How The Book of Mormon Came to Pass: The Second Greatest Show on Earth

by Lars Pauling Nielsen

Several explanations for the seemingly sudden appearance of The Book of Mormon in 1829 (first published in 1830) have been put forth by historians and apologists alike. Each holds some value to its advocates while displaying obvious inconsistencies and unexplained features. However, significant new evidence necessitates the revision of all such authorship theories, including and especially the sole-authorship hypothesis—that Joseph Smith (between the ages of twenty-two and twenty-three) single-handedly composed all the sentences in The Book of Mormon through creative writing, automatic writing, or inspired dictation. Neoteric observations reveal deliberately hidden details in Mormonism’s keystone scripture that could not have been put there by Smith. What is the real story behind how the two bookending characters (Nephi and Mormon) got their names? Where did the idea of Nephi being guided through the wilderness by a spiritually magnetic compass—a curious ball having pointers, spindles, and writing on its sides—truly come from? In this book, such details are called “Kircherisms,” a new class of anachronisms in The Book of Mormon. These Kircherisms have revealed a fresh set of influences, an undiscovered source text, and a wellspring of intriguing evidence that has never been published anywhere else. With an infusion of new data, this book presents a novel and distinctive exegesis as well as a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive framework for organizing and evaluating the merits of all prior authorship theories. One mechanism, in particular, has emerged as the most comprehensive, evidence-based, and satisfying explanation for how The Book of Mormon came to pass.

Genres: Nonfiction

389 pages, Paperback

Published April 1, 2024

Reviews

[Benny Hinrichs · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book that presents some interesting information. However, I felt it would have GREATLY benefitted from a, say, 10 page summary of chronological bullet points with every piece of the theory stated succinctly with (H) for historical or (S) for speculation prefixing each. I found it difficult in many spots to parse through which details had provenance in the historical record, and which stemmed from extrapolation.

I thought that something to this effect was going to happen in ch 20, but then it’s interrupted by an excursus on a theorized origin of Ammon which neglects to mention the fact that the name Ammon appears over 100 times in the Old Testament.

The inclusion of Montmaur seemed far more ornamental than instrumental. It also lacked any mention of the French practice of verlan, where the first and final syllables of a word are swapped as a cutesy way to refer to the same concept. Merci becomes cimer. Francais becomes céfran. L’envers (the inverse) itself becomes verlan. Femme (woman) becomes meuf (girlfriend). Meuf has become so commonplace that it got verlanned again to feumeu. Béroul in the late 1100s changes the name Tristan to Tantris. Furetiére in 1690 says, “On dit, c’est verjus ou jus ver pour dire c’est la même chose.” This form of circumlocution is baked into the French mind. The author leans, in my opinion, too heavily into portraying the Montmaur to Mormon swap as a one word chiasm rather than situating it more contextually as a French verlan.

It is stated that references to Montmaur or his verlan Mormon, became a shortcut among linguists to refer to falsified sources. I would have like to see more concrete examples of this claim. It’s claimed that Nephi came to be used among linguists in a similar fashion, which I would have also liked to see greater direct substantiation for.

One of the thinnest parallels presented is that 7-8 pages of Monmauri Opera contain Montmaur’s actual words, and this might be where the idea for the Words of Momon came from. The small plates (Nephi - Omni) make some 17 mentions of the fact that they are the small plates, not the large plates. I believe there are two sections where it breaks off for multiple paragraphs on the topic, rather than just offhand mentions, despite avering that there is scant room on the plates. The Words of Mormon are a panic response, not a cleverly inserted reference to a centuries-old document about a French priest (nor, indeed, a clairvoyant inclusion over a millennium prior).

I quite liked the initial chapter describing Athanasius Kircher, and I think that there is definite merit to the theory that Kircher’s magnetic brass balls and reformed Egyptian speaking Nephi could have been capitalized on by later writers of Book of Mormon material. The author dismisses the reference to Nephi in the Apocrypha as a mere place name, but it is in fact an oil that we today call Greek Fire, not a place name. And regardless, Ether is a mere place name mentioned twice in the book of Joshua. I think we should also give some consideration to the brass hand warming balls of the time as Liahona inspiration, though I agree that Kircher’s oddities are a better fit in form, though not time.

