The "Joseph Smith" Challenge

[ErikJohnson]

How about Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews? B.H. Roberts wrote quite a lot about the similarities (see "A Book of Mormon Study" published in Studies of the Book of Mormon).

It seems the challenge was anticipated and met way back in 1823. Eerie...

--Erik

[Cold Steel]

It doesn't matter who wrote the Book of Mormon. All we ask is that someone spend some time to see how difficult it would be. As for motivation, it would sure shut up a lot of Mormons who maintain it couldn't have been produced by man.

A good fiction writer should be able to knock something off in no time. Since he or she wouldn't have any source material, no need to study. Just whip it off.

How about Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews? B.H. Roberts wrote quite a lot about the similarities (see "A Book of Mormon Study" published in Studies of the Book of Mormon).

Not even close. The Solomon Spalding thing is dead as a do-do.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Why is the BoM written in the same language as the KJV Bible. And who decided that Johnsonian English, is in fact, the language of the Lord. Neither the ancient prophets, nor Jesus spoke english. Neither the old or new testements were written in english. So, how and when, did Johnsonian English become the language of the lord.

This seems intuitive and obvious to me. If a young man versed in religious truths from the King James Bible, were given the task to translate another ancient record into a new volume of scripture, what style and language would he use to express it in? The same style and language he was used to learning scripture in.

If Joseph had been a young German boy who was trained up in the ways of God from the Guttenburg Bible, I'd expect the first modern translation of the Book of Mormon to be in German.

Most translations of the Book of Mormon today aren't even in English, so I imagine this whole topic is culturally bound, and wouldn't make much sense to someone in Tonga or Russia.

No mortal, no matter how inspired and talented, is perfect, and the Latter-day Saints don't expect even the Book of Mormon to be perfect. What we do know is that God is perfect and He teaches by His Spirit. Any errors that are the fault of men... Well, let me quote the original writers of the Book of Mormon. They say it better:

knowledge of the people; and it shall be done by the power of God.

[nana]

If you have a complaint about how a 500 page document was gleaned from a single set of plates, may I ask you - exactly how many plates do you feel there SHOULD have been? Is there any real way of judging or measuring? Who isn't to say that whole phrases were translated from a single character on the plates? Or who isn't to say that there weren't also many hundred plates? I heard from somewhere, once, as to the approximate thickness of the plates, but I couldn't reference it - would appreciate it if someone could. I remeber, as a child, seeing the US constitution in the glass case in the National Archives at Washington DC, and being absolutely astounded that the entire document was originally written on a single piece of paper. Perhaps, when the facts come out, you'll feel the same way about the Gold Plates?

Since Jesus is a God, I have no problem believing that he knows more languages than Aramaic. How could he possibly be God and NOT know more languages than Aramaic? And even if he didn't, there's still the gift of tongues, such as is described in Acts 2.

Ditto what rocky terrain said. There cannot be an innerant word if language itself is of a flawed nature. I've also heard that most of the Book of Mormon changes actually restored the modern editions closer to the original manuscripts, though I don't have a reference for that.

If you've received pat answers, I think it's because most LDS you've talked with have seen these as pat questions.

I don't know how many plates there were or if they existed. It seems to me that there would have to have been thousands.

Logic tells me that in order for them to be transported from one place to another, from one person to another, it would have been almost impossible to do so. Of course, I am of the belief that God is omnipotant and can do anything, however in all of the accounts of the gold plates that I have heard, JS hid them under a bed and had them covered so they could not be seen.

It may not seem like an issue to you but it is to me. I guess I am one of those people who it does'nt make sense to. And the pat answer I get is " we will know in the Lord's time how it all makes sense"

I do have faith, yet I also have a brain, that God gave me to learn and develop with and I just don't get it. I just don't comprehend gold plates over (hundreds?) of years being moved from place to place, being protected in battles to lie in wait for JS to find them and translate them.

In my opinion, by todays standards alone, the sheer weight of the amount of plates would have to be phenomenal and would take a great deal of care and effort to move them.

