The "Joseph Smith" Challenge

[Cumorah3]

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.

I just discovered this interesting thread and am reading from old to new so what I have to say may have already been discussed.

Dr. Ainsworth makes an excellent case for there being only 24 plates in the collection that Mormon handed on to his son to carry with him. It's the rings that made the volume 6" high, not the plates themselves.

One of the ways Dr. Ainsworth studies things out is to have physical reproductions made that conform with all available data. I have seen a reproduction of the plates as Joseph Smith may have received them. If Ainsworth got his conclusions right, they would be very easy to carry for any distance, and they do fit into the desk mentioned in JS history.

The characters written on the plates interface with the Urim and Thummim (another of the Lord's mysterious creations) so we can't really compare it with the way books are written on pages today.

[Inquisitor]

Why? Two reasons:

1. Most people outside of the LDS faith just don't take it seriously enough to even worry about proving it false.

2. The kind of people who have this talent, can not be bothered with something so silly. They are instead writing more meaningful works of literature.

[Magyar]

Wow, I had to claw my way through a lot of text to get to this point, so that I could make my point.

First of all, a chorus of people has cried out for years that any dedicated charlatan could create a Book of Mormon. I have a book on my shelf in which the author even calls such an activity "painfully easy."

And yet, NO ONE has! The Quran doesn't count. Whatever one may believe about its sanctity, it does not claim to be a sacred history, nor to have been created within an astonishingly short time period. It compares far more closely to the Doctrine and Covenants in nature, which would be somewhat easier to fake.

There is one great reason why this Challenge should be taken up by at least one of the people who claim it could be done. Prove your point, once and for all. You'd win the undying love of thousands of anti-Mormon critics and be immortalized forever for your heroic and noble gesture.

[Cumorah3]

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

Strange isn't it, how humans can be aware of such different things when having the same experience?

I've read or listened to the Book of Mormon (while commuting) perhaps a hundred times. And each time I find it the opposite of how you relate your experience with that book. I wonder if reading the Book of Mormon with faith, having accepted its counsel and living by it, and with the Spirit present to teach between the lines, is sort of like translating ancient characters with the Urim and Thummim?

[cksalmon]

Strange isn't it, how humans can be aware of such different things when having the same experience?

I've read or listened to the Book of Mormon (while commuting) perhaps a hundred times. And each time I find it the opposite of how you relate your experience with that book. I wonder if reading the Book of Mormon with faith, having accepted its counsel and living by it, and with the Spirit present to teach between the lines, is sort of like translating ancient characters with the Urim and Thummim?

You just had to highlight one of my most ungenerous posts, didn't you?

Best.

CKS

[Deborah]

I have read the BOM numerous times and am reading it again at this time. When I read it the first time it was somewhat overwhelming and I can't really say I got much out of it, but I did know that this was a special book and that it was not something a man could write on his own.

I wonder how many of the accusers of Joseph Smith may have actually attempted to write such a book and having miserably failed kept it to themselves while continuing to make such accusations. I don't think the critics in reading with a blind eye can comprehend the very deep doctrine that is contained therein. All they see are surface anachronisms (not understanding how a translation works) and what they consider impossibilities (not understanding that even though the text is deep in doctrine it is NOT a comprehensive history). It is the consistency of the doctrine, the logic of it and the spirit of it that impresses me, not the little flaws that some seem to focus on.

[why me]

I might also add that the cross-referencing in the book of mormon is quite extraordinary. What I mean by this is that if Joseph Smith did write this book, he would have needed to cross reference his writing as has been done today in the latest issue of the book of mormon. This is what I find so amazing about the book of mormon. But I can also mention the foot notes that the book now contains. Quite a writing exercise for any author to write. However, if the book is inspired by god, such an exercise may just be a bit easier for the ancient prophets writing it.

[SolarPowered]

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.

Hmmm... that's interesting. I would have thought that someone whose biblical experience was the Gutenberg Bible would have written in the Latin of St. Jerome...

