Lars Nielsen - "How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass" - Review by Dan Vogel

the review i've been waiting for

I felt similarly about him when I listened to his interview with RFM and Reel. He uses word fluff to compensate for disjointed thoughts and not getting to the point.

I watched the Mormonish podcast that introduced his theory. I anticipated your review.

Thank you for your review.

I watched the Mormonish podcast that introduced his theory. I anticipated your review.

Thank you for your review.

You sir are the only one with brass balls!

I'm surprised FAIR hasn't used these "Kircherisms" to support the Book of Mormon....

Glad we have you and your expertise, Dan!!! Thank you!!!

Glad we have you, Dan

Well he and Joseph Smith have one thing in common. Passing off fiction as history!

All I can say is read the Nemenhah records, and follow chief Midegah and the birch bark scrolls.

Maybe I'm not your target audience as a non-historian post-Mormon, but I think your videos could benefit from more 30,000 views that explain how everything fits together and gives more background. I feel like I've been dropped in a forest and asked to know where I am based on looking at one tree with a magnifying glass. So many theories are referenced without explaining what they are. Of course, it's not your responsibility to teach us everything in one video. I just think a few more topic sentences would be helpful. Everything is really nicely tied together by the end though. Thanks for the review! I unfortunately already bought it and now won't bother to finish.

This book is the Exmormon version of Ponderize.

Thanks Dan. Good video. You are always so thorough. Do you know where the LDS church officially teaches when the so-called great apostasy occurred in Palestine? The Book of Mormon explains how and when it occurred in the Americas, but I can’t find any official church teaching of when it occurred in Palestine. Some say immediately after the last apostle died and some say it was much later. Most major biblical events are tied to some particular time period. When did the great apostasy actually occur? Thanks. John

Thank you Dan. I appreciate your work. ❤

I listened to the book on audio and really enjoyed it, very well written. The book’s sources were extensively provided.
I would definitely recommend this book! Lars Nielsen hit the nail on the head with this book. I found his approach very well balanced and honest toward the church.

Just to play devils Advocate regarding the use of the name 'Nephi'. Spaulding was just writing fiction as fiction, so he could be using the name 'Nephi' just because he liked it. Joseph Smith wasn't necessarily aware of its origin as part of a fraud, so might just stick with it.

Thanks!

Dan Vogel is dishonest....

Excellent review! Love the depth. After watching his interviews on ML and Mormonish I thought the Kircherisms were interesting but quite a stretch. It almost felt like he was presupposing the Spaulding theory and looking for details to fill in the gaps

I have read the book twice. I only placed his writings as plausible.

A difficult read. A thorough and poignant review.

The 2 Maccabees reference to Nephi isn't a place name, to my understanding. I believe it's naptha, aka Greek fire.

Interesting that two of the biggest critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now can’t agree how the Book of Mormon came about. If it is such an easy fraud, shouldn’t this be a simple matter of the actual origins of the book? Shouldn’t there be wide consensus among the critics of some overarching theory, even if there remains disagreement over the details? Why is it that every so often, critics have to throw out all the old theories and start again? Or resurrect old discarded theories, such as the Spaulding/Rigdon theory. This is not proof that the Book of Mormon is true, but I find it interesting as a believer that Joseph was telling the truth. Not saying believers agree on all salient points.

I’ve also never heard any alternative theory to explain the origins of the BoM that answers all of the data points. Joseph Smith got many things right about the ancient world that he simply could not have known. I’ve never heard a critic adequately address these. They simply gloss over them and stick with the tried and true anti-Mormon critiques. You may be able to convince those looking for reasons to disbelieve, but this is not convincing to honest seekers of truth. I find the lack of a solid foundation for a naturalistic explanation of the BoM and the inability to explain the stronger points of the BoM to be very compelling for the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims.

Lol. The book is a funny, yet a painful poke at the existing narratives, in my opinion. You have to read it in light of what it is. It is not a serious scholarly book. He's creating a narrative that frankly seems as plausible in some cases as some of the current narratives, which are riddled with problems of or their own. You ignore what facts are there which, as few as they may be, demand attention. I have yet to see anyone seriously address those facts which he does happen to bring to the table, instead of attacking him, his writing style, and his made up dialogues (which he clearly identifies as made up).

If BYU has indeed made a point of buying up many Athanasius Kircher source documents, then i think Lars is on to something. The church has a practice of burying documents that would harm their prevailing narrative.

I passed on this book when it came out, and now I’m glad I did.

