The "Joseph Smith" Challenge

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

I'm LDS, but I've thought about taking up the challenge. But it would be near impossible to recreate the circumstances under which Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon. I've read the Bible and the Book of Mormon several times. I've read all of the so-called "problems" with the Book of Mormon, so it would be easy for me not to recreate them.

Then you clearly have an advantage. If you feel you're up to the challenge, I'd say go for it. If (when) you fail, it will enhance your appreciation and your testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.

I think I'll do it then.

[cksalmon]

In this church, you are either a member or you are not. If you do not believe in it anymore, then leave it rather than deceive yourself and your fellows. Do you claim "membership in an organization but [do] not believe in its basic concepts"?

Are you ready to make the choice between belief and unbelief?

QUOTE 

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Revelation 3:16

Which is it? Hot or cold? Are you ready to give up your entire life just because a few doubts cropped up? Or will you at least be willing to listen to the other side, and see that there is a completely different side of the story? You seem to have already made your mind up. I hope you will lay aside your stubborness long enough to listen.

as i said in another thread, im part of the group of members that are members because we have no other choice.....if we choose what we really and honestly believe, we must face some concequences (most of them family oriented)...im not deceiving anybody, my family is well aware of my doubts, im just fed up with being called "apostate" or "influenced by satan" just for asking questions....i had the talk with my family...my father was pretty clear "you will destroy everything we have worked on for our eternal family".....like if god was actually like that...

do you even understand the kind of pain i feel when im told those things by the family i love?..and because i love them no matter what church they follow, i choose to be a member till (hopefully) someday, they open their minds to the POSIBILITY that god is better than that....or that not everything in life is black or white, not everybody that is not part of the church is against it,.....a south american person, having really hard issues with his family, because they choose to follow what some other men living in utah tell them is right or wrong...i dont think im the only one seeing things like this.

ive listened to every explanation, my bishop, the missionaries, family, farms, fair, jeff lindsay, has to my doubts and they dont seem to go to the shelf of doubts...

and im not throwing away my whole life because some doubts cropped up...i believe it wont be much diferent, apart from being peacefully married with a non member, and having my family blessing to it, because im happy, its all it should matter to them, wether their son is happy or not...all the nice words, the faith promoting stories, the testimony days, the so called "spirit" being present..you sum all that and it doesnt even come close to how i feel when im with my not member soon to be wife....if your answer is that satan can make the things of the world apear like hapiness, dont waste your time, ive already heard that one and its a joke

mig22--

First, don't be frightened by Revelation 3:16. Lots of folks miss the point with that one. They assume that God is saying here that he'd rather us be TBMs (hot) or apostates (cold), rather than being lukewarm (neither). But that's not the point of the passage at all.

If you look into the historical context of the passage's referents, you'll find that God is comparing usefulness with uselessness. Both the hot and cold water was useful--the lukewarm water wasn't. The naturally hot water (think Hot Springs in Arkansas) was useful for cleaning, etc. The naturally cold water was useful for drinking. Both waters referenced here are clean and pure.

The lukewarm water refers to tepid, stale water that's not good for anything.

You are useful right where you are, mig.

Can I be bold here? [unasked for advice] Keep loving your family. Keep your eyes open wide. Love your fiance. Don't pressure her for a Temple wedding. Keep learning. Learn to be prepared to make your own choices about the nature of God--rather than submitting to a family legacy. If you think the LDS god is too small, I'd say you're right. [/unasked for advice]

Best to you, brother.

CKS

[Neighbor]

The challange is empty and fruitless.

Go read "WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON, THE SPALDING ENIGMA", published 2005 by Concordia.

I certainly don't believe that Joseph Smith Jr. wrote the Book of Mormon as you have been told. If he had that would be a marvel, but ...

oh, go read it for yourself.

[selek]

having my family blessing to it, because im happy, its all it should matter to them, wether their son is happy or not...