In chapter 13, the author refers to Limhi as a Lamanite king. He is in fact a Nephite. He also has the Jaredites dying in the 6th century BCE, but when Limhi sends out his men around 130 BCE, they find remnants that are likely not more than 100 years old.

I couldn’t get on board with the idea that the Urim and Thummim were inspired by Professor Smith’s spectacles. There is at least one source that claims that it was Samuel Lawrence, whom Joseph took to the hill, who saw them in his seer stone. Also, it seems that amongst the Mormons, Urim and Thummim terminology wasn’t used until post-BoM, and I believe it was used in conjunction with Teraphim (household god idols from the OT).

It was also difficult for me to agree with the proposition that Professor Smith had composed the original corpus that was later transmuted via Spalding to Rigdon to Joseph Smith. Ethan Smith wrote View of the Hebrews, but I don’t see any similar claim that this is an adaption of a manuscript originally penned by Professor Smith. It seems to me more likely that Ethan Smith and Spalding were both influenced by Professor Smith and wrote their respective manuscripts.

I do agree that there are a lot of striking parallels between the Spalding manuscript and the BoM, and that in some cases it becomes difficult to stretch the imagination to envision a scenario that doesn’t involve cross-contamination. I also agree that if that be the case, a route through Rigdon seems to be among the most plausible. One of the parallels mentioned is that the BoM has Laban and Spalding has Labanko, both of whom get their head cut off by their own sword. The book also compared some extended wordings that were almost exact between the texts. Unless it can be shown that these phrases were common in the wider vernacular, this is a strong indicator of collusion.

I'm not sure what material is available here, but I would be extremely interested in a comparison of Rigdon's pre-December 1830 writings and the BoM and D&C. Anything that was generated prior to the official date of Rigdon's exposure to the BoM.

Both the Fabius story and the Nephi story are reminiscent of the beginning of Robinson Crusoe. "I was born in the year 1632, in the city of York, of a good family.” "My father, who was very ancient, had given me a competent share of learning.” One of the only things Robinson gets out of his ship is a Bible. Other books to compare with are Gulliver’s Travels and Caleb Williams.

The author is obviously very familiar with Mormon terminology, and he employs this knowledge in an unending blanket of allusion. Occasionally, however, he does conjure up malapropisms. Like when he calls Martin Harris switching Joseph’s seer stone an Abrahamic test. By definition, an Abrahamic test is one that requires the testee to show willingness to make ultimate sacrifices. All Joseph had to do was recognize that the stone had been switched, no sacrifice needed.

In a footnote, the author states that “et factum est" means “and the fact is” in Latin. However, this is also a passive voice construction of faciō and translates to “and it (neuter) was done”. It depends on the context. Seeing as the author doesn't reproduce any of Kircher's statements with this clause, we don't know the specific translation.

As I said at the start, I would love to see the ten page version of this thesis with points clearly delineated with historical vs speculation. It has some fascinating things to consider. I think this full volume, however, was too indulgent at times, mingled fact and fiction too freely, and could have easily been a hundred or more pages shorter. I do commend the author for writing it and helping to move the BoM provenance conversation forward, and hope to hear more from him in the future.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

A new level of the rabbit hole was discovered by the author, Lars, and it was fascinating to explore it with him. Doubtless many theories will soon be updated to incorporate or “apologiate” the obvious influence of Athanasius Kircher.

It’s not a work of airtight scholarship or professional history. Instead it offers a range of speculative possibilities. Therefore, condemn it not for its imperfections. Wherefore, at times the writing style is a little cheeky, which thing I found to be very delightsome. And now, if thy shelf of Nibley books hath already broken, and yet thou still hast an interest in the topic, thou mayest perhaps enjoy this book as much as I did.

Seriously though, It’s not every year something this exciting breaks onto the scene of BofM scholarship. Bravo!

