Bob Bennett's new BoM Story Reviewed

[ChristKnight]

would anyone recommend this book for non-LDS? I'm not interested in converting at all, but I do find Mormon beliefs fascinating, especially the Book of Mormon (but isn't that what all the converts have said? haha). I have a copy of the Book of Mormon but haven't fully read it yet (still planning on doing that).

[Daniel Peterson]

The book was specifically written for non-LDS.

And well done, too.

[ChristKnight]

The book was specifically written for non-LDS.

And well done, too.

thank you! I will look into purchasing it after I finish the other books I'm reading.

[Gervin]

Extraordinary evidence is promised in Moroni 10:3-5. It has delivered for me, I can't speak for you. That being said, Sagan stacks the deck. You invoked the "innocent until proven guilty" view, yet you go directly against it in the case of the BoM. I sense a strong positivist in our midst...

if this is the evidence:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent,

having faith

in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

then, is the faith in verse 4 a leap of faith? How can you make a leap of faith that uses as evidence the requirement to first make a leap of faith?

[Analytics]

And thank you for making it more clear you think believers are such due to their credulity. Another good reason not to engage further. At least not now.

Clearly, you don't understand what I think at all. That's fine, of course--you don't have to understand me if you don't want to. But you shouldn't be so judgmental of people you don't understand.

Time and again Analytics has proclaimed his empirical demands for belief which essentially exclude God from the picture. So it's not a straw man, but a ghost I have been arguing with for quite some time in Analytics. (A rather mind-boggling choice for a screen name!)

Emperical is defined as "being derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of logic." Are you suggesting that empiricism excludes God from the picture? That would imply that God can't be experienced, wouldn't it?

Anyway, it's really weird that I directly engaged one of the main points of Bennett's book, and you refuse to talk to me about that because you are under a false impression about an unrelated point (that I'm allegedly a die-hard positivist). You've given me no sign that you understand anything I say, but I take comfort in the fact that you act afraid to engage me in conversation--it is an indication that you recognize the intrinsic strength of my position, even if you donâ??t understand it.

Best wishes on your journey.

[robuchan]

So did he determine the Book of Mormon was a forgery or not?

[Daniel Peterson]

So did he determine the Book of Mormon was a forgery or not?

At least in the manuscript that I read way back when -- I haven't yet read the published Deseret Book version -- he took what I regard as a very balanced view, conceding that the critics have a point here or there, but concluding in the end that the Book of Mormon doesn't manifest the signs of being a forgery. I thought he bent over backwards to be fair and dispassionate. He's definitely still a believer, though. Good book.

[robuchan]

I didn't read the book and the review, though marvelously footnoted, doesn't analyze these points (or maybe the book just fails to deliver?), but here's my analysis of the four areas.

1. Internal consistency: I give the BOM high grades on this.

2. External issues: complete failure. multitude of anachronisms, multitude of 1800's issues like elephants anti-catholicism mound-builders, etc. The Isaiah problems, other Bible plagiarism issues like the Paul issue he mentions (personally I think my argument here is one of the most solid arguments ever made on this http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/41350-moronis-writing-and-pauls-thorn/ ).

3. Motive for forgery: I find a substantial motive of pious fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud I also see some financial motive, given that Joseph really hated regular man's work, and he never had to do any of it the rest of his life after he got the BOM going. What did Bennett conclude on this?

4. Relevance: I find the BOM highly relevant and full of profound and important doctrine. However, I don't see anything in it that was not relevant in 1830 that is relevant today. The opposite in fact, with the addressing and incorporation of some of the 1800's issues of anti-catholicism, infant baptism, revivals, speaking in tongues, etc.

[Daniel Peterson]

2. External issues: complete failure.

I think you're simply wrong on this. Are there issues of anachronism? Yes. Are there corroborating external evidences? Yes. Are they sufficient? That's a judgment call. Are they iron-clad conclusive? No.

I worry when critics claim that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, that it completely fails in terms of external evidence. It's difficult for me to take such claims seriously.

I also see some financial motive, given that Joseph really hated regular man's work,

Do you have any evidence that he disliked "regular man's work" any more than anybody else of his socio-economic class did? I'm genuinely curious. I can't think of any. In fact, the only relevant eyewitness testimony that I can recall describes him as having been an unusually good worker.

and he never had to do any of it the rest of his life after he got the BOM going.

This is flatly untrue. Four examples come immediately to mind, off the top of my head:

(1) When Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball came to meet Joseph for the first time, well after they had been given a copy of the Book of Mormon, he wasn't at home. They found him out in the forest, chopping wood and clearing a field.

(2) Joseph often worked alongside the others in quarrying stone for the Kirtland Temple.

(3) As he became more and more concerned about the completion of the Nauvoo Temple, he worked in the stone quarry for it.

(4) Eyewitness testimony tells of such things as his rounding up young men in Nauvoo after a ball game and going with them to build a simple home for a widow woman.

Other potentially relevant data includes accounts from Zion's Camp, which tell of Joseph participating fully in all of the duties of the camp, claiming no special privileges at all on account of his rank.

A considerable amount of useful eyewitness testimony on this and other subjects is available in Mark McConkie's valuable compilation on Remembering Joseph.

4. Relevance: I find the BOM highly relevant and full of profound and important doctrine. However, I don't see anything in it that was not relevant in 1830 that is relevant today. The opposite in fact, with the addressing and incorporation of some of the 1800's issues of anti-catholicism, infant baptism, revivals, speaking in tongues, etc.

I expect that I know what you're talking about, but I see no "anti-Catholicism" in the Book of Mormon, nor any "revivals." Speaking in tongues, of course, is a New Testament issue, and not uniquely nineteenth-century. Nor does even infant baptism strike me as anything like a slam dunk for an origin in the 1800s. I'm reliably informed that certain Christians may well still practice infant baptism, even in the twenty-first century, and the practice is rumored to have begun among ancient Christians.

[robuchan]

I think you're simply wrong on this. Are there issues of anachronism? Yes. Are there corroborating external evidences? Yes. Are they sufficient? That's a judgment call. Are they iron-clad conclusive? No.

I worry when critics claim that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon, that it completely fails in terms of external evidence. It's difficult for me to take such claims seriously.

I don't say there are no evidences on the BOM's side. There are some hits and there are some misses. At a macro level, the misses FAR outweigh the hits IMHO. The misses are obvious, numerous, and condemning. This is my analysis of all the data.

Do you have any evidence that he disliked "regular man's work" any more than anybody else of his socio-economic class did? I'm genuinely curious. I can't think of any. In fact, the only relevant eyewitness testimony that I can recall describes him as having been an unusually good worker.

This is flatly untrue. Four examples come immediately to mind, off the top of my head:

...

A lot of people don't like regular man's work and would like to find a way out of it. Nothing against Joseph on that. And I'm sure he didn't sit around on his butt all day every day his last 14 years of his life, but he certainly had an easier life when it comes to hard labor as say his father did. But really that's irrelevant as we're looking for a motive in his teenage years not determining if it was successful or not. It would be a motive for anyone. I wouldn't mind getting rich and not having to work 8-5. It's slightly more applicable to Joseph than average person due to his history of attempting to make money with the treasure seeking. But even without that, it would still be a possible motive.

I expect that I know what you're talking about, but I see no "anti-Catholicism" in the Book of Mormon, nor any "revivals."

Others see it.

Speaking in tongues, of course, is a New Testament issue, and not uniquely nineteenth-century. Nor does even infant baptism strike me as anything like a slam dunk for an origin in the 1800s. I'm reliably informed that certain Christians may well still practice infant baptism, even in the twenty-first century, and the practice is rumored to have begun among ancient Christians.

True, and this is just my opinion, but if you assume the LDS church is a representation of God's true church, then you obviously have to say speaking in tongues is no longer a big part of God's will in his church. Since it was big in BOM times, NT times, Joseph's times, but not in our times, that's an indication of this opposite relevance concept Bennett introduces (things being more relevant now than they were in Joseph's time). For the infant baptism, my understanding is that it was a much more public and controversial issue in Joseph's day than it is today.

[ttribe]

I don't say there are no evidences on the BOM's side. There are some hits and there are some misses. At a macro level, the misses FAR outweigh the hits IMHO. The misses are obvious, numerous, and condemning. This is my analysis of all the data.

This seems to assume a level of infallibility in humanity's knowledge of geology, history, and science.

A lot of people don't like regular man's work and would like to find a way out of it. Nothing against Joseph on that. And I'm sure he didn't sit around on his butt all day every day his last 14 years of his life, but he certainly had an easier life when it comes to hard labor as say his father did. But really that's irrelevant as we're looking for a motive in his teenage years not determining if it was successful or not. It would be a motive for anyone. I wouldn't mind getting rich and not having to work 8-5. It's slightly more applicable to Joseph than average person due to his history of attempting to make money with the treasure seeking. But even without that, it would still be a possible motive.

One, I find the comparison between JS and his father to be problematic. Their "work" may have been different, but not easier. I don't know how you could call it easy to spend time in a filthy jail (oxymoronically called "Liberty"); be tarred, feathered and beaten; never have any measurable wealth, see your family suffer (and children die), and always have someone plotting your death...all BECAUSE of your job.

Two, I find the "motive" argument sorely lacking given the evidence in this case...and I say that as someone who regularly analyzes motive in fraud matters.

Others see it.

Correction - others "infer" it. There's a substantial difference.

True, and this is just my opinion, but if you assume the LDS church is a representation of God's true church, then you obviously have to say speaking in tongues is no longer a big part of God's will in his church. Since it was big in BOM times, NT times, Joseph's times, but not in our times, that's an indication of this opposite relevance concept Bennett introduces (things being more relevant now than they were in Joseph's time). For the infant baptism, my understanding is that it was a much more public and controversial issue in Joseph's day than it is today.

I think RSR provides a reasonable analysis of the metamorphosis of the tongues matter. I'm not informed enough on the infant baptism issue...and unsure you are either given the lack of references you've provided to support your position.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't read the book and the review, though marvelously footnoted, doesn't analyze these points (or maybe the book just fails to deliver?), but here's my analysis of the four areas.

It is a book review, not a complete repeating of what Bennett argues. It's already too long as it is.

[robuchan]

It is a book review, not a complete repeating of what Bennett argues. It's already too long as it is.

I'm sorry, and I acknowledge I'm out of place in this academic world of reviews and so forth. But I never seem to be satisfied with any of these reviews. Typically it seems they are long on summary level information and when they do go into detail it seems its on ancillary points that aren't the meat of the book or article. Just give me the main points and tell me what you thought of it, is how I'd like to see a review.

[LifeOnaPlate]

3. Motive for forgery: I find a substantial motive of pious fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud I also see some financial motive, given that Joseph really hated regular man's work, and he never had to do any of it the rest of his life after he got the BOM going. What did Bennett conclude on this?

On the money motive Bennett points out that it certainly wasn't a successful money-making venture. Martin Harris lost the farm on it. He also says perhaps JS tried to gain some sort of credibility with the BoM and thus establish a church and then reap the rewards and so forth that way, but points out there were other preachers who made a fine living without a new book of scripture. Further, JS himself doesn't really show signs of trying to wax fat off the labor of his followers. He was financially troubled for the rest of his life, essentially. And lastly, it is ridiculous to say JS didn't have to do work after the BOM got going.

[Daniel Peterson]

There is precious little evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith was motivated by financial ambition, but quite a bit to the contrary. Brigham Young once commented that Joseph was something of a disaster as a businessman in Nauvoo. He was always giving things away to needy saints. The sound business heads (like Brigham) worried about him on that score.

[robuchan]

There is precious little evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith was motivated by financial ambition, but quite a bit to the contrary. Brigham Young once commented that Joseph was something of a disaster as a businessman in Nauvoo. He was always giving things away to needy saints. The sound business heads (like Brigham) worried about him on that score.

Personally I buy the pious fraud motive theory. I think it's sound and logical.

But for those who completely refuse to acknowledge that as a possibility, I see the financial motive also. It doesn't matter if he was successful or not. It just matters if he thought it was possible going into it. It also doesn't matter if his original designs were to be rich or make just enough to make a living as a preacher.

He had already employed non-traditional means of making money. It's pretty simple to see it's at least a possibility. It's also possible that it could have started as at least partially with a financial motive and then later on changed. People accuse Brodie of trying to be a psychologist, but it's just as bad to claim understanding of his psychology so well to exclude the possibility of a financial motive. It's a clear possibility.

[Daniel Peterson]

Personally I buy the pious fraud motive theory. I think it's sound and logical.

It's probably the best option the critics have -- Dan Vogel certainly seems to agree with me on that -- but I don't see it as accounting for enough of the data to really do the job it needs to do.

I don't see any serious evidence for the financial motive. Recourse to that explanation seems little more than desperate.

[John Larsen]

There is precious little evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith was motivated by financial ambition, but quite a bit to the contrary.

For that matter, there is preciously little evidence that Joseph Smith interacted with the ghosts of Old Testament prophets or could read Egyptian--but quite a bit to the contrary.

I don't think it is a good defense for the apologists to banter around the "little evidence" attack.

[Daniel Peterson]

For that matter, there is preciously little evidence that Joseph Smith interacted with the ghosts of Old Testament prophets or could read Egyptian--but quite a bit to the contrary.

I don't think it is a good defense for the apologists to banter around the "little evidence" attack.

Cute, but not cogent.

The level and nature of the evidence for a purely mundane, simply accessible, temporal, outward, biographical matter like Joseph's relationship to work and finances over the course of his life is never going to be directly comparable to the evidence for what might be termed metaphysical claims.

Nor, for that matter, would any reasonable historian expect the evidence that Joseph ever had an encounter with any particular person on any particular day to be directly comparable to the mounds of evidence that would be available to demonstrate his economic practices, motives, and goals over the course of his life.