So if you decide that the only way you can be happy is by doing drugs (admittedly, an extreme example), your family should just smile and go with the program- because it makes you happy?

all the nice words, the faith promoting stories, the testimony days, the so called "spirit" being present..you sum all that and it doesnt even come close to how i feel when im with my not member soon to be wife....

So you're throwing away the traditions you grew up with, the convictions of your heart, your eternal salvation/eternal family for a WOMAN? Well....wouldn't be the first time.

All sarcasm aside, I'm gonna put on my "Dad" hat for a minute here. I don't doubt that your fears and concerns and doubts are real- perhaps the most "real" thing in your life at the moment. They are not, however, static and set in stone. Times and people change.

I'm guessing you're in your late teens to mid-twenties. That was when I underwent the most changes in my life (and I suspect most of the posters here can echo the sentiment). Things that seem immovable and eternal when you're eighteen can easily become insubstantial and fleeting when you're thirty.

Being raised in a strict and devout (as suggested by your posts) home, you are seeking to establish your independence by turning your back on everything you associated with your home and family. That's actually somewhat normal (though a relatively extreme example). Don't burn your bridges just yet.

I don't know if it's intentional or not (and no, I'm not a licensed psychologist), but I hear a lot of rebellion, a lot of insecurity, and a lot of anger in your posts. You say you're happy, but there is a lot of anger and bitterness in your posts.

I hope that you'll avoid one of the mistakes I made (during the same period of my life). You've said that your family doesn't support you and seems eager to condemn you. Please take care that you hear what they say, as opposed to what you "think" they said. It's easy to hear condemnation, when what was actually expressed was concern. Take care that you are not projecting your own frustration and anger onto them.

if your answer is that satan can make the things of the world apear like hapiness, dont waste your time, ive already heard that one and its a joke

I will point out that the prodigal son (an apt comparison, don't you think?) was happy and content until the money ran out and the hard times hit. He lived a carefree life, one of joy and revelry and physical gratification and still had to pay the piper.

Sincerely, I hope your journey home isn't as arduous was his.

"Wickedness never has happiness". The cup of wine you raise to your lips today may be sweet and delightsome, but the dregs at the bottom are bitter- as you will find out when you have drunk your fill.

Don't give up. Don't let your doubts overwhelm you. And don't burn your bridges or you'll wind up a cranky old codger like me or the Dude. And whatever you do, don't watch Saturday's Warriors.

[selek]

Go read "WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON, THE SPALDING ENIGMA", published 2005 by Concordia.

I certainly don't believe that Joseph Smith Jr. wrote the Book of Mormon as you have been told. If he had that would be a marvel, but ...

oh, go read it for yourself.

Neigbor, the Spalding theory has been discredited so many times it's not even funny.

It's not so much "that dog won't hunt", as "that dog's been whipped so many times he won't come out from under the porch."

[Neighbor]

I'm sorry you feel so whipped

[mig22]

thank you cksalmon...

selek:

[Joshu]

The challange is empty and fruitless.

Go read "WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON, THE SPALDING ENIGMA", published 2005 by Concordia.

I certainly don't believe that Joseph Smith Jr. wrote the Book of Mormon as you have been told. If he had that would be a marvel, but ...

oh, go read it for yourself.

That's one of the first anti books I ever read, well, actually I didn't read it, I skimmed it, but it shook me up pretty good. That's how I came to fair, to find a response to that book. Which response, as Selek pointed out, is abundant and thorough.

That's kind of why I question the language you chose when you said "I certainly don't believe that Joseph Smith Jr. wrote the Book of Mormon as you have been told." I mean I guess I was told that but you have implied that I don't know the whole story, or that I believe only because I was told to believe, well, I guess nobody knows the whole story, but i'm long past the shock I first felt when I was introduced to the above work.

