughd Nibley was not joking when he made the charge to his students. He was very serious. How did Joseph know about the terrane for the middle east. How did he know about the husbantry of the olive tree mentioned in Jacob 5. All of these things he could not of known. I have been thinking deeply for 60 years. You have the right to belief what you want. why do you feel the need to want me to believe like you do.
Have you read the View of the Bebrews, and the Book of Mormon is nothing alike.

No Fredd, science finds loop holes in the Bible as well. Wine to water, earth created in six days (and on the seventh he rested), crammin two of every living thing onto a boat when water covered the whole earth, Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, among a few. The Bible, like the BofM, contains stories which aren't provable by science, yet we have FAITH in them. Once again, science won't prove either book's truthfulness.

I want the BOM to be "true". I think the teachings are pretty decent. The FACT of the matter is that Ethan Smith, author of "A View of the Hebrews" lived in Pourtney Vermont and was the pastor of the church Oliver Cowdery's family went to. The story line of Ethan Smith's book has similarities to the storyline of the BOM. Ethan Smith was Dartmoth educated. His book was published prior to the BOM. Oliver Cowdery shows up to help JS translate the BOM....now, this all does not mean anything with certainty, BUT, an open mind could see another explanation for the origin of the BOM. Check out BH Roberts BOM Studies.

You don't hate people for not being willing to admit they have been lied to and deceived. You try to learn something of value to you from it. We can all be fooled. It takes character to admit you were taken.

Why would an angel need wings to appear? Angels aren't flying through the air. If you where an intelligent engineer would you use gold for constructing wings? It heavy, too soft and there are a host of better metals you can use.

It's all just moronic supernatural nonsense...please live in the modern world.

And don't get your "knowledge" about the church from SOUTH PARK. Please your credibility as an intelligent person went right out the window!