The "Joseph Smith" Challenge

[Tom]

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.

How long is "long?" And how does that relate to "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.

What does this mean?

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.

Is this saying: "most tricksters don't like to work hard, so Joseph Smith probably wasn't a trickster"?

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.

Sorry, but the debate between apologist and anti rages on.

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!

Ok, it sounds like it was written by someone trying to convince people to belief in Jesus by writing a book of scripture comparable to the Bible.

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.

This sounds like how an uneducated farmer would write.

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.

So the author was intelligent, but uneducated. Sounds like Joseph Smith.

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.

Again, intelligent, but uneducated.

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.

What does this mean?

[mig22]

If you have not been worthy of the blessings promised in your blessing, you will not, absolutely will not receive them. Have you been worthy of them? From what I have gathered on these boards about your attitude towards the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am somewhat doubtful

..i received my pb at twelve..i was the prefect mormon back then, and still i could tell that my pb had absolutely nothing to do with me....

but anyway...that is the prefect excuse/answer from mormons to mormons...no testimony? not prayed enough, no blessings? not worthy enough....its a joke

its just my view as an insider, without quoting the tanners or any other famous "anti", of the other side of the coin.

[selek]

i was the prefect mormon back then, and still i could tell that my pb had absolutely nothing to do with me....

but anyway...that is the prefect excuse/answer from mormons to mormons...no testimony? not prayed enough, no blessings? not worthy enough....its a joke

its just my view as an insider, without quoting the tanners or any other famous "anti", of the other side of the coin.

MIG, you can't be an "insider" if you set yourself apart from the group.

Keeping with the aircraft metaphor, my suggestion is that you cycle the landing gear and go round for another pass- and try not to touch and go this time. Aim for the three wire.

If you don't understand that, try watching Top Gun and Flight of the Intruder.

[onelowerlight]

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.

So now you're saying that the Book of Mormon is primarily an historical record?

Fantasy and Sci Fi novels tend to create large worlds and document epic struggles, but they don't contain a whole lot of doctrine or religious teachings. Even the best of the genre borrows heavily on established religions when it comes to this area.

The Book of Mormon, however, has a lot more doctrinal writings than historical writings. So it's comparing apples to oranges to compare the Book of Mormon with Lord of the Rings.

[thesometimesaint]

Tom:

I've read and reread, etc, etc, etc, both the Book of Mormon and Lord of the Rings.

No real similarities exist.

[onelowerlight]

If you have not been worthy of the blessings promised in your blessing, you will not, absolutely will not receive them. Have you been worthy of them? From what I have gathered on these boards about your attitude towards the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am somewhat doubtful

..i received my pb at twelve..i was the prefect mormon back then, and still i could tell that my pb had absolutely nothing to do with me....

but anyway...that is the prefect excuse/answer from mormons to mormons...no testimony? not prayed enough, no blessings? not worthy enough....its a joke

its just my view as an insider, without quoting the tanners or any other famous "anti", of the other side of the coin.

I don't know enough about you to say that you weren't worthy of the blessings in your patriarchal blessing, but then again, I also don't know enough to be able to judge the accuracy of your conclusions. How do you know that your patriarchal blessing hasn't been fulfilled yet? There are multiple ways of interpreting, and multiple ways of fulfilling patriarchal blessings. Also, some things aren't fulfilled until after a long time. For example, my PB says that I will use the language of my ancestors to bring many into the gospel, but I was sent to a stateside mission. The next sentence says that I will help bring the gospel to all parts of the world, and that most certainly was fulfilled in San Jose, where I taught people from five of the six major continents. And I expect that it will continue to be fulfilled, and that the other part will be fulfilled in some future time. Could it not be the same in your case? Are you really treating your PB in a fair way? Again, I don't know enough to judge - you'll have to judge yourself. God Bless.

[KevinG]

Most of the criticisms that stick revolve around the superficial things (textual errors, printer changes)...

The bulk of the Book of Mormon testifies of Christ and His covenant people here in the Americas... IMO- The whole idea was revolutionary and unique for a young schoolboy in New England to have just "made it up".

Giving up on the faith, especialy my God given testimony that He lives and Joseph was a prophet, because of the criticisms levelled at the Book of Mormon or Joseph would amount to me as giving up a great mansion because the carpet in the foyer was soiled.

