A Challenge to Critics

[Uncle Dale]

...

Alternative Hypothesis I requires exactly one assumption. That is, that the Book of Mormon was fabricated,

from existing documents by some combination of Joseph Smith Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery and others

...

Alternative Hypothesis Ia -- The BoM was fabricated as a religious scam, with Smith/Rigdon/Cowdery

perpetrating a total fraud for selfish purposes.

Alternative Hypothesis Ib -- The BoM evolved from an annotated psuedo-historical epic of the ancient Americans,

and was added to and revised by several subsequent contributors, each of whom believed he was expanding a

largely "true" work of sacred scripture.

These final contributors to the text believed in the gospel dispensational system of history, in which the

doctrines and practices of one dispensation were practically identical to the next. Thus, by consulting

divining rods, peepstones, personal visions, and perceived communications from "beyond the veil,"

these writers believed they were telling the story of the demise of the "sixth dispensation" in ancient

America, and thus setting the stage for the successful fruition of the final dispensation and Millennium.

Problem: No Mormon of the last five generations could possibly accept Alternative Hypothesis Ib and remain a Mormon.

Uncle Dale

[Joseph Antley]

To be properly constructed and testable, a hypothesis must be falsifiable. Each of the alternative hypotheses implied by SKâ??s straw man assertions (or by the implied alternatives to JAâ??s original questions) are not falsifiable because they invoke the supernatural.

For example:

Q. Did Joseph Smith construct or acquire something that resembled gold plates?

A. Yes

Q. If so, how was this accomplished?

A. Do not know / Not sure

Implied conclusion: The best explanation for existence of something that resembled the plates is that there were golden plates (the supernatural explanation).

I didn't read your entire post (I'll get to it, but I only have a few minutes online right now), so my response here may be premature.

You're correct about the my implied alternative. However, I'm aware that most of the critics here don't believe that there was supernatural involvement in the Book of Mormon's creation and the events that surrounded it. Therefore, if there was nothing supernatural, then either Joseph Smith created fraudulent plates, somehow acquired them from someone else, or he didn't. One of those had to have been what happened -- if there's another explanation that critics have, I would be glad to here it.

I didn't think critics would have to worry about my implied alternative explanation that involves the supernatural, since they should be able to at least speculate about a rational and non-supernatural answer to the question.

As I said in the original post, I came up with these questions on the spot. This wasn't intended to be an in-depth scientific study or a "trap" to catch critics.

[DrW]

I didn't read your entire post (I'll get to it, but I only have a few minutes online right now), so my response here may be premature.

You're correct about the my implied alternative. However, I'm aware that most of the critics here don't believe that there was supernatural involvement in the Book of Mormon's creation and the events that surrounded it. Therefore, if there was nothing supernatural, then either Joseph Smith created fraudulent plates, somehow acquired them from someone else, or he didn't. One of those had to have been what happened -- if there's another explanation that critics have, I would be glad to here it.

I didn't think critics would have to worry about my implied alternative explanation that involves the supernatural, since they should be able to at least speculate about a rational and non-supernatural answer to the question.

As I said in the original post, I came up with these questions on the spot. This wasn't intended to be an in-depth scientific study or a "trap" to catch critics.

I can certainly accept your explanation regarding the way the questions were framed, and your stated intent in framing them as you did.

Nonetheless, I trust that you can see my point regarding implied alternative hypotheses.

[DrW]

Alternative Hypothesis Ia -- The BoM was fabricated as a religious scam, with Smith/Rigdon/Cowdery

perpetrating a total fraud for selfish purposes.

Alternative Hypothesis Ib -- The BoM evolved from an annotated psuedo-historical epic of the ancient Americans,

and was added to and revised by several subsequent contributors, each of whom believed he was expanding a

largely "true" work of sacred scripture.

These final contributors to the text believed in the gospel dispensational system of history, in which the

doctrines and practices of one dispensation were practically identical to the next. Thus, by consulting

divining rods, peepstones, personal visions, and perceived communications from "beyond the veil,"

these writers believed they were telling the story of the demise of the "sixth dispensation" in ancient

America, and thus setting the stage for the successful fruition of the final dispensation and Millennium.

Problem: No Mormon of the last five generations could possibly accept Alternative Hypothesis Ib and remain a Mormon.

Uncle Dale

UD,

I am perfectly comfortable with your more detailed re-stating and parsing of Alternative Hypothesis I.

[Tchild2]

Alternative Hypothesis Ia -- The BoM was fabricated as a religious scam, with Smith/Rigdon/Cowdery

perpetrating a total fraud for selfish purposes.

Alternative Hypothesis Ib -- The BoM evolved from an annotated psuedo-historical epic of the ancient Americans,

and was added to and revised by several subsequent contributors, each of whom believed he was expanding a

largely "true" work of sacred scripture.