[Dan Vogel]

This challenge is basically a red herring since our lack of talent tells us nothing about JS's tallents. It could be argued that JS went right on dictating other scriptures as well as personal writings (like the letters from Liberty Jail) that are every bit as elloquent as parts of the BOM. Whether or not one views these other writings as inspired, they are evidence that JS could dictate something like the BOM. JS challenged his followers to produce a fake revelation that could stand up to his; the Koran has a similar challenge. To accept this challenge is to attept to compete on the charismatic leader's own ground. I would be equivalent to accepting one-on-one with Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson. Even Mormonism hasn't seen another prophet that has even come close to Joseph Smith's talent. JS was not unique, but men like him are extremely rare. Many things in history are not duplicatable.

[why me]

This challenge is basically a red herring since our lack of talent tells us nothing about JS's tallents. It could be argued that JS went right on dictating other scriptures as well as personal writings (like the letters from Liberty Jail) that are every bit as elloquent as parts of the BOM. Whether or not one views these other writings as inspired, they are evidence that JS could dictate something like the BOM. JS challenged his followers to produce a fake revelation that could stand up to his; the Koran has a similar challenge. To accept this challenge is to attept to compete on the charismatic leader's own ground. I would be equivalent to accepting one-on-one with Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson. Even Mormonism hasn't seen another prophet that has even come close to Joseph Smith's talent. JS was not unique, but men like him are extremely rare. Many things in history are not duplicatable.

However, if one goes to this website and reads the letter that Joseph wrote to Emma from liberty jail, we will see no book of mormon type of poetry. In fact, we see a man who could not spell and could not write a decent paragraph. Something is wrong here.

Http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/50

[Magyar]

I repeat, repeat, repeat. Book of Mormon to Quran is apples to oranges. D&C to Quran is arguable, a better fit. The Book of Mormon abounds with names, words (shazer, sheum anyone?), lengthy history and details of a culture not available by any natural means to the prophet.

Stop making this inane comparison. Stop, stop, stop! You only make yourself look uninformed.

[cksalmon]

This challenge is basically a red herring since our lack of talent tells us nothing about JS's tallents. It could be argued that JS went right on dictating other scriptures as well as personal writings (like the letters from Liberty Jail) that are every bit as elloquent as parts of the BOM. Whether or not one views these other writings as inspired, they are evidence that JS could dictate something like the BOM. JS challenged his followers to produce a fake revelation that could stand up to his; the Koran has a similar challenge. To accept this challenge is to attept to compete on the charismatic leader's own ground. I would be equivalent to accepting one-on-one with Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson. Even Mormonism hasn't seen another prophet that has even come close to Joseph Smith's talent. JS was not unique, but men like him are extremely rare. Many things in history are not duplicatable.

I have wondered in the past what, if any, logical fallacies inhere in JS's challenge. Dan's response spurred me to think about it some more. For what it's worth, I believe there is more than one fallacy involved here, depending on the way one formulates the argument. None of these fallacies show that BoM is not divine, just that the arguments I've hypothesized below won't work for demonstrating that it is divine. Here's what I've come up with so far:

The Appeal to Probability

-->

Or,

Possibly P.

Therefore, P is true.

"It is highly unlikely that a 19th C, unlearned, farmboy could have written BoM; therefore, it is impossible that JS authored the BoM."

Affirming the Consequent

If P, then Q

Q

Therefore, P

If the BoM is divine, then no one will be able to write a fake revelatory text on par with it.

No one has been able to write a fake revelatory text on par with it.

Therefore, the BoM is divine.

(This is, I think, the logical form of Dan's argument above.)

False Dilemma/Correlative

Either P or Q.

~Q.

Therefore, P.

Either the BoM is divine or anyone could duplicate it.

No one can duplicate it.

Therefore, BoM is divine.

There may be others.

Best to all.

CKS

PS. By the way, if one rejects the divinity of BoM because one cannot fathom that (i) God reveals things to humans, (ii) God exists at all, or (iii) God would have chosen to do things the way JS claimed did, he would be guilty of the making an argument from ignorance.

[Dan Vogel]

Why Me,

However, if one goes to this website and reads the letter that Joseph wrote to Emma from liberty jail, we will see no book of mormon type of poetry. In fact, we see a man who could not spell and could not write a decent paragraph. Something is wrong here.

We find just what I would expect. His writing is awkward, but he is powerful in speech, just as some of the BOM prophets said of themselves. How could a charismatic leader be otherwise? The only problem is determining if this gift came from God or by natural endowment. But that's not a question for scholarship but one of faith.

CK,

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.

Is that supposed to be a complement or an insult?

[Chris Smith]

Why Me,

We find just what I would expect. His writing is awkward, but he is powerful in speech, just as some of the BOM prophets said of themselves. How could a charismatic leader be otherwise? The only problem is determining if this gift came from God or by natural endowment. But that's not a question for scholarship but one of faith.

CK,

Is that supposed to be a complement or an insult?

Definitely a compliment. Sorry if it came off differently.

In her heyday, Sandra Tanner was the critic par excellence: Brodie's heir. Now, she seems to largely defer to you. Not that she's lost her edge-- I think the latest Messenger is evidence that she's as sharp as ever-- but it seems appropriately symbolic to me. The Tanner age is ending, and a Vogel age is dawning, nu?

-CK

[Dan Vogel]

CKS:

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.

I have the same reaction to most religious texts. But I'm more interesting what they tell me about their authors and the people who believe them. Now, that can be interesting. It's not the stories we should be interested in, but what the stories are trying to tell us--the values the community of believers derrive from them. Even the most boring and silly stories contain much insight from a sociological perspective.

Actually, there are some rather elloquent passages in the BOM, and there is a lot of boring and silly stories in the Bible. The same is true for the Koran.

[freakin a man]

Why have not LDS critics found any examples of uneducating hicks in small towns taking up the challenge of reproducing a 250000 word book like the BOM in about 70 days using critiera like the following?

1. They must not use computers. Only handwrite.

2. They have one dictator and are allowed to have several scribes.

3. Their story must contain a number of ancient hebrew customs and poetic structures like Chiasmus and Staircase Parallelism buried within the text. They are however not told it must be there. It just must occur naturally and be present in the finished product.

4. The dictator is free to use outside sources but he must not bring these outside sources into the room. The scribes must witness that he had no Bible or any other source present. He also must do the dictating with his face in a hat. The quotes from these outside sources like the Bible need to be near exact as they appear in the Bible and the usage of the quotes must blend well with the overall story being delivered.

5. The dictator is must give an interally consistent story. He must be able to remember exact quotes said weeks prior and quote them again later in the story without any need for help from the scribe.

Seems to me if it was as easy as they claim, they we should have dozens of examples of them presenting books done by these uneducated people to counter the LDS arguement.

[Chris Smith]

Why have not LDS critics found any examples of uneducating hicks in small towns taking up the challenge of reproducing a 250000 word book like the BOM in about 70 days using critiera like the following?

1. They must not use computers. Only handwrite.

2. They have one dictator and are allowed to have several scribes.

3. Their story must contain a number of ancient hebrew customs and poetic structures like Chiasmus and Staircase Parallelism buried within the text. They are however not told it must be there. It just must occur naturally and be present in the finished product.

4. The dictator is free to use outside sources but he must not bring these outside sources into the room. The scribes must witness that he had no Bible or any other source present. He also must do the dictating with his face in a hat. The quotes from these outside sources like the Bible need to be near exact as they appear in the Bible and the usage of the quotes must blend well with the overall story being delivered.

5. The dictator is must give an interally consistent story. He must be able to remember exact quotes said weeks prior and quote them again later in the story without any need for help from the scribe.

Seems to me if it was as easy as they claim, they we should have dozens of examples of them presenting books done by these uneducated people to counter the LDS arguement.

Ever heard of Patience Worth?

[Cold Steel]

Since beginning this thread, I've read the Book of Mormon again and it amazes me to a greater extent each time, especially reading the first few chapters of Nephi, of the destructions that occurred just before the coming of Christ and the record of His appearance itself.

Reading the words of Mormon and Moroni as they faced the extinction of their people, I see our day mirrored vividly. Most incredible is how people can become increasingly wicked while thinking there's nothing wrong with their thoughts and behavior. Clearly the Nephites, in the end, saw nothing wrong with themselves, either. And as they faced death, they faced it with the "awful fear" that the wicked feel when the end draws near. It's as if the writers have experienced that which they're writing about, and that's the difficulty a charlatan would face. I personally don't believe a chalatan could form the words of such great men. Others may conclude differently, but Joseph Smith hit too many marks for someone who was fabricating ancient scripture.

[Dan Vogel]

CK,

The Tanner age is ending, and a Vogel age is dawning, nu?

My goodness, I wouldn't want that kind of pressure or reputation. Perish the thought.

[maklelan]

Has the Book of Mormon been found to be a history of ancient inhabitants of America by anyone outside of the faith? If not, it is akin to writing a book of fiction, with oodles of borrowed biblical scriptures that turns out to be a slow read for many. It becomes a challenge if the book were historical. Otherwise, head to the local library and you will find shelves and shelves of fictional books of every imagination that meet or exceed the challenge.

That's remarkably insightful. However, the question is not whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. The question is if any book of fiction be produced by a barely literate farmboy in such a short period of time that has 1) numerous correlations with the Bible, 2) no inconsistencies with the Bible, 3)numerous apparent anachronisms that ultimately prove to be perfectly accurate, despite being decades ahead of the scientific research that shows this, 4) complex doctrinal expositions weaving in and out of a perfectly seamless plot of even greater intricacy that all maintain perfect harmony, 5) contain absolutely zero verifiable contradictions or historical errors, and 6) represent an impossibly accurate depiction of ancient Near Eastern culture that is only now understood. These are my own qualifications, but I feel that they are consistent and hold true in every instance. The question is if this assignment is within the capacity of any human being on this earth. I submit that it is not. If anyone feels otherwise they are invited to prove it. I think it's pretty cut and dry.

[Dan Vogel]

The question is if any book of fiction be produced by a barely literate farmboy in such a short period of time

There are more kinds of intelligence than literature. He dictated it at the average of about 8 pages per day, which is a few hours. The rest of the day he could spend thinking about what to dictate next. He had also been thinking about it for years.

that has 1) numerous correlations with the Bible,

Perhaps too many.

2) no inconsistencies with the Bible,

Which can be problematic in itself, like mentioning the Jaredites came from the Tower of Babel. However, there are numerous anachronisms.

3)numerous apparent anachronisms that ultimately prove to be perfectly accurate, despite being decades ahead of the scientific research that shows this,

True, some anachronisms have been discarded just as some BOM evidence is no longer cited by apologists. That's inevitable. However, because some anachronistic evidence has fallen by the wayside doesn't mean that they all will. That's the fallacy of the continuum. One well-established anachronism can be fatal.

4) complex doctrinal expositions weaving in and out of a perfectly seamless plot of even greater intricacy that all maintain perfect harmony,

Even apologists have pointed out contradictions in the text and blamed it on Mormon. In the index to my bio of JS, under BOM, you will find a list of incongruities.

5) contain absolutely zero verifiable contradictions or historical errors,

Same as above.

and 6) represent an impossibly accurate depiction of ancient Near Eastern culture that is only now understood.

The Near East is a big place and ancient history is a lot of time. Should anyone be surprised that some correlations can be made? Now, if you could just find all those parallels in Mesoamerica.

These are my own qualifications, but I feel that they are consistent and hold true in every instance. The question is if this assignment is within the capacity of any human being on this earth. I submit that it is not. If anyone feels otherwise they are invited to prove it. I think it's pretty cut and dry.

Basically, your argument begs the question. The argument is about could JS write the BOM. If we begin by assuming the BOM is a translation of an ancient document, we have already excluded the question of this thread.

[Cold Steel]

I've found that most of the anachronisms can be adequately explained. The migrations recounted in the Book of Mormon are consistent with the cultures found in Meso-America. The BoM's description of the great destructions prior to Christ's coming also are consistent with actual volcanic disasters (gas emissions, including not being able to light torches or fires, the descriptions of lightning, etc.). Smith's being able to hit such elusive targets as describing an actual Arabian valley with a river, Nahom as a burial site, and a credible launching site all are impressive. His usages of Isaiah reflect not just a space-filling tactic, but an insightful understanding of scripture, tradition and application.

No novels I've read can measure up to these accomplishments. If Smith dictated such eloquent passages as are found throughout the book, it's even more incredible.

[maklelan]

There are more kinds of intelligence than literature. He dictated it at the average of about 8 pages per day, which is a few hours. The rest of the day he could spend thinking about what to dictate next. He had also been thinking about it for years.

So reproduce it.

Perhaps too many.

So not enough similarities exist, but too many similarities exist. I assume you are one of those who conclude that all the witnesses of the translation proccess were all just lying, and that Joseph Smith was sitting with a big Bible in his lap as he thumbed through the Old and New Testaments and shouted out Bible verses intermittantly as he translated, making sure to make small changes which turn out to be rather clarevoyant manipulations of the text. If not then maybe he just memorized dozens of passages of scriptures in the next room before beginning and then made subtle changes as he regurgitated them. You seem to have a proclivity for reading other people's minds 150 years after the fact. Maybe you could tell us exactly how he did it.

Which can be problematic in itself, like mentioning the Jaredites came from the Tower of Babel. However, there are numerous anachronisms.

I'm not aware of any that haven't been more than adequately addressed dozens of times.

True, some anachronisms have been discarded just as some BOM evidence is no longer cited by apologists. That's inevitable. However, because some anachronistic evidence has fallen by the wayside doesn't mean that they all will. That's the fallacy of the continuum. One well-established anachronism can be fatal.

You just can't cede a point without trying to drop in a little jab of your own, can you? Let us know when you find that fatal anacronism. Up to this point the death strokes seem to be attempted through assuming first hand accounts are lies (unless they are unfavorable toward the prophet), while polemic second and third hand accounts are accurate. This appear sto be the only way to synchronize everything and still not admit that something's going on that you can't account for.

Even apologists have pointed out contradictions in the text and blamed it on Mormon. In the index to my bio of JS, under BOM, you will find a list of incongruities.

You use the phrase "blame it on Mormon" like it were a knife you're thrusting at us. Is every mistake ever made supposed to be referenced with a hiss and a glare? You know perfectly well that we don't think (and have never thought) the text is absolutely perfect. I am aware of the little incongruities. Perhaps I failed to consider them in my initial post. I stand corrected.

The Near East is a big place and ancient history is a lot of time. Should anyone be surprised that some correlations can be made? Now, if you could just find all those parallels in Mesoamerica.

The Hebraisms; Seidel's law; ten repetitions of God's name only in spots that correspond perfectly with the celebrations in which the high priest was required to repeat God's name ten times; the dozens of names that have only recently been shown to be dead on; uncanny representation of only recently discovered procedures of law, and a hundred other things about which books have been written are all coincidences? So you feel Nahom is a freakish coincidence? Do you really feel Joseph Smith pulled this name out of the Bible, changed it a little, and arbitrarily inserted it into a text when the same place name (found only in this spot in all of Arabia) happens to correspond perfectly with the position, orientation and purpose of the journey? I seriously think that more work needs to be done on your side's part to account for everything that has been poitned out. "It's a big place" doesn't even begin to explain it. Pardon my presumptuous (I understand you are much more qualified to argue much of this than I am) but I think that answer is a joke. I seriously don't think you're aware of the volumes and volumes of correlations that have been found.

Basically, your argument begs the question. The argument is about could JS write the BOM. If we begin by assuming the BOM is a translation of an ancient document, we have already excluded the question of this thread.

But you refuse to make that assumption (you make that clear in your book), so the challenge is valid: reproduce something with these credentials.

[Chris Smith]

There are more kinds of intelligence than literature. He dictated it at the average of about 8 pages per day, which is a few hours. The rest of the day he could spend thinking about what to dictate next. He had also been thinking about it for years.

Perhaps too many.

Which can be problematic in itself, like mentioning the Jaredites came from the Tower of Babel. However, there are numerous anachronisms.

True, some anachronisms have been discarded just as some BOM evidence is no longer cited by apologists. That's inevitable. However, because some anachronistic evidence has fallen by the wayside doesn't mean that they all will. That's the fallacy of the continuum. One well-established anachronism can be fatal.

Even apologists have pointed out contradictions in the text and blamed it on Mormon. In the index to my bio of JS, under BOM, you will find a list of incongruities.

Same as above.

The Near East is a big place and ancient history is a lot of time. Should anyone be surprised that some correlations can be made? Now, if you could just find all those parallels in Mesoamerica.

Basically, your argument begs the question. The argument is about could JS write the BOM. If we begin by assuming the BOM is a translation of an ancient document, we have already excluded the question of this thread.

Sandra mentioned an anachronism I had never thought of before: candles. Is there a FARMS answer for candles?

[thesometimesaint]

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search...s&do=Search