[selek]

I remember seeing a picture of a Jewish (Hebrew?) translation of the Book of Mormon. The page consisted of something on the order of five chapters and fifteen pages of the BoM, yet took up less than 2/3 of a standard 8.5 x 11 inch page. Likely that means there were somewhat less than "thousands" of pages.

It's my understanding that many of the scrolls we possess which contain scripture also take up "less room" on the page than our standard modern formatting.

Still, given the example above, and that we don't know anything about the original written language (or the abridgement), such speculation is meaningless, Nana. Neither you nor I know much specific about the plates.

We do, however, have the testimony of Joseph, at least one of his scribes, and of the eleven witnesses (though there may naturally be a little overlap) of the evidence of the plates.

They didn't seem to find it unusually unweildy or awkward.

Let me turn this on it's head for a moment.

If it were impossible to record that much information on plates as described, why have the "respectable" critics never pointed this out? If it would be that difficult and awkward, why did we have to wait more than a hundred fifty years for you to figure out this critical point?

[Tchild2]

Onelowerlight wrote:

One step ahead of you. It's called The Doctrine and Covenants.

Actually, make that TWO steps ahead of you. How many patriarchal blessings were issued just last week?

Lets see here, Book of Mormon- Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great price - Joseph Smith, doctrine and covenants - Joseph Smith. So Joseph Smith is the scriptural creation talent in the church? Doesn't this make sense to anybody else? Once Joseph Smith is gone, so is the scripture making? Either he was the only conduit to God, or he was the only LDS prophet with enough imagination and charisma to express his opinions on the supernatural (even if he wasn't receiving revelation)

Patriarchial blessings are personal blessings and are neither scriptural nor doctrinal, so that doesn't count. Unless you believe my patriarchial blessing is a doctrine for you.

Coldsteel wrote:

It seems no one is able to understand the challenge, much less meet it.

the challenge is understood, it is just that the parameters take on a few very liberal presuppositons; namely that the Book of Mormon is history. The "internal consistency", is no greater than many good fictional stories available at Barnes and Noble or your local Borders book store. Elder Brown's challenge is that somehow Joseph Smith magically related the real and true history of an ancient culture that he knew nothing about. Since the Book of Mormon is true (for believers only) how could he have known such details, and lets see a critic make-up a fictional story that is so close to real history like the BoM peoples. Problem is, the BoM is not considered real history except to believers. It is considered a fictional story utilizing its narrative to convey the theological ideas of Joseph Smith, borrowing heavily from the bible and from Christian theology with some modified concepts. therefore, for outsiders, the challenge would be to only create a work of fiction that equaled or excelled the BoM. like I said, the library has shelves of fictional works that probably get checked out much more frequently that the BoM.

[selek]

Tchild,

Just a minor quibble, but you're forgetting the Manifesto, an Official Pronouncement or two, and the Proclamation on the Family. Each, IMO, could be considered scripture as they represent the mind of God on the matters in question.

[Tchild2]

Just a minor quibble, but you're forgetting the Manifesto, an Official Pronouncement or two, and the Proclamation on the Family. Each, IMO, could be considered scripture as they represent the mind of God on the matters in question.

The church needs another Joseph Smith, critics are clamoring for another charismatic leader. We need some substance baby!

[selek]

The church needs another Joseph Smith, critics are clamoring for another charismatic leader. We need some substance baby! 

I know the above was tongue in cheek, TChild, so I'll respond in kind.

[Cue Thunder and Lightning and Deep Bass Voice]

"More?! What, I just gave you new scripture and doctrine a hundred fifty years ago and you haven't figured out how to live THAT correctly!"

[/Thunder and Lightning]

[The Dude]

The church needs another Joseph Smith, critics are clamoring for another charismatic leader. We need some substance baby!

[nana]

I remember seeing a picture of a Jewish (Hebrew?) translation of the Book of Mormon. The page consisted of something on the order of five chapters and fifteen pages of the BoM, yet took up less than 2/3 of a standard 8.5 x 11 inch page. Likely that means there were somewhat less than "thousands" of pages.

It's my understanding that many of the scrolls we possess which contain scripture also take up "less room" on the page than our standard modern formatting.