These final contributors to the text believed in the gospel dispensational system of history, in which the

doctrines and practices of one dispensation were practically identical to the next. Thus, by consulting

divining rods, peepstones, personal visions, and perceived communications from "beyond the veil,"

these writers believed they were telling the story of the demise of the "sixth dispensation" in ancient

America, and thus setting the stage for the successful fruition of the final dispensation and Millennium.

Problem: No Mormon of the last five generations could possibly accept Alternative Hypothesis Ib and remain a Mormon.

Uncle Dale

Still, alternate hypothesis Ib is far more flattering to Mormonism's founders than is Ia. Recontextualization by a believer that the church had naturalistic origins resulting in Ib, might lead such a person to disbelieve, and probably some serious disillusionment. Hypothesis Ia, on the other hand, might result in the one time believer becoming a ragingly bitter ex-mo, frequenting certain "recovery from Mormonism" chat boards, and burning his/her garments in defiant revolt.

[Uncle Dale]

Still, alternate hypothesis Ib is far more flattering to Mormonism's founders

...

It is the explanation of things which allows a member to slowly "back out" of Mormonism,

while keeping his/her face turned toward the "rod of iron."

In other words, the "slippery slope into apostasy" the Bishop warns you about when

you go to renew your TR and admit to having Fawn Brodie's book in your briefcase.

It is the road now being traveled by the Community of Christ -- though those folks

tend to place all the blame (and all the praise) on Brother Joseph's shoulders.

However, when we expand Alternate Hypothesis Ib to include more conspirators

than just Joseph and his own private thoughts, things get messy.

I'm not sure that a member can "back out" of Mormonism, with his/her mind

contemplating what went on in secret between Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery.

THAT may be an impossibility for 99% of the "faithful." Nobody quits the Church

over that sort of mental gymnastics.

Which makes your Uncle Dale's rantings relatively benign, (and explains why none

of the LDS internet apologists bother to attack his expressed view of things).

UD

[Abulafia]

Just so you know, when a critic starts to claim the mass visions were a result a JS hypnosis skills you have "jumped the shark" as we yankees say. The idea that JS knew how to hypnotize whole groups on demand with congruous identical visions that were never doubted for the remainder of the participants lives is perfectly ridiculous

Silverknight thanks for the links, I will read them later on today.

Look, I'm not suggesting for one minute that Joseph stood before any of the witnesses and asked them to look at a candle, and then told them they were feeling sleepy, very, very sleepy (said in deep emphatic liquid voice)!

Okay, question, because right now I am intrigued..

Has anyone ever bothered to explore whether Luman Walters did indeed go to Paris and to the Sorbonne, (surely there must be records surviving somewhere), and if he did could he speak French.

What evidence is there that Joseph knew Luman and was influenced by him? Did he pick up French expressions such as Adieu from him?

I'm interested in this not only for the hypnotic link, but also the link to animal magnetism and charisma. I don't think anyone denies that Joseph had a charismatic personality, endearing and warm hearted, ruthless with critics.

ame from a 19th century frontier hoax perpetuated by a 25 year old plowhand?

Does anyone take you seriously SilverKnight when you refer to Joseph as only a plowhand....That's really not the whole picture and you and I both know it.

His family had come upon hard times through a speculative exercise of Joseph Sr amongst others.

He had wealthy family and conncections, particularly Stephen Mack, who later moved to Michigan.

His family included privateers with all the Mariner stories and legends that that might have entailed.

He was a farm boy and hired hand, and was also deeply, as was his family involved in probably relatively benign occultic practices which included treasure digging, spirit conjuring and the like.

He had links though family (Hyrum had attended Moors) to Dartmouth College

He was 'so' much more than 'only a plowhand' SilverKnight...

[sleepyhead]

Astounding!

And all this time I had assumed this Joseph Smith was merely an inspired religious reformer, alleged by LDS to be a prophet of sorts. The mormon account falls utterly short in describing perhaps the most brilliant genius who ever lived.

Now history has produced but a handful of truly exceptional polymaths. Leonardo Da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Isaac Newton.

However no person in recorded history can even approach the vast, nuanced, multilayered genius of a 19th century American farmhand named Joseph Smith. By the tender age of 25 Joseph Smith had simply outclassed any previous genius in history by leagues.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You claim, despite spending his prior life to that point plowing dirt and chopping wood, Joseph Smith had become:

- A brilliant svengali, capable of deluding wealthy, educated men much older than himself into believing anything

- A legendary hypnotist, capable of invoking mass hallucinations in others at a whim

- A master metallurgist, fabricating ancient-looking metal plates out of tin and copper

- A genius-savant mentalist, capable memorizing vast sections of the Bible and other complex texts

- A formidable demagogue, commanding superhuman secrecy from all involved in the conspiracy for their entire lives

- A sincerely pious believer, who not once lapsed in his sincerity towards his own deceptions

- An insidious con-man, crafting intricate props, manipulating friends and family and fooling thousands

- A fantastic storyteller, who could on a whim weave hundred page narratives from scratch

- A dextrous legerdemain, who deftly concealed piles of notes and source materials from nearby scribes

- A connected bibliophile, secretly obtaining obscure texts from faraway universities to use as source material

AND, despite pulling off the most breathtaking, monstrous, labyrinthine fraud in the history of humanity, not a single dupe, mark, former ally, co-conspirator or serendipitous passerby has ever emerged to offer any shred of insight of how this immense conspiracy might have possibly been pulled off?