I guess all I'm saying is i'm not so much in the business of being told what to believe, I never have been. I'm more in the business of helping others to see that God has again placed his prophets on this earth. If I completely misread the tone of your post, i'm sorry, if I didn't I guess I just implore you to be more sensitive to your audience in the future.

Regards, Joshu.

[DonBradley]

Why hasn't anyone taken up the challenge? Hmm. Could it be because the challenge is rigged - it attributes to the book strengths it does not possess, for instance, identifying it as perfectly self-consistent, perfectly consistent with the Bible, and perfectly consistent with science, when it is none of the above? Or because the "challenge" places idiosyncratic elements of the book as "achievements" that must be precisely duplicated in order to show that it can be done - e.g., requiring a precise number of sermonizing chapters? Or because, as it is typically formulated it requires the person meeting the challenge to be of the same age and level of education Joseph Smith was when dictating the Book of Mormon - and most readers of the challenge are already passed these levels before they even encounter the challenge, thereby disqualifying them before they begin? Or because the challenge confuses the inability of any random person to perform a feat with the ability of an apparent savant - like requiring someone to compose an equivalent to the Qur'an or Beethoven's Fifth in order to demonstrate that these works are not from God? Or because most persons talented enough to produce a lengthy narrative have better things to do than try to beat Mormon rhetorical tricks? Or because most people intelligent enough to attempt such a narrative also realize that if they did produce a work comparable to the Book of Mormon, no testimony-bearing Mormon would ever acknowledge the equivalence anyway?

Naaah, I'm sure it's just because everyone recognizes that the Challenge is just unbeatable, because no mere mortal could produce a work like the Book of Mormon!

Don Bradley

[Chris Smith]

That just about sums it up.

[mig22]

Wow, Don!..i just wish the "explanations" given by apologetics were as concise as that!...good answer man

[DonBradley]

Wow, Don!..i just wish the "explanations" given by apologetics were as concise as that!...good answer man

Aw shucks...<blush>

That may have been pithy, but don't worry, apologists will soon come up with some much more verbose, but substance-free, defense of the Challenge - to show the real and simplistically true reason the challenge has not been taken. Indeed, I see one eyeing it right now, no doubt in order to do just that.

Don

[selek]

Could it be because the challenge is rigged - it attributes to the book strengths it does not possess, for instance, identifying it as perfectly self-consistent, perfectly consistent with the Bible, and perfectly consistent with science, when it is none of the above?

There are a great many intelligent and well-educated people who dispute your bias and your slant, and don't see any of the inconsistencies you assert without proof.

Perhaps, knowing that you can't produce acomparable work, you're content to throw stones instead. (Sour grapes, perhaps?)

Or because, as it is typically formulated it requires the person meeting the challenge to be of the same age and level of education Joseph Smith was when dictating the Book of Mormon - and most readers of the challenge are already passed these levels before they even encounter the challenge, thereby disqualifying them before they begin?

Two points- first, by acknowledging that most modern readers already surpass Joseph's educational acheivements, you are actually making the case for the BoM rather than against it.

Second, I don't know of any LDS who consider a higher educational level a disqualifier. If it proves to be an advantage, then take it. Take the challenge.

Or because the challenge confuses the inability of any random person to perform a feat with the ability of an apparent savant - like requiring someone to compose an equivalent to the Qur'an or Beethoven's Fifth in order to demonstrate that these works are not from God?

So now you're suggesting that Joseph was a savant? Could that be praise for Joseph? Or just proof that you'll say anything to bolster your tottering house of cards?

Or because most persons talented enough to produce a lengthy narrative have better things to do than try to beat Mormon rhetorical tricks?

Considering the time you've wasted on "last posts" and threats to leave that you've made, you could probably have either met the challenge, or at least have retyped War and Peace by now.

Or because most people intelligent enough to attempt such a narrative also realize that if they did produce a work comparable to the Book of Mormon, no testimony-bearing Mormon would ever acknowledge the equivalence anyway?