Still, given the example above, and that we don't know anything about the original written language (or the abridgement), such speculation is meaningless, Nana. Neither you nor I know much specific about the plates.

We do, however, have the testimony of Joseph, at least one of his scribes, and of the eleven witnesses (though there may naturally be a little overlap) of the evidence of the plates.

They didn't seem to find it unusually unweildy or awkward.

Let me turn this on it's head for a moment.

If it were impossible to record that much information on plates as described, why have the "respectable" critics never pointed this out? If it would be that difficult and awkward, why did we have to wait more than a hundred fifty years for you to figure out this critical point?

Didn't the other witness see them with their spiritual eyes?

I don't know why we had to wait 150 years for me to figure out this critical point of the plates being awkward and so many of them, but now that I have figured it out, let's explore the possibilities.

Really, doesn't the make you wonder...even just a bit?

[onelowerlight]

Onelowerlight wrote:

One step ahead of you. It's called The Doctrine and Covenants.

Actually, make that TWO steps ahead of you. How many patriarchal blessings were issued just last week?

Lets see here, Book of Mormon- Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great price - Joseph Smith, doctrine and covenants - Joseph Smith. So Joseph Smith is the scriptural creation talent in the church? Doesn't this make sense to anybody else? Once Joseph Smith is gone, so is the scripture making? Either he was the only conduit to God, or he was the only LDS prophet with enough imagination and charisma to express his opinions on the supernatural (even if he wasn't receiving revelation)

Patriarchial blessings are personal blessings and are neither scriptural nor doctrinal, so that doesn't count. Unless you believe my patriarchial blessing is a doctrine for you.

The D&C had more revelators than Joseph Smith. Take for example, Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith. If you accept it with the declarations, that's also Wilford Woodruff and Spencer W. Kimball.

And I disagree about patriarchal blessings. They are most certainly scripture, if not part of the universal canon. The Patriarch is basically the seer and revelator of his particular stake.

Also, I think it's a misnomer to say that everything that's revelation has to be part of the canon. I think there are plenty of ways God has revealed His will and doctrine outside of the canon. The canon exists because we can't always agree on what is revelation and what isn't.

[onelowerlight]

Just a minor quibble, but you're forgetting the Manifesto, an Official Pronouncement or two, and the Proclamation on the Family. Each, IMO, could be considered scripture as they represent the mind of God on the matters in question.

The church needs another Joseph Smith, critics are clamoring for another charismatic leader. We need some substance baby!

Charismatic as in, say, Spencer W. Kimball or Gordon B. Hinckley?

There's a lot more to the church than what's in the Doctrine and Covenants, folks.

[onelowerlight]

If you have a complaint about how a 500 page document was gleaned from a single set of plates, may I ask you - exactly how many plates do you feel there SHOULD have been?  Is there any real way of judging or measuring?  Who isn't to say that whole phrases were translated from a single character on the plates?  Or who isn't to say that there weren't also many hundred plates?  I heard from somewhere, once, as to the approximate thickness of the plates, but I couldn't reference it - would appreciate it if someone could.  I remeber, as a child, seeing the US constitution in the glass case in the National Archives at Washington DC, and being absolutely astounded that the entire document was originally written on a single piece of paper.  Perhaps, when the facts come out, you'll feel the same way about the Gold Plates?

Since Jesus is a God, I have no problem believing that he knows more languages than Aramaic.  How could he possibly be God and NOT know more languages than Aramaic?  And even if he didn't, there's still the gift of tongues, such as is described in Acts 2.

Ditto what rocky terrain said.  There cannot be an innerant word if language itself is of a flawed nature.  I've also heard that most of the Book of Mormon changes actually restored the modern editions closer to the original manuscripts, though I don't have a reference for that.

If you've received pat answers, I think it's because most LDS you've talked with have seen these as pat questions.

I don't know how many plates there were or if they existed. It seems to me that there would have to have been thousands.

Logic tells me that in order for them to be transported from one place to another, from one person to another, it would have been almost impossible to do so. Of course, I am of the belief that God is omnipotant and can do anything, however in all of the accounts of the gold plates that I have heard, JS hid them under a bed and had them covered so they could not be seen.

It may not seem like an issue to you but it is to me. I guess I am one of those people who it does'nt make sense to. And the pat answer I get is " we will know in the Lord's time how it all makes sense"

I do have faith, yet I also have a brain, that God gave me to learn and develop with and I just don't get it. I just don't comprehend gold plates over (hundreds?) of years being moved from place to place, being protected in battles to lie in wait for JS to find them and translate them.

In my opinion, by todays standards alone, the sheer weight of the amount of plates would have to be phenomenal and would take a great deal of care and effort to move them.

Like I said before, nana, according to your worldview, where would you feel comfortable saying "a minimum of X number of plates could plausibly equal 500 pages of English text?" Are you seriously drawing the line in the thousands, from this post here? If this is the case, it appears to me that you're saying that one page from the Book of Mormon should equal no less than one leaf of a gold plate. Where can you back that up? Like I said before, how don't you know that multiple words and phrases in English could translate to single characters in the hieroglyphics? Also, when you consider that this record was written on a fairly scarce writing medium, doesn't it actually make sense that there would be fewer plates, not more? If gold plates were a scarce resource, it would make sense that a way of writing would develop that would greatly reduce the amount of plates that were used to make a record. They could do this by writing smaller, making the plates thinner, etc. But, most importantly, consider that there is no way of quantifying any of this - that we're all just speculating. Is it REALLY that impossible that a 500 page record could have been recorded on a set of Gold Plates that could be carried and hefted as Joseph Smith (and 11 other <unrefuted> witnesses) claimed it could have? How "phenomenal" is this claim really? I have faith, and yet I also have a brain.

[nana]

Like I said before, nana, according to your worldview, where would you feel comfortable saying "a minimum of X number of plates could plausibly equal 500 pages of English text?" Are you seriously drawing the line in the thousands, from this post here? If this is the case, it appears to me that you're saying that one page from the Book of Mormon should equal no less than one leaf of a gold plate. Where can you back that up? Like I said before, how don't you know that multiple words and phrases in English could translate to single characters in the hieroglyphics? Also, when you consider that this record was written on a fairly scarce writing medium, doesn't it actually make sense that there would be fewer plates, not more? If gold plates were a scarce resource, it would make sense that a way of writing would develop that would greatly reduce the amount of plates that were used to make a record. They could do this by writing smaller, making the plates thinner, etc. But, most importantly, consider that there is no way of quantifying any of this - that we're all just speculating. Is it REALLY that impossible that a 500 page record could have been recorded on a set of Gold Plates that could be carried and hefted as Joseph Smith (and 11 other <unrefuted> witnesses) claimed it could have? How "phenomenal" is this claim really? I have faith, and yet I also have a brain.

In my mind it would seem that there would have to be more plates.

Yes, I know the symbols could have been used to mean more than one word at a time.

I can't back that up, you have just my made my whole point, that it can't be be backed up and I never said it could, I thought that I had made it clear that it was something that I always questioned.

It, simply put is, even with the character writing and thinner plates it just doesn't make sense to me, that there were not more gold plates.

I just wanted an opportunity to have a question answered that has bothered me for years.

[Chris Smith]

In Elder Hugh B. Brown's Profile of a Prophet Elder Brown said: "I ask anyone to undertake to write the story of the ancient inhabitants of America, to write as he did without any source material. He must include in the story 54 chapters dealing with wars, 21 historical chapters, 55 chapters on visions and prophecies (and remember, when the writer begins to write on visions and prophecies, he must have the record agree meticulously with the Bible). He must write 71 chapters on doctrine and exhortation, and here too, he must check every statement with the scriptures or he will be proved to be a fraud. He must write 21 chapters on the ministry of Christ, and everything the writer claims Jesus said and did and every testimony he writes in the book about him must agree absolutely with the New Testament."

It's interesting that with all the talent in the world today, with all the novel writers, doctors of ancient scripture and so forth, that someone hasn't at least tried to write a volume to show how such might be possible. It doesn't have to be about America, of course. How about some of the outer regions of Asia? If producing a Book of Mormon is not outside the realm of a sharpie with a penchant for the sensational, I'd like to see someone take a mythical tribe of Israelites and take them somewhere.

I think the reason it hasn't been tried is that it can't be done. We have some professors of religion and ancient scripture on this board. Even though they're mostly believers, I wonder if they would know if anything like this has ever been attempted, or how they would feel about tackling the job themselves, just as an experiment.

My own prediction is that they'd fall flat on their faces, because it's the little things in the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham that plant the seeds of a testimony. It's not the vast, sweeping stories of ocean crossings, the battles and so forth; it's in the words themselves of the men who are writing.

I think the reason it hasn't been tried is that nobody has that kind of time on their hands. No way am I giving up a couple years of my life just to prove a point. Moreover, the stipulations are a little unfair. We have to write so many chapters of this and so many chapters of that, but Joseph Smith had no such rules he had to follow. He could just write.

To claim, though, that anyone who tried to write a convincing historical novel with spiritual content would "fall flat on their faces" ignores the fact that many such novels have been produced. Ever hear of Patience Worth? Check out her historical novel about Jesus' life. It's impressive, and many have argued that there's no way her channeler (Patience Worth is a ghost who communicated through some woman, first by ouija board and later without the aid of any device) could have known so much information about the Holy Land and culture of the ancient Near East. It's at least as impressive as the BoM.

[Cold Steel]

Patience Worth wouldn't be the first "ghost writer" to come along.

Nope, we need someone to try their hand at doing this. Scientific method and all that. Dr. Peterson knows a great deal about the Qur'an, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, yet he has no problem believing the Book of Mormon is a historical document. I'd think someone who actually muddles around in this for a living would know how difficult it would be to write something from scratch. Dr. David Wright, on the other hand, doesn't seem too impressed.

Go figure. I just think someone should try knocking off a few books.

I mean, Solomon Spalding was just an old guy with some time on his hands, yet some people actually think he had a hand in the BoM.

Hmmmmmm.

[mig22]

If Joseph had been a young German boy who was trained up in the ways of God from the Guttenburg Bible, I'd expect the first modern translation of the Book of Mormon to be in German

and the garden of eden to be in berlin????

Actually, make that TWO steps ahead of you. How many patriarchal blessings were issued just last week?

luckily i dont consider my PB as scripture because it would prove the patriarch a charlattan...nothing in my PB actually happened and it seems it was talking about some other person..now i wonder how many "fiasco" patriarchal blessings were issued last week??

i think the challenge hasnt been taken, simply because the world doesnt care about it....it sure would be a very difficult task to acomplish but i think people have better things to do, and real critics wouldnt waste their time in something that "auto proves" false, mostly using our own scriptures, journal of discourses, anciently thought to be scripture, but nowadays discarded by "it was their human opinion" things...

cold steel: do you think we are THAT important to the rest of world to even try to acomplish something like that? nobody denied Joseph was some kind of genious...at least he deserves that

[Jerubaal]

luckily i dont consider my PB as scripture because it would prove the patriarch a charlattan...nothing in my PB actually happened and it seems it was talking about some other person..now i wonder how many "fiasco" patriarchal blessings were issued last week??

Because it is predicated upon righteousness!

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated

[Jerubaal]

If Joseph had been a young German boy who was trained up in the ways of God from the Guttenburg Bible, I'd expect the first modern translation of the Book of Mormon to be in German

and the garden of eden to be in berlin????

Actually Cold Steel is dead on about that one. And where Joseph lived is completely independent of where the Garden of Eden is.

But as to "If Joseph was German the Book of Mormon would have been translated into German" is completely scriptural:

D&C 1:24, emphasis added

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

[selek]

Nana,

In answer to your complaint about the number and size of plates needed to contain the Book of Mormon, I did a little leg work. In just fifteen minutes on the internet, I found the following sources. They should answer your questions, or at least point you in the right direction in seeking your own answers.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of...mon/plates.html

and

The Book of Mormon Plates

Janne M. Sjodahl

Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001. Pp. 22

[Tom]

In Elder Hugh B. Brown's Profile of a Prophet Elder Brown said: "I ask anyone to undertake to write the story of the ancient inhabitants of America, to write as he did without any source material. He must include in the story 54 chapters dealing with wars, 21 historical chapters, 55 chapters on visions and prophecies (and remember, when the writer begins to write on visions and prophecies, he must have the record agree meticulously with the Bible). He must write 71 chapters on doctrine and exhortation, and here too, he must check every statement with the scriptures or he will be proved to be a fraud. He must write 21 chapters on the ministry of Christ, and everything the writer claims Jesus said and did and every testimony he writes in the book about him must agree absolutely with the New Testament."

It's interesting that with all the talent in the world today, with all the novel writers, doctors of ancient scripture and so forth, that someone hasn't at least tried to write a volume to show how such might be possible. It doesn't have to be about America, of course. How about some of the outer regions of Asia? If producing a Book of Mormon is not outside the realm of a sharpie with a penchant for the sensational, I'd like to see someone take a mythical tribe of Israelites and take them somewhere.

I think the reason it hasn't been tried is that it can't be done. We have some professors of religion and ancient scripture on this board. Even though they're mostly believers, I wonder if they would know if anything like this has ever been attempted, or how they would feel about tackling the job themselves, just as an experiment.

My own prediction is that they'd fall flat on their faces, because it's the little things in the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham that plant the seeds of a testimony. It's not the vast, sweeping stories of ocean crossings, the battles and so forth; it's in the words themselves of the men who are writing.

The reason that it hasn't been done is because it's nonsense in the first place. What talented author would really want to try to make a clone of the Book of Mormon?

1. The Book of Mormon is worthless as literature. People don't read it because the language is beautiful, because the story is engaging, or because the characters are well developed. It has no audience outside of Mormonism, so it likely would be a bomb in the sales category.

2. Believers of the BoM, or any other book of scripture will never accept another book from an "outsider" as scripture. The attempted clone would be rejected by the believers for a number of reasons that I don't think I have to point out. It doesn't matter how much "truth" it contained; if it doesn't come through the correct channels (the living prophet or apostles) it would be rejected. Some might say it contains "some truth" or "a part of the truth." If it didn't agree 100% with current Mormon doctrine, and doesn't come from the prophet, Mormon's won't even consider it.

Basically, the "Book of Mormon challenge" is nonsense.

[Tom]

A good fiction writer should be able to knock something off in no time. Since he or she wouldn't have any source material, no need to study. Just whip it off.

Try reading Lord of the Rings, and start each sentence with "And it came to pass..." and change all the "you's" to "thou's" and the "your's" to "thy's" and copy and past some Bible verses in there, and you're almost there.

[Tom]

Try to look at it this way. The Book of Mormon is considered by the rest of Christianity as an attempt by Joseph Smith for the "Bible Challenge." He attempted to create a book of scripture like the Bible. Ask any non-LDS Christian how well he succeeded. Mormons' reaction to an attempt at the "Book of Mormon Challenge" would be no different.

[Cold Steel]

Hugh Nibley himself noted that "the idea that the Book of Mormon was simply a product of its time may be a necessary fiction to explain it, but it is fiction nonetheless. If they may be trusted in nothing else, the voluminous writings of the anti- Mormons stand as monumental evidence for one fact: that Mormonism and the Book of Mormon were in no way a product of the society in which they arose."

Going in its favor, he said, are:

1. The mere existence of the book is a powerful argument in favor of its authenticity.

2. In giving us a long book, the author forces us to concede that he is not playing tricks.

3. This writer never falls back on the accepted immunities of double meaning and religious interpretations in the manner of the Swedenborgians or the schoolmen. This refusal to claim any special privileges is an evidence of good faith.

4. Shysters may be diligent enough, in their way, but the object of their trickery is to avoid hard work, and this is not the sort of laborious task they give themselves.

5. Upon close examination all the many apparent contradictions in the Book of Mormon disappear. It passes the sure test of authenticity with flying colors.

6. The style is not that of anyone trying to write well. . . . Here is a book with all the elements of an intensely romantic adventure tale of far-away and long-ago, and the author turns down innumerable chances to please his public!

7. There are few plays on words, few rhetorical subtleties, no reveling in abstract terms, no excess of esoteric language or doctrine to require the trained interpreter.