And the mastermind behind it all was an indigent plowboy? I'm sorry gentlemen, your story simply strains credulity too much. I'll have to default back to the whole prophet theory. (Occam's Razor you know)

Hello silverknight,

At the risk of thread drift let me say that you have presented some valid points. If I can believe in the novel Jonathan livingston seagull you can believe in a historical book of mormon. What I find illogical is the claim that since A is true therefore B is true, which makes C true, culminating in the CoJCoLDS is the one true church, without any logical thought behind it.

[sleepyhead]

Read for yourself --

http://boc.lege.net/boc9.html

Or, better yet, Google Books has images of

the 1833 Book of Commandments on-line.

See also H. Michael Marquardt's "The Joseph Smith Revelations" --

excerpts available at Signature Books -- for annotated commentary.

UD

You can also order the book of commandments from the temple lot church.

http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/publications.htm

[ttribe]

Hello silverknight,

At the risk of thread drift let me say that you have presented some valid points. If I can believe in the novel Jonathan livingston seagull you can believe in a historical book of mormon. What I find illogical is the claim that since A is true therefore B is true, which makes C true, culminating in the CoJCoLDS is the one true church, without any logical thought behind it.

Proof that there's no logical thought behind the conclusion?

[SilverKnight]

If the critics are willing to enter an improperly and unfairly framed debate, fair enough. Several critics or individuals willing to be devilâ??s advocate jumped in and the discussion was off. Fun was being had by all until Silver Knight invoked Occamâ??s Razor in rejecting one set of his straw man hypotheses in favor of a set which, by implication, required the supernatural.

Dr W:

Invoking Occam's Razor was a lighthearted jest at the cumbersome theories critics must construct to explain the plates and witnesses. Perhaps I overstepped my bounds, as a believer, for having the nerve to use a term held so dearly by secularists.

In any case I admit I didn't fully consider the grievous implications of daring to use such a heady term. So I think you may have wasted your time with that tedious pedantic post of yours.

[SilverKnight]

Silverknight thanks for the links, I will read them later on today.

Look, I'm not suggesting for one minute that Joseph stood before any of the witnesses and asked them to look at a candle, and then told them they were feeling sleepy, very, very sleepy (said in deep emphatic liquid voice)!

Yes, please do backpedal from the master hypnotist theory.

Okay, question, because right now I am intrigued..

Has anyone ever bothered to explore whether Luman Walters did indeed go to Paris and to the Sorbonne, (surely there must be records surviving somewhere), and if he did could he speak French.

What evidence is there that Joseph knew Luman and was influenced by him? Did he pick up French expressions such as Adieu from him?

I'm not familiar with this.

Does anyone take you seriously SilverKnight when you refer to Joseph as only a plowhand....That's really not the whole picture and you and I both know it.

It is mostly the whole picture I think. Characterizing Joseph Smith as a "plowhand", an agrarian menial laborer, with little formal education, who spent most of his time working on his parents farm, is mostly accurate. I am simply unaware of any extensive tutelage he received in his youth. I never said he was stupid, but the level of literacy, esoteric knowledge and specialized training required for him to be the polymath genius you require was highly unlikely given his circumstances - and you and I both know it.

[Brenda]

I'm the first to admit that Joseph Smith's claims (and those of the LDS Church) are far-fetched. But in reading these posts, collectively, the explanations offered by the critics are to the point of ridiculous.

[SilverKnight]

Hello silverknight,

At the risk of thread drift let me say that you have presented some valid points. If I can believe in the novel Jonathan livingston seagull you can believe in a historical book of mormon. What I find illogical is the claim that since A is true therefore B is true, which makes C true, culminating in the CoJCoLDS is the one true church, without any logical thought behind it.

I never made such a conclusion.