So, you're admitting that like everything else you post, meeting this challenge wouldn't affect a believing Mormon. What an astounding admission of impotence.

Naaah, I'm sure it's just because everyone recognizes that the Challenge is just unbeatable, because no mere mortal could produce a work like the Book of Mormon!

Of course, that's a false premise. We believe that the BoM was produced by a series of mortal men, hidden up and protected by the wisdom of God, and then translated in modern times by the power of God.

As far as your rhetoric goes, I'm hearing a lot of sound and fury (by your own admission, signifying nothing). Given your contempt for the work, and your cavalier dismissal of the challege, why don't you put up or shut up?

Or might it be that you know taking the challenge will merely expose the inadequacies of your argument and severely curtail your already tattered credibility?

[DonBradley]

Thank you, Selek, for so completely fulfilling my prediction. Your carping about irrelevant personal matters and simplistic reiteration of "the Challenge" exemplify the logical sophistication which was brought to the creation of "the Challenge" in the first place.

BTW, Nibley's version of the challenge identifies age and education-level as disqualifiers, while also setting up many other absurd and obviously rigged barriers to meeting his challenge.

If I were you, I would turn my attention from this challenge to the, in your case more personally relevant, challenge of attempting to think and write as logically as many of the "critics" you oppose. Not only have you not succeeded in meeting this challenge, it appears you haven't even tried.

BTW, rather than taking the Joseph Smith/Book of Mormon "challenge", I will be putting my writing time toward substantive analysis of Latter-day Saint history and scripture. An ounce of serious scholarship is worth a ton of the rhetorical bluster exemplified by "the Challenge."

Don Bradley

[Jerubaal]

I'm starting to hear a lot of tinkling cymbals and sounding brass coming from both sides (I had a little myself, I admit).

Let's all calm down and take it down a notch or two.

[DonBradley]

Jerubaal,

You should have been hearing sounding brass and tinkling cymbals as soon as the rhetorical ploy known as "the Joseph Smith Challenge" was introduced.

And Selek has chosen, since I reappeared on the board, to respond to substance with carping and rhetorical ploys - as he greeted my first post on the Extermination Order with irrelevant antics. My response to him is therefore to let a little air out his inflated rhetoric and ego.

However, I have had my say on why people don't respond to the challenge, and would be happy to move on.

Don

[Jerubaal]

the rhetorical ploy known... to respond to substance with carping and rhetorical ploys... irrelevant antics... let a little air out his inflated rhetoric and ego.

*tinkle* *brrrrrrrrt*

[Addictio]

The "Challenge" Cold Steel mentions is a relic of the past that was formulated back when folks like Nibley were assuming there was some connection between the ancient colonization of the hemisphere and the BoM narratives. We now know that, if JS is assumed to be the author -- the premise of the "Challenge" -- he got absolutely nothing about the ancient hemispheric (or Mesoamerican) past "right" or "correct." As I pointed out on the "John Clark and BoM Archaeology" thread:

What is far more signigficant is that virtually everything JS believed about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas circa 550 BCE to 300 ACE was, according to contemporary scholarship and science, completely and fundamentally wrong.

This includes his general, overarching belief that everyone in the ancient Americas was descended exclusively from the three BoM immigrant groups. Under that magnificently wrong "Hemispheric Colonization Model" (HCM) of ancient Ameridian origin and identity, it would have been (and under the Modern Authorship model it was) virtually imposssible for him to get anything at all about the ancient inhabitants of the Hemisphere, or of Mesoamerica in particular, "right," or "correct." Indeed, contrary to what Clark suggests in his articles, we can now see that JS was mistaken about most everything that has since been learned about the ancient American inhabitants. These mistaken beliefs included, for example: beliefs about their ancestry and biological identity, where their Old World ancestors came from, and more importantly, how long ago; what languages they spoke and how many such languages there were, even within a limited area such as Mesoamerica; the sources of their technology and material culture (all indigenously developed rather than, per the HCM, all "imported," brought by the three civilization-founding immigrant groups from the Mid-East).