Regarding Patriarchal blessings and other personal revelation. The believer is going to read into their past experience the insight of their faithful beliefs. The non-believer is going to read into their past experience the insight of their doubts. I think its very predictable that someone would color their perception of their Patriacrchal blessing with their current frame of mind. That neither proves or disproves the veracity of that blessing. I agree that all blessings are predicated on our faithfulness (and would add that faithfulness is not a one time event but an ongoing process).

[Tom]

Tom:

I've read and reread, etc, etc, etc, both the Book of Mormon and Lord of the Rings.

No real similarities exist.

You're right, the LotR was a bad example. It's much too engrossing.

[KevinG]

Tom:

I've read and reread, etc, etc, etc, both the Book of Mormon and Lord of the Rings.

No real similarities exist.

You're right, the LotR was a bad example. It's much too engrossing.

Yet another sad case of a member who was lost because they couldn't get through Ether...

[Tom]

Tom:

I've read and reread, etc, etc, etc, both the Book of Mormon and Lord of the Rings.

No real similarities exist.

You're right, the LotR was a bad example. It's much too engrossing.

Yet another sad case of a member who was lost because they couldn't get through Ether...

I kinda feel dumb saying this in an on-line forum, but I've probably read the BoM about 20 times.

[KevinG]

Good for you. I was just kidding about not getting through Ether...

[Tom]

Good for you. I was just kidding about not getting through Ether...

I guessed you were joking, which is why I felt dumb saying that.

[thesometimesaint]

Dadof7:

All due deference to Mark Twain, but Numbers is deadly.

[Tom]

Maybe they should add a new requirement to the "BoM Challenge" that says:

Make your account contain incredibly boring sections that only the most zelous can endure.

[Joshu]

I'm not so sure about the "why bother" argument for not accepting the challenge. If the argument is that it is possible but it is a waste of time then that is equivilant to an addict saying he could quit but he just doesn't want to.

On the other hand people are saying that it is so easy it is done all the time in the form of fiction. But we don't have any concrete assertions of which fiction books are comparable. Except the LOTR, which is good but the consensus on the board seems that it doesn't quite fit.

My thoughts are that lots of people have dedicated much time and talents and even made it there (meager) living and dedicated their whole lives to either exposing the demonic nature of the church or "saving" members who are caught up in a well-meaing albeit sinful christian cult.

You'd think after all this time and with all those people, someone would just make the attempt just for kicks. What i'm hearing is that it's either so easy that it's not worth it or it is so difficult that it's not worth it, but either way "we could do it if we wanted".

Finally, admitting that Josephs achievement with the BoM is not duplicatable does not necessarily mean that it was inspired by God, it just means that it was extraordinary in nature. Critics lose no ground by accepting the remarkable nature of the event.

[spinner]

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."

[cksalmon]

To be honest, this challenge is just silly on the face of it.

The challenge is to write a fictional history of the Israelite inhabitants of the ancient Americas (because JS has already written the true story) and see how well one's obviously fictional history compares with JS's "true" history. Does anyone else see a problem with that?

And the call to include so many chapters about (x), etc., are just asinine.

What would be the point? Why would anyone take up a challenge to write a comparable fictional narrative of these peoples and events unless (1) we're all assuming that the comparison would be between JS's fiction my fiction--which, IMO, it would be; or, (2) LDS are willing to consider as possibly true some other history of ancient Israelites in the ancient Americas?

In other words,

I believe (x) is true.

Try to write a fictional history that corresponds to (x) in specific ways, and which, by the way, I will never believe is true, and then I'll compare your story's merits with (x).

That's just silly.

Now, I suppose I could present it as the real truth, but then folks who think my story doesn't work as history would be able to poke any number of plausible holes in it. As with the BoM.

It's a meaningless challenge. That's one reason why no one has taken it up.

Best.

CKS

[auteur55]

Make your account contain incredibly boring sections that only the most zelous can endure

Funny, I am anything but zealous but I think the Book of Mormon is riveting from start to finish. Those looking for a good yarn will be disappointed. Those looking for a spiritual feast will not find a better book.

There have been films that I have seen with friends where I have felt uplifted and spiritually motivated at the end. Upon leaving the theatres my friends would tell me how boring the film was completely missing the movies message.

Oftentimes the problem lies with us and not the work itself.

I

[cksalmon]

auteur55--

Count me among those who find the BoM tedious, boring, unconvincing, and derivative.

I've tried to read it.

