If the Book of Mormon is held up as proof of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, then we must grant the same status to Pearl Curran and Mohammed, on the same grounds. Anything less would amount to intellectual dishonesty.

Who’s saying that Pearl Curran and Mohammed are not divinely inspired? The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are replete with the idea that God gives revelation to His children and not just to one particular group. God reveals Himself to those that seek Him regardless of who they are.

Eric S said:

I also hear a familiar voice in the Book of Mormon

It should not be surprising that any translation would be primarily in the voice of the translator.

That sounds to me like an accurate place marker being used on a very definite text,

Insinuating that Joseph had memorized text that he had written previous or using a manuscript that someone else had written previous. This would seemingly conflict with the idea that Joseph Smith, after losing the first 116 pages, was unsure if he could remember what was written and so received the ‘revelation’ not to re-translate them. If he had an existing text, why not just re-memorize it? If he made it up, why did he not need anything read back to him to remember where he was?

So which is it, does Joseph have an elephant’s memory with an pre-existing text or is he just making it up as he goes along and can’t remember all the details later?

I am under the impression the translation consisted of Joesph Smith putting a rock in his hat, then sticking his head in his hat and with his faced covered by his hat he then read the words that appeared on the rock in his hat.

Seriously, from the accounts of the first-hand observers (and scribes) I get the impression it was more of a direct dictation than personal expression of ideas. Emma said he would pick up where he left off without having any portion read back. That sounds to me like an accurate place marker being used on a very definite text, not a formation of ideas that needed words to express.

Like Jeff Milner I also hear a familiar voice in the Book of Mormon, only for me I hear it in the endowment.

I’ve read some of Joseph Smith’s personal writing in the form of journal entries and letters to his wife, Emma. They read a lot like the Book of Mormon so I believe (independent of whether or not he “wrote” the book of Mormon) his voice can be heard through the narrative.

Yet I contend, How should Smith’s voice have been heard through the narrative at all, since (according to Mormon Belief) David Whitmer, one of the so-called “three witnesses” to a testimony appearing at the front of the Book of Mormon, said: “Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by the power of man” (Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12).

As well, at the front of the Book of Mormon, in the section titled “Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” it is stated that the book was “translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested by Divine affirmation”. So, if the Book of Mormon is a book of Divine revelation – not the voice of Joseph, but that of God should be the only voice heard in the reading of the text.

So either you are giving Joseph Smith way too much credit, or you are implying that He spoke for God.

However, I have successfully argued this with you elsewhere and, save for this one comment, need belabour the point no further on this thread.

It’s also interesting to compare and contrast changes in the writing style when covering chapters that overlap with the bible. For example see 2 Nephi / Isaiah or 3 Nephi Matthew.

Apparently I’m not the first person to discover this phenomenon. In his book “New Witnesses for God”, noted scholar B. H. Roberts wrote:

When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, or the words of the Savior, he took the English Bible and compared these passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding that in substance, they were alike, he adopted our English translation; and hence, we have the sameness to which you refer.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that B. H. Roberts opinion should be taken as the only possible solution to the problem, but I present it as an alternative to some of the evidence that may suggest the Book of Mormon was not translated from the Golden Plates.

THE BOOK OF MORMON

AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY

THE HAND OF MORMON

UPON PLATES

TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever— And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUN.