Could you write the likes of Book of Mormon?

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm positive that I could not have written a book like the Book of Mormon.

And the thought that I could have done it within 60 to 80 days is simply absurd. I keep detailed records of my writing, and have now done so for five years. I have never been able to sustain that pace of writing -- roughly 3000-4000 publishable words daily over a period of 8-10 weeks -- nor anything close to it, even though I write exceptionally rapidly.

[A Random Catholic]

I'm positive that I could not have written a book like the Book of Mormon.

And the thought that I could have done it within 60 to 80 days is simply absurd. I keep detailed records of my writing, and have now done so for five years. I have never been able to sustain that pace of writing -- roughly 3000-4000 publishable words daily over a period of 8-10 weeks -- nor anything close to it, even though I write exceptionally rapidly.

And with a word processor. But this is all assuming that there was no pre-existent text, and we know there must have been because nobody could write the Book of Mormon in two or three months.

[Daniel Peterson]

And with a word processor.  But this is all assuming that there was no pre-existent text, and we know there must have been because nobody could write the Book of Mormon in two or three months.     

The question is the nature of the pre-existent text. I've published a short piece on that question -- not widely noticed, I disappointedly observe -- in a little volume on the Book of Mormon critical text project that FARMS published a couple of years ago (edited by M. Gerald Bradford and Alison V. P. Coutts).

[Guest Lux]

And it's always easier to criticize something when you haven't done it yourself.

Until . . .

Lux

[Dr. Shades]

Programmer writes:

Another weakness of your case is the fact that there are so many willing to assign plagarism from different sources. So make up your mind Dr [sic] Shades, which source is it?

I'm a bit partial to the Spalding/Rigdon authorship theory, myself.

And once you do make up your mind, I would expect you to keep consistent throughout your entire stay here at FAIR.

Your wish is my command.

John writes:

I guess that is Dr. Dr. [sic] Shades' way of saying "no, I coulden't [sic] do what Joseph Smith did in a million years! but [sic] I can give you all these reasons why anybody could do it!"

No, it's my saying that, from a literary standpoint, the book ain't "all that."

Ever been to central/south america? [sic] see [sic] all those ruins all over the place...

There are ruins in Egypt, too. That doesn't mean they are from the Nephites and Lamanites, however.

Actually, the Isaiah verses are less then 50% exact quotes, so I guess Joseph Smith was smart enough to not only understand, but rewrite Isaiah (ya, thats [sic] right, you heard me, ISAIAH)

It's my understanding that they're upwards of 95% exact quotes, not just 50%. (Yeah, that's right, you heard me, ISAIAH!)

Alright, write up a dozen sermons, quoting various things that not only apply to us now, but to people 100 years from now, quoting from the old testament [sic] and other sources, and get back to us. oh [sic] ya, and it has to be on a dozen subjects.

What are those dozen subjects?

prehaps [sic] you ought to reread the Book of Mormon. (although I doubt you have even read it once.)

I read it seven times before I stopped counting.

Read Alma 30, thats a great theological discourse right there.

Or a do-it-yourself reconditioning guide, take your pick.

Alrighty, [sic] then why hasen't [sic] anybody ever succeded [sic] at the Book of Mormon Challange? [sic]

Stephen King succeeds at it at least once a year.

Ah yes, but none that I can think of were written in 80 days.

Even if he wrote it himself--which I don't necessarily believe--he had since his childhood to make up conditions, events, and characters in the Book.

Uh, hate to bring you back to english [sic] class, but a proper noun includes names, tribes, cities, and places, of which there are probobly [sic] at least 180.

But they weren't actually added to the English language, now were they?

Lets [sic] take the example of the holocaust: [sic] lots [sic] of people don't think somthing of that magnitude could actually happen, but did it? yes. [sic] do [sic] those peoples' belief that it wasen't [sic] real make it any LESS real? no. [sic]

We have proof of events which took place during the Holocaust. We don't have evidence of the events which supposedly took place in the Book of Mormon. Therein lies the difference.

the [sic] vast majority of those were grammer [sic] changes so people didin't [sic] have such a hard time with Hebrew grammer, [sic] and most of the others seem to me like easy mistakes that got into the Printer's manuscript.

Then you're wrong on both counts. "Bad English" is not a synonym for "Hebrew grammar."

Rightttt, I thought his face was in a hat?  kind [sic] of hard to read a manuscript without any light!

Unless the whole magic-rock-in-a-hat trick was a dog & pony show for the, er, "edification" of his followers.

Not a single shred of evidence can ever be found to verify anything in your book.

Tell that to Hugh Nibley.

Oh, I'd love to!

Heh, I never understood the whole ""thee and thou" thing. The Prophets who wrote the plates didin't [sic] all have a degree from harvard! [sic]

But God's credentials are even better than a degree from Harvard, last I checked.

For by the weak and unlearned does God thrash the nations, but by people like who [sic] professing yourself wise have shown yourself a fool.

How so? Please give specifics.

[alienward]

And the thought that I could have done it within 60 to 80 days is simply absurd.  I keep detailed records of my writing, and have now done so for five years.  I have never been able to sustain that pace of writing -- roughly 3000-4000 publishable words daily over a period of 8-10 weeks -- nor anything close to it, even though I write exceptionally rapidly.