I simply commented on the the cumbersome, convoluted theories critics must construct to explain the Book of Mormon, plates and witnesses. It requires two important (if I may borrow one of your words again) "mental gymnastic" tricks to do it:

â?¢ Elevate Joseph Smith to a singularly charismatic genius with access to a cornucopia of esoteric learning and specialized training

â?¢ Demote the Book of Mormon to bungling mess that anyone who was marginally familiar with the bible could produce

[SilverKnight]

Again, here's a apologetic sources relevant to this discussion:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...seph_Smith.html

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...e_Theories.html

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Dr W:

Invoking Occam's Razor was a lighthearted jest at the cumbersome theories critics must construct to explain the plates and witnesses. Perhaps I overstepped my bounds, as a believer, for having the nerve to use a term held so dearly by secularists.

In any case I admit I didn't fully consider the grievous implications of daring to use such a heady term. So I think you may have wasted your time with that tedious pedantic post of yours.

How dare your question DrW, unmagical thinking. You invoked Occoma's Razor, that even sounded magical. What other spells do you know? What else can you invoke?

[Mike Reed]

Ah! Tell me it ain't so!

It is so.

From John D. Hamilton, â??Material culture of the American Freemasonsâ? (Scottish Rite Masonic Museum of Our National Heritage, 1994):

...in the center of the plate represent the Urim and Thummim, or light and truth inherent in the concept of the Breastplate of Judgment.

The Breastplate of Judgment was worn by the High Priest in American Royal Arch Chapters as a vestment, symbolic of his responsibility to the laws and ordinances of Royal Arch Masonry. The plate was set with twelve colored stones, each representing one of the twelve tribes of Israel. (p. 43)

[DrW]

Dr W:

Invoking Occam's Razor was a lighthearted jest at the cumbersome theories critics must construct to explain the plates and witnesses. Perhaps I overstepped my bounds, as a believer, for having the nerve to use a term held so dearly by secularists.

In any case I admit I didn't fully consider the grievous implications of daring to use such a heady term. So I think you may have wasted your time with that tedious pedantic post of yours.

SilverKnight,

Rather than accusing me of wasting my time, why not have a go at refuting the posted conclusions, using generally accepted rules of logic?

And if you cannot logically refute the posted conclusions, why not just admit that the rules of formal logic cannot be usefully applied to your belief system?

There is no shame in such an admission, it just means that you should not invoke formal logic to support your supernatural-based worldview and associated "truth" claims in the future.

[Theseus]

This wasn't a courtroom. The scribe had every opportunity to interject, ask for a break, ask to slow down for a moment, etc. Sure he had a moment to look up once in a while.

According to interviews with Martin Harris, Joseph often dictated from "behind a curtain," or "sheet" or that he "would sit in a different room, or up stairs." He could easily have an open bible in front of him or any other text as the scribes could not even see him.

[DrW]

How dare your question DrW, unmagical thinking. You invoked Occoma's Razor, that even sounded magical. What other spells do you know? What else can you invoke?

MRSM,

Since you seem interested in all of this, why don't you have a go at refuting the conclusions in the post?

(I assume that by "unmagical thinking" you mean "fact-based and logical thinking".)

[ttribe]

According to interviews with Martin Harris, Joseph often dictated from "behind a curtain," or "sheet" or that he "would sit in a different room, or up stairs." He could easily have an open bible in front of him or any other text as the scribes could not even see him.

Please. The room they were in was barely bigger than my bathroom. Where'd he put that Bible and "other text" when they weren't translating? Still behind the sheet you say? Well, I'm guessing they would still be pretty visible as light went through the room. Not to mention the fact that at least one of his scribes LIVED WITH HIM - you know her name - Emma. Her testimony of the translation rebukes most of this conjecture...unless you're going to hop on the "Emma was lying" bandwagon.

[ttribe]

_________

ETA: Thus, by the criteria of both weight of evidence and Occam's Razor, evaluation of the first sets of hypotheses shows that the hypothesis that Joseph Smith and/or others fabricated the Book of Mormon (Alternative Hypothesis I) is the best hypothesis. This hypothesis selection is further supported by fact that the assertion that Joseph Smith and/or others fabricated the Book of Mormon (Alternative Hypothesis II) is the best hypothesis by weight of evidence from Set # 2.

There are so many faulty assumptions which are foundational to the way you have formulated your hypotheses that they are rendered substantially useless. I'd suggest you spend some more time on the FAIR website and see what some of the actual claims of believers are at this point and then go from there. Furthermore, it is interesting the degree to which you strain to ignore contradictory evidence and yet call any particular hypothesis a winner just because it's the shortest path.

[DonBradley]

Hi Antley,

You may want to bite off something a little more manageable for MB discussion. The OP isn't fishing for a post but for a book proposal.

Don

[SilverKnight]

why not just admit that the rules of formal logic cannot be usefully applied to your belief system?

Fully admit. Formal rules of logic cannot be usefully applied to any belief or theory that depends on the supernatural.

[ttribe]

Fully admit. Formal rules of logic cannot be usefully applied to any belief or theory that depends on the supernatural.

At least not strictly so. Reason can still be useful.