If we focus just on Mesoamerica, JS also fundamentally misunderstood both the cultural source and nature of the ancient Mesoamerican religion. It too was not an "import" from the Mid-East, much less a circa 600-BC import from Jerusalem. Like the ancient Mesoamericans' material culture, their religion was indigenously developed; it didn't arise or degenerate from, the Israelite/Canaanite pantheon or competitive (and perhaps syncretic) hierarchy of gods. From the Olmec period and people right through to the post-Classic Maya, rather, there is now understood to have been a high degree of similarity and continuity between, the unique and durable Mesoamerican pantheon of gods, the opposing gods and forces, and the "creation" or "founding struggle" myths. Therefore, in the ancient Americas as JS conceived them -- whether as author or as translator-and-reader of the BoM text -- this indigenous Mesoamerican religion would be impossible. It could not exist, because there would be no indigenous Mesoamerican inhabitants available to develop its "memes" and myths, and perpetuate them.

So in light of all these fundamentally mistaken ideas and beliefs of JS regarding the nature, origin and identity of the ancient American (including, by inference, ancient Mesoamerican) inhabitants, all based upon JS's understanding of the BoM narratives, and perhaps his reported conversations with Moroni, how does Clark nevertheless make it sound like just the opposite is true? Namely, that since 1830, following 175 years of empirical investigation, including archaeological research, it turns out that JS "accurately predicted" or "guessed correctly about" a multitude of Mesoamerican cultural elements, a feat that (at least without divine revelation) it would have been extremely improbable, nigh impossible, for him to accomplish.

Along with using the conceptual confusion I've earlier described to their full advantage, Clark's arguments rely for their rhetorical appeal and power upon a counterfactual, purely fanciful account of "what JS predicted" and "what the BoM predicted," in 1830, about the true (later-discovered) nature of ancient Mesoamerica and its inhabitants. In the preceeding four paragraphs, I've explained further why attributing to JS a correct belief of any kind, as of 1830, regarding ancient Mesoamerica and its inhabitants is without any factual basis or support. Whether composing the BoM (MA model) or interpreting it (AA model), JS did either or both things in accordance with the HCM account of how the Americas came to be inhabited. So again, JS not only didn't believe in or predict, but implicitly denied the existence of, the indigenous Mesoamerican inhabitants such as the Maya and Olmec whose presence, biological origin and cultural identity have since been uncovered.

[Magyar]

Edited to take out misplaced posting.

[Magyar]

The "Challenge" Cold Steel mentions is a relic of the past that was formulated back when folks like Nibley were assuming there was some connection between the ancient colonization of the hemisphere and the BoM narratives. We now know that, if JS is assumed to be the author -- the premise of the "Challenge" -- he got absolutely nothing about the ancient hemispheric (or Mesoamerican) past "right" or "correct." As I pointed out on the "John Clark and BoM Archaeology" thread:

What is far more signigficant is that virtually everything JS believed about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas circa 550 BCE to 300 ACE was, according to contemporary scholarship and science, completely and fundamentally wrong.

This includes his general, overarching belief that everyone in the ancient Americas was descended exclusively from the three BoM immigrant groups. Under that magnificently wrong "Hemispheric Colonization Model" (HCM) of ancient Ameridian origin and identity, it would have been (and under the Modern Authorship model it was) virtually imposssible for him to get anything at all about the ancient inhabitants of the Hemisphere, or of Mesoamerica in particular, "right," or "correct." Indeed, contrary to what Clark suggests in his articles, we can now see that JS was mistaken about most everything that has since been learned about the ancient American inhabitants. These mistaken beliefs included, for example: beliefs about their ancestry and biological identity, where their Old World ancestors came from, and more importantly, how long ago; what languages they spoke and how many such languages there were, even within a limited area such as Mesoamerica; the sources of their technology and material culture (all indigenously developed rather than, per the HCM, all "imported," brought by the three civilization-founding immigrant groups from the Mid-East).