Dan I absolutely appreciate your books and professional historical work you bring to the table. You truly show your authentic work when you criticize the critics as well as the apologetics and bring forth geat historical work that superseeds all others.

I’m sorry and I feel like everyone deserves respect but Mormonism and Scientology are two cults that deserve nothing less than ridicule as do its members. Anyone naive enough to believe that bull hockey kind of deserves to be taken advantage of it is so beyond the pale of anything that is reasonable

MY UNDERSTANDING of the theory.

Spaulding studied Kirsher at Dartmoth, wrote a fake history of ancient america in the form of scripture, this text found its way to Rigdon, Rigdon was brought to Josepth by Pratt and they collectivly used the spaulding text as the structure for the BOM.

Without getting into the weeds, are you saying this is not possible?

Thanks for your review.

Dear Dan. You are perhaps unaware that you are the lone mormon without an almost endless capacity to imbibe bull***t. The author at hand is simply catering to all the rest.

Thanks Dan no wonder I was so frustrated reading this book.

I think you misunderstand Kircher entirely, because you have a different thesis. You also miss the Smith-Smith connection. Do I take it that you had it all figured out correctly in the 1978?

Prof. Vogel, It is always great pleasure to know your researchings. Thank for your time.

Since leaving the church, I wanted to produce a book dealing with all the lies. But then I found your books and realized it's all been said and much better than I could have done.

Ooof. Rough. Guess you're being honest!

This church is a catfish. Once you find out about and want to quit it your life just start to felt down like a domino effect. ! It was hard for me . 😢 I really regret it. 😢

Even if everything you said accurately discounts what Lars has written about, it is inappropriate, and just plain wrong to be so smug and pompous. It seriously isn't necessarily what is said, but the *way* in which it is said that makes it right or wrong. You are so wrong in your belittling remarks and snarky tone referring to Lars and his work. Seriously, for a person who thinks he has the "facts" on his side to discount this, there's absolutely *NO* need to be so unprofessional! Especially when coming from a guy who embodies the voice of Disney's "Goofy" if he had a brother! (And this is your *normal* voice, not you trying to sound ridiculous in a character voice!)

My spouse has listened to a lot of your stuff and told me as much as the information is seemingly accurate, you're as dull as can be, making everything you put out there difficult to listen to due to being so incredibly boring. Now I know what it's like after listening to this, despite all your ridiculous antics of ad homonym attacks. Had you omitted all of that garbage, I may have been able to stomach the goofy voice and dull demeanor.

Don't like what I have to say about you? Then maybe you should look in the mirror and stop doing that to others! As I wouldn't have voiced any of this had you chosen to stick with the facts instead of being such an idiotic major jerk!!!

VOGEL REMOVES LDS RESPONSES THAT REFUTE HIS BOGUS CLAIMS......HOW DISHONEST.

FAKE NEWS VOGEL IS MAKING THINGS UP

Vogel deleted lds posts which proves his claims are bogus.

You seem a little defensive. Lars Nelson admits his theories are conjecture. His book is nothing more than a detour rabbit hole in an attempt to explain the origins of this book.

Thanks for the video. I saw the last Mormon Discussion video and was not at all impressed by his hypothesis.
You've managed to blast it to smithereens with this video.

Welllllllll

Joseph did remove the original Isaiah passages and replaced them with the trickle down Bible versions in attempt to keep the whole issue from being exploited by lds haters

At this point, I'm not sure what scholars and amateurs are suggesting now. I've heard Joseph Smith gathered bits and pieces of the BOM from professors at Dartmouth, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdrey, a salamander, the occult, magic mushrooms, dreams, visitations from evil spirits, trances, reading the View of the Hebrews, and combined them all into one nice Book of Mormon. I'm thinking that maybe he did just find plates LOL

I’m so grateful for your work Dan

I cant wait to see Lars' response to this review. Im surprised that he hasn't made his way into the comments here.

I have a random question. When examining the possible origins of the Book of Mormon and how it may have been composed, why is it that some non LDS scholars seem to accept the Church's timeline of events? For instance, they will say things like, "The BoM was written in a very short period of time", inferring that it would be near impossible for an "uneducated farm boy" to fabricate such a complex text in such a short period of time. How do we know it was a short time period? Is this supported by the history? What kind of evidence would be required to put the timeline into question?

Absolutely appreciate the scholarship.

I bought this book on Kindle recently and started reading, but I put it on hold because I had some doubts about its accuracy. You just verified what I suspected, so I won't waste my time further. Thank you, Dan 😊