That said, I think there's much more evidence for his access to the ancient world via remarkable means than you're plainly willing to allow.

Still, it's amusing that you try to brush aside the striking paucity of evidence for financial motivation by means of a transparently obvious "Oh yeah? So your old man" kind of argument. You've still admitted that you have little or no evidence for that claim. Otherwise, you'd have a better counterargument.

[Uncertain]

It isn't a question of stacking the deck. It's a question of correctly understanding which claims have the burden of proof and how much evidence should be required before accepting any given proposition.

You are being tricky in the way you accuse me of going directly against "innocent until proven guilty" in the case of the Book of Mormon. Presumption of innocence simply means that the prosecution has the burden of proof in criminal court. If the conext of our discussion was Joseph Smith being criminally prosecuted for allegedly forgering the Book of Mormon, then the burden of proof would be on the prosecution in the context of that court case. But in the context of our discussion where we're deciding whether we should accept the Book of Mormon as an accurate translation of an authentic ancient Mesoamerican manuscript, then the burden belongs on the people who are making the radical claim that it is. If they don't meet the burden of proof, it isn't a "leap of faith" to "fail to reject" the null hypothesis.

Well I think this is a good refutation of my first point. If the evidence truly is ambiguous given the burden of proof is on the side claiming the BOM is authentic then the critic is fully justified in accepting a 19th century origin for the BOM. Now this depends on the burden of proof being on the believer instead of the critic. Which is clearly the case the alternative is to believe all religious claims unless they can be falsified. That is we should all be vegetarians unless we can demonstrate Jainism is false or likely false (good luck with that ).

However if we ignore which side has the burden of proof my first point would still hold that is if the evidence was truly evenly balanced no strong position either way is justified. If Bob Bennett has demonstrated the evidence for the BOM is evenly split positive and negative this would in fact be an excellent reason to reject strong belief in BOM authenticity. That being said I think it highly doubtful any given believer/critic truly thinks the evidence is evenly split.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[ttribe]

Personally I buy the pious fraud motive theory. I think it's sound and logical.

But for those who completely refuse to acknowledge that as a possibility, I see the financial motive also. It doesn't matter if he was successful or not. It just matters if he thought it was possible going into it. It also doesn't matter if his original designs were to be rich or make just enough to make a living as a preacher.

He had already employed non-traditional means of making money. It's pretty simple to see it's at least a possibility. It's also possible that it could have started as at least partially with a financial motive and then later on changed. People accuse Brodie of trying to be a psychologist, but it's just as bad to claim understanding of his psychology so well to exclude the possibility of a financial motive. It's a clear possibility.

Did someone say it wasn't a possibility? I certainly didn't. In fact, I've gone on record as saying that there is evidence which could actually support the "fraud theory". Nevertheless, taking into account the sum total of the man's life, the fraud theory has serious problems.

[ttribe]

However if we ignore which side has the burden of proof my first point would still hold that is if the evidence was truly evenly balanced no strong position either way is justified. If Bob Bennett has demonstrated the evidence for the BOM is evenly split positive and negative this would in fact be an excellent reason to reject strong belief in BOM authenticity.

Am I reading this correct? If the slit on evidence is even, then it's an "excellent reason to reject strong belief"? Seriously? You don't see problems with this?

That being said I think it highly doubtful any given believer/critic truly thinks the evidence is evenly split.

Hey, as a believer, let me be the first to thank you for taking a neutral position, and not engage in presuppositions, on what I think.

[ttribe]

For that matter, there is preciously little evidence that Joseph Smith interacted with the ghosts of Old Testament prophets or could read Egyptian--but quite a bit to the contrary.

I don't think it is a good defense for the apologists to banter around the "little evidence" attack.

John, this argument is embarrassingly beneath you.

[Calm]

Were not pastors of JS's time paid for their preaching and other duties?

Was Joseph Smith paid for any of his efforts in a similar vein? (I know that patriarchs received payment for blessings for a time).

[robuchan]

It's probably the best option the critics have -- Dan Vogel certainly seems to agree with me on that -- but I don't see it as accounting for enough of the data to really do the job it needs to do.

I don't see any serious evidence for the financial motive. Recourse to that explanation seems little more than desperate.

Here are some possible questions to review if a financial motive is a possibility.

1. Did Joseph engage in alternative employment endeavors/schemes? check

2. Have other people in history gone into the religion business with a financial motive? check

3. Did Joseph ask anyone for money? check

4. Did Joseph use money collected through the church to pay for his living expenses and lifestyle? check

It's there. I don't believe it was the primary motive. But it's there as an option.