If we focus just on Mesoamerica, JS also fundamentally misunderstood both the cultural source and nature of the ancient Mesoamerican religion. It too was not an "import" from the Mid-East, much less a circa 600-BC import from Jerusalem. Like the ancient Mesoamericans' material culture, their religion was indigenously developed; it didn't arise or degenerate from, the Israelite/Canaanite pantheon or competitive (and perhaps syncretic) hierarchy of gods. From the Olmec period and people right through to the post-Classic Maya, rather, there is now understood to have been a high degree of similarity and continuity between, the unique and durable Mesoamerican pantheon of gods, the opposing gods and forces, and the "creation" or "founding struggle" myths. Therefore, in the ancient Americas as JS conceived them -- whether as author or as translator-and-reader of the BoM text -- this indigenous Mesoamerican religion would be impossible. It could not exist, because there would be no indigenous Mesoamerican inhabitants available to develop its "memes" and myths, and perpetuate them.

So in light of all these fundamentally mistaken ideas and beliefs of JS regarding the nature, origin and identity of the ancient American (including, by inference, ancient Mesoamerican) inhabitants, all based upon JS's understanding of the BoM narratives, and perhaps his reported conversations with Moroni, how does Clark nevertheless make it sound like just the opposite is true? Namely, that since 1830, following 175 years of empirical investigation, including archaeological research, it turns out that JS "accurately predicted" or "guessed correctly about" a multitude of Mesoamerican cultural elements, a feat that (at least without divine revelation) it would have been extremely improbable, nigh impossible, for him to accomplish.

Along with using the conceptual confusion I've earlier described to their full advantage, Clark's arguments rely for their rhetorical appeal and power upon a counterfactual, purely fanciful account of "what JS predicted" and "what the BoM predicted," in 1830, about the true (later-discovered) nature of ancient Mesoamerica and its inhabitants. In the preceeding four paragraphs, I've explained further why attributing to JS a correct belief of any kind, as of 1830, regarding ancient Mesoamerica and its inhabitants is without any factual basis or support. Whether composing the BoM (MA model) or interpreting it (AA model), JS did either or both things in accordance with the HCM account of how the Americas came to be inhabited. So again, JS not only didn't believe in or predict, but implicitly denied the existence of, the indigenous Mesoamerican inhabitants such as the Maya and Olmec whose presence, biological origin and cultural identity have since been uncovered.

What Joseph Smith may have believed about the Mesoamericans or the Book of Mormon peoples is absolutely irrelevant. He never claimed to be a Nephite. He claimed to have translated a book -- one book -- about them. I could learn Chinese and translate the Book of Changes and still have a lot of mistaken ideas about ancient Chinese culture, could I not?

What matters for this discussion is what comes out of the pages of the Book of Mormon itself about the people described within it and their purported connection to the Old World mileu. That is where debate must occur.

The book speaks of a belief system annihilated by 400 A.D., a thousand years before Europeans arrived on the scene to do even more damage. And we expect to find undeniable evidence of this belief system still chiseled on every chunk of rock from Patagonia to Puget Sound?

[DonBradley]

the rhetorical ploy known... to respond to substance with carping and rhetorical ploys... irrelevant antics... let a little air out his inflated rhetoric and ego.

*tinkle* *brrrrrrrrt*

If cleverness could substitute for substance, Jerubaal, you just might have something there.

Don Bradley

[Nomos]

And if smug condescending and insulting remarks were apologetics neither of you would be getting a warning from me to knock it off. I don't care who started it, but I will finish it.

-Nomos

[Addictio]

In response to my post above, Magyar wrote:

What Joseph Smith may have believed about the Mesoamericans or the Book of Mormon peoples is absolutely irrelevant. He never claimed to be a Nephite. He claimed to have translated a book -- one book -- about them. I could learn Chinese and translate the Book of Changes and still have a lot of mistaken ideas about ancient Chinese culture, could I not?