8. Whoever wrote the book must have been a very intelligent and experienced person; yet such people in 1830 did not produce books with rudimentary vocabularies. This cannot be the work of any simple clown, but neither can it be that of an able and educated contemporary.

9. The extremely limited vocabulary suggests another piece of internal evidence to the reader. The Book of Mormon never makes any attempt to be clever.

10. Since it claims to be translated by divine power, the Book of Mormon also claims all the authority-and responsibility-of the original text. The author leaves himself no philological loopholes, though the book, stemming from a number of nations and languages, offers opportunity for many of them.

Circumstantial Evidence

Entirely apart from the contents of the Book of Mormon and the external evidences that might support it, there are certain circumstances attending its production which cannot be explained on grounds other than those given by Joseph Smith. These may be listed briefly:

1. There is the testimony of the witnesses.

2. The youth and inexperience of Joseph Smith at the time when he took full responsibility for the publication of the book-proof (a) that he could not have produced it himself and (B) that he was not acting for someone else, for his behavior at all times displayed independence.

3. The absence of notes and sources.

4. The short time of production.

5. The fact that there was only one version of the book ever published (with minor changes in each printing). This is most significant. It is now known that the Koran, the only book claiming an equal amount of divine inspiration and accuracy, was completely re-edited at least three times during the lifetime of Mohammed.

6. This brings up the unhesitating and unchanging position of Joseph Smith regarding his revelations.... From the day the Book of Mormon came from the press, Joseph Smith never ceased to spread it abroad, and he never changed his attitude towards it. What creative writer would not blush for the production of such youth and inexperience twenty years after? What imposter would not lie awake nights worrying about the slips and errors of this massive and pretentious product of his youthful indiscretion and roguery? Yet, since the Prophet was having revelations all along, nothing would have been easier, had he the slightest shadow of a misgiving, than to issue a new, revised, and improved edition, or to recall the book altogether, limit its circulation, claim it consisted of mysteries to be grasped by the...initiated alone, say it was to be interpreted only in a "religious" sense, or supersede it by something else. The Saints who believed the Prophet were the only ones who took the book seriously anyway.

7. There has never been any air of mystery about the Book of Mormon. There is no secrecy connected with it at the time of publication or today.

8. Finally, though the success of the book is not proof of its divinity, the type of people it has appealed to-sincere, simple, direct, highly unhysterical, and nonmystical-is circumstantial evidence for its honesty. It has very solid supporters.... When one considers that any one of the above arguments makes it very hard to explain the Book of Mormon as a fraud, one wonders if a corresponding list of arguments against the book might not be produced. For such a list one waits with interest but in vain. At present the higher critics are scolding the Book of Mormon for not talking like the dean of a divinity school. We might as well admit it, the Victorian platitudes are simply not there.

The great boldness and originality of writings attributed to Joseph Smith are displayed in their full scope and splendor in the account, contained in what is called 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon, of how the Lord Jesus Christ after his resurrection visited some of his "other sheep" in the New World and set up his church among them. It would be hard to imagine a project more dangerous to life and limb or perilous to the soul than that of authoring, and recommending to the Christian world as holy scripture, writings purporting to contain an accurate account of the deeds of the Lord among men after his resurrection, including lengthy transcripts of the very words he spoke. Nothing short of absolute integrity could stand up to the consequences of such daring in nineteenth-century America. We know exactly how his neighbors reacted to the claims of Joseph Smith, and it was not (as it had become customary to insist) with the complacent or sympathetic tolerance of backwoods "Yorkers," to whom such things were supposedly everyday experience: nothing could equal the indignation and rage excited among them by the name and message of Joseph Smith.

The writer of 1 Nephi was confronted by a hundred delicately interrelated problems of extreme difficulty. The probability of coming up with a plausible statement by mere guesswork once or twice is dim enough, but the chances of repeating the performance a hundred times in rapid succession are infinitely remote. The world through which Lehi wandered was to the westerner of 1830 a quaking bog without a visible inch of footing, lost in impenetrable fog; the best Bible students were hopelessly misinformed even about Palestine.