[Rob Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lars Nielsen's How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass: The Second Greatest Show on Earth is an exhilarating and thought-provoking exploration of one of the most unique religious texts in history. With a tone that is both insightful and irreverent, Nielsen offers readers an adventurous journey through the origins and stories surrounding the Book of Mormon. While the book's cover may seem a bit unconventional, this quirky presentation is quickly forgotten once you dive into the pages, where every chapter is a delightful maze of ideas, facts, and interpretations that will captivate both skeptics and believers alike.

One reviewer aptly described the book as a "series of rabbit holes that were delightfully entertaining to follow," and that description could not be more perfect. Nielsen takes readers on a deep dive into historical, cultural, and theological contexts, weaving together diverse ideas and perspectives in a way that feels like discovering hidden gems. His investigative style makes each page a journey, inviting you to explore new angles, challenge assumptions, and see the Book of Mormon through a fresh lens.

The strength of the book lies not only in its depth of research but in its engaging narrative voice. Nielsen has a remarkable ability to make complex ideas accessible, making it easy for readers to become fully immersed in the world he creates. Whether you're well-versed in the history of the Book of Mormon or just starting your exploration, this book offers something for everyone.

Despite its unconventional cover, which might initially put some readers off, the book's content pulls you in with its intellectual rigor and narrative charm. It's a blend of scholarship and storytelling, rich with historical context and thought-provoking questions, yet always delivered in an approachable, even entertaining, manner.

In conclusion, How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass is a delightful read for anyone looking to explore the origins of one of the most fascinating religious texts in history. Lars Nielsen has crafted a book that is equal parts fun, informative, and enlightening, making it a must-read for anyone with an interest in the subject. You’ll find yourself happily lost in the many "rabbit holes" it presents, eager to discover what new insight lies just around the corner.

[Lukas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read.

I'm certainly inclined to agree that the evidence for the Kircher link to the concept of reformed Egyptian is a home run. I think the fact that the church paid so much money to buy the Kircher materials and then locked them in a vault for nobody to see is a major red flag. Hugh Nibley had a long career in the church playing cover-up, so it's not surprising that his fingers are all over this.

Nielsen's neo-Spaulding theory is interesting, but pretty untenable, in my opinion. It greatly complicates the original Spaulding-Rigdon theory by trying to link all of this with Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and attempts to weave this idea that the key players weren't being duplicitous in their acts, but that they were, indeed, pious frauds, with extra emphasis on the pious.

I think the original Spaulding-Rigdon theory is sufficient without the need for further complications by throwing several other actors into the mix, including the prophet's uncle John Smith.

4/5 stars.

[Evil Secret Ninja · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this book would be more ground breaking than it was. I apricate the information that shows the Book of Mormon was not what it claims to be and where it may have come from. I felt the author used words and phrases that were similar to the Book Of Mormon and early church documents as a way to persuade people to his point of view. It is certainly possible and likely that somewhere Smith had access to the books mentioned and sources listed finding the links were not always clear. I don't know how much it would convince TBM.

[Bill Yates · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a bombshell to the Mormon Church. Great research and a great theory about the many influences that went into producing the Book of Mormon. The book was already proven to be a 19th century production, but this work takes the matter to a new level. My only criticism is that the text could have stood some weeding, such as with the fictitious conversations. Otherwise the thesis is well documented and supported by undeniable facts, which are duly footnoted.

[Marianne Power · Rating 2 out of 5]

Don't listen on audible. It makes an already muddled book even more muddled. The theories presented in the book were interesting, but his writing style was cringy. Pick a style. This is either going to be an academic writing presenting your theories or a light and interesting read. You can't have both, and in his attempt to do so, it made his book less credible. The sarcasm and cleche took away an extra star, so I give it a 2. He needed a better editor.

[Dan Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was excellent and probably one of the most likely theory. Strongly recommend to anyone who what’s to understand how it all came to pass.

[Michael Lange · Rating 2 out of 5]

Swing and a miss. While not entirely without merit, the book seems more fiction than scholarship and substance. I recommend the following reviews, which highlight my shared concerns with the book:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
and
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...