Remember what the title and topic of this thread is? One can't formulate the "Joseph Smith Challenge" without assuming, for the sake of the argument -- the "Challenge" -- that he was the author rather than the translator. The whole point of the Challenge is to discredit the modern authorship (JS-as-author) hypothesis. It tries to discredit that hypothesis by attributing to JS a "compositional feat," an accomplishment that (per the Challenge) cannot possibly be duplicated, or which it is extremely unlikely that anyone else could duplicate or "match."

As Clark recognizes in his recent BYU Studies article, this "feat" or extraordinary accomplishment can be formulated in one of two ways. One is that JS composed a set of highly complex, interrelated fictional narratives. To which Clark responds, essentially, "So what?" Lots of fiction writers compose highly complex, fictive narratives occurring in an imagined, imaginary time and space. Clark then argues that the real compositional "feat" of JS was to dictate a set of narratives that turn out, 170 years later, to "correspond" in numerous, unpredictable ways with what has since been discovered by archaeologists and historians about ancient Mesoamerica.

The problem with Clark's argument is that it completely ignores (and mischaracterizes) what JS would actually have been doing under the JS-as-author scenario. Namely, composing a set of narratives that unfold somewhere in a completely imaginary ancient hemisphere. That is, a hemisphere in which there were no pre-existing ancient Amerindians for the BoM immigrants to encounter and with whom they could then "merge," or assimilate. A hemisphere in which all ancient inhabitants of the hemisphere were descended from those three BoM immigrant groups. Under the JS-as-author scenario, accordingly, JS didn't, and couldn't, get anything about the ancient hemisphere, or about ancient Mesoamerica in particular, "right" or "correct." On the contrary, as my above post explains, if JS was indeed the author, then he got virtually everything about the hemispheric and Mesoamerican ancient past completely wrong.

So here's the only sort of "Challenge" available for historicity advocates to construct, if they don't want to abandon this particular form of argument entirely: "What are the chances that someone could compose a highly complex set of interrelated narratives about the arrival in ancient America of civilization-founding immigrants from the mid-east, which then systematically mis-describe and mischaracterize the ancient Mesoamerican past as it has since (over the last 170 years) been uncovered, and hence as it is understood by contemporary archaeologists, ethnographers and historians?"

For the last 30 years or so, LDS writers have grown so accustomed to generating excitement among themselves over the latest set of discovered "correspondences" between the BoM text and the ancient Mesoamerican past -- features of the latter that (amazingly) "Joseph couldn't have known about" or "no one could have predicted in 1830" -- that they have overlooked just how insular and poorly-grounded this excitement actually is.

Speaking of insularity, by the way, it's not that Richard Diehl or Michael Coe, for example, don't "keep up" on the latest cause for excitement among the authors and editors of articles in the JBMS or the FARMS Review. It's that nothing in those articles purports to explain either the (causal) origin of, or the physical identity (i.e., some identifiable characteristic) of any of the sites and artifacts that are attributed to the Olmec and Maya. Such articles don't even identify anything that, from an archaeological standpoint, even needs explaining. Thus in Clark's two recent articles, the only alleged "correspondence" he suggests might have that sort of causal, explanatory relationship with the Mesoamerican past is evidence for the existence of ancient Hebrew and for Egyptian scripts, for which there are at present, as he puts it, only "promising leads."

[Chris Smith]

Just thought I'd point out, in honor of the late Jerald Tanner, that his wife wrote a fairly lucid response to the "Book of Mormon challenge" in her latest Salt Lake City Messenger. She quotes Dan Vogel a lot. Cheers, Dan.

-CK

[Cumorah3]

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.

Dr. Jerry L. Ainsworth treats this very topic in Appendix A of his book "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" (available in LDS bookstores). Perhaps that is the reference you are looking for?