I guess I don't have spiritual eyes, so to speak, because I find it utterly, relentlessly boring. Whatever truths it might contain are derivative of the Judeo-Christian tradition, IMO, and so have already been spoken to in the context of scripture.

BTW, I don't the Holy Bible to be boring in the least.

Best. And no offense meant, really--I'm not just saying that. And I'm not trying to get a jab in at the BoM. Just trying to be honest, here.

CKS

[cksalmon]

Make your account contain incredibly boring sections that only the most zelous can endure

Funny, I am anything but zealous but I think the Book of Mormon is riveting from start to finish. Those looking for a good yarn will be disappointed. Those looking for a spiritual feast will not find a better book.

There have been films that I have seen with friends where I have felt uplifted and spiritually motivated at the end. Upon leaving the theatres my friends would tell me how boring the film was completely missing the movies message.

Oftentimes the problem lies with us and not the work itself.

I

The Bible doesn't compare as a "spiritual feast" to the BoM?

In what sense is the BoM superior to the tradition that inspired it?

What truths are found in the BoM that cannot be found penned much earlier and in more convincing fashion than the BoM?

Curious. And best to you.

CKS

[ed2276]

Whatever truths it might contain are derivative of the Judeo-Christian tradition, IMO, and so have already been spoken to in the context of scripture.

Cool, then let's just cut out three of the four Gospels in the Bible , since the last three of them are derivative of the first. This would make toting around my triple combination alot more pleasant.

[Outshined]

Whatever truths it might contain are derivative of the Judeo-Christian tradition, IMO, and so have already been spoken to in the context of scripture.

Cool, then let's just cut out three of the four Gospels in the Bible , since the last three of them are derivative of the first. This would make toting around my triple combination alot more pleasant.

Wow, you could cut out a lot of redundancy in that case...

[Cold Steel]

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.

Of course. We may not be that important to the rest of the world now, but the time is rapidly approaching that we will be. Joseph always told the other brethren they had no idea what the ultimate destiny of this church and kingdom would be.

It's just fascinating to me that someone would still dig Solomon Spalding up and associate him with the Book of Mormon. Looking at what's survived by Spalding it's easy to see that he wouldn't come close to qualifying as a BoM author.

But you're right. Joseph Smith would have to be a genius to have cranked out what he did in life. And one day his name will rank among the other noble and great ones.

[cksalmon]

Whatever truths it might contain are derivative of the Judeo-Christian tradition, IMO, and so have already been spoken to in the context of scripture.

Cool, then let's just cut out three of the four Gospels in the Bible , since the last three of them are derivative of the first. This would make toting around my triple combination alot more pleasant.

And which three would those be?

And which of them are not constitutive of the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Ancient authorship of the canonical gospels--undisputed--vs. BoM's modern/ancient authorship--highly disputed by all who care outside the LDS camp?

Let's not get this turned around.

No one disputes the ancient authorship of the canonical gospels. Lots of folks question the ancient authorship of BoM.

And, BTW, I assume you know there is more than one dependence theory circulating in NT studies. I favor Matthew as the primary gospel myself, possibly written first in Hebrew. Not Mark. You?

And what are those eternal truths that failed to find a place in the Judeo-Christian canon but were brought to light in the BoM? That is the question for me.

Best.

CKS

[ed2276]

What truths are found in the BoM that cannot be found penned much earlier and in more convincing fashion than the BoM?

Curious. And best to you.

CKS

infants don't need baptism ; what happens to us between our death and resurrection ; who the "other sheep" were that Christ spoke of ; that Christ visited the Americas after His death ; that God speaks to many peoples and delivers His word to them and they write them as scripture (an important point to ponder , as this intimates that not only is the Bible , BoM , D&C and PoGP scripture , but that other scripture beyond them exists , or can exist) ; that God grants unto men according to the desires of their hearts ; that God gives us weakness that we may humble ourselves before Him ; that faith is not knowledge and that in order for faith to become knowledge we must nourish it (Alma 32) ; that God requires that a man shall have but one wife , unless He commands otherwise to "raise up seed" unto Him ; that there is an opposition in all things and without that basic principle God Himself could not exist ; why it is so improtant for a people to keep a written record of God's commandments and their own customs and traditions; the words of Zenos and Zenock ; the premortal Holy Ghost has the form of a man ; Christ is the Father in three ways 1) Father of creation , 2) Father of rebirth throught the resurrection and 3 ) Father because God grants Him authority and so Christ is both Son and Father , one Eternal God.....and many others that I won't take the time to list.