Again the apologists start talking about something that has no relation to the production of the BoM. Not only is Smith claimed to have had the plates in his possession for a year and a half before he began the translation as presented by the apologist, he is claimed to have translated a fifth of the book during that year and a half. Smith had plenty of time to prepare those notes he was sneaking in and out of his hat, and even got some extra practice when Satan was going to alter the manuscript using the scribe's handwriting.

[John]

There are ruins in Egypt, too. That doesn't mean they are from the Nephites and Lamanites, however

We aren't talking about the ruins in Egypt, we are talking about Central and South America. Those temples and pyramids were build by someone who required a place to perform rituals and who kept a calander; it isin't absolute proof, but it's just another piece of evidence (I highly doubt that Joseph Smith knew there was pyramids and ruins--including highways and such--in central / south america when he "wrote" the book of Mormon.

It's my understanding that they're upwards of 95% exact quotes, not just 50%. (Yeah, that's right, you heard me, ISAIAH!)

Well, your wrong.

A quote from: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/kingjames.htm

"For example, of 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon, 46 percent are identical to those in the Bible, while 54 percent are modified to some extent. These different verses have been of great use to LDS scholars. Several Hebrew literary structures are found only in a degraded form in the King James Bible, while those literary structures are complete and intact in the Book of Mormon. This shows that the brass plates version found in the Book of Mormon was a different, older Isaiah text."

What are those dozen subjects?

I can easily find you a dozen if you really want, but just a few from the top of my heard are Lehi's talk about Law and Sin, many of Nephi's discussions with his brothers about having more faith, Jacob's talk (can't remember what it was on, but it was like Jacob 3 or 4), Alma's discussion on Faith, hope, how to test if somthing is true, Abinadi's last little talk, King benjamin's talk which covered many subjects, Alma gave quite a few as well. Want me to go on?

Stephen King succeeds at it at least once a year

Yea, but Stephen King gets paid to do that, Joseph Smith had to PAY to get it printed. (hmm, interesting paralell to missionary work? Others church pay their clergy, and we go out and pay to be there).

Even if he wrote it himself--which I don't necessarily believe--he had since his childhood to make up conditions, events, and characters in the Book.

*sigh* Joseph Smith's life was not a conspiracy!

But they weren't actually added to the English language, now were they?

Hmm, lets find out. Go to www.google.com punch in a Book of Mormon name and see if it brings anything up. If you get more then 100 hits, I would consider it part of the language.

We have proof of events which took place during the Holocaust. We don't have evidence of the events which supposedly took place in the Book of Mormon. Therein lies the difference.

Heh, and there are STILL a lot of people that don't believe that the holocaust happened. Maybe when somebody tells you that the holocaust didin't happen you will understand how us Mormons feel when you say the events in the Book of Mormon didin't happen.

Then you're wrong on both counts. "Bad English" is not a synonym for "Hebrew grammar

your correct, they aren't the same thing, but 12 contractions in one sentance in english is horrible grammer, in Hebrew they need to put little pauses in there or else it doesen't make sense. They also put little stops inbetween seperate thoughts (I once heard someone tell me that those stops translate roughly to "and it came to pass").

Unless the whole magic-rock-in-a-hat trick was a dog & pony show for the, er, "edification" of his followers.

You cannot say that he was reading his source material at the same time his face was in a dark hat, you have to choose one untruth or the other, but not both.

QUOTE

[Tetraforce]

hymns and poems, . . .

Which the Book of Mormon contains none of.

Look, if you don't know the simplest things about the Book of Mormon well enough to know this, then I guess I can't depend on you to understand the bigger things you keep complaining about. I'm particularly refuring to Nephi

[Daniel Peterson]

When Mr. Shades claims that there is no poetry in the Book of Mormon, he presumably means that there is nothing like the sonnets or the rhymed iambic pentameter to which he was exposed as an English major. There are, however, passages in the Book of Mormon that very arguably reflect underlying poetry of a Hebrew/Semitic type that isn't studied in typical undergraduate English programs. Donald Parry (BYU) and R. Dilworth Rust (University of North Carolina) are only two of the scholars who have pointed such passages out in print. I suspect that Mr. Shades is unaware of the studies treating this topic.

On a different topic, one of the many examples that are frequently cited of the meanness and personal nastiness of the FARMS Review, which I edit, is the fact that we occasionally use the term sic when quoting words or phrases or passages from others that are ungrammatical or otherwise contain incorrect English. Perhaps -- I don't remember -- Mr. Shades himself is among those who have objected to our (entirely proper) use of that term. We have, however, never used it in anything even close to the repetitive and clearly mocking way that he does, above.

[Ray Agostini]

He must write a history of an ancient country (such as Tibet), covering a period from 600 BC to 421 AD. Put the history into a book with 102 chapters

[John Russell]

Alienward said:

Again the apologists start talking about something that has no relation to the production of the BoM. Not only is Smith claimed to have had the plates in his possession for a year and a half before he began the translation as presented by the apologist, he is claimed to have translated a fifth of the book during that year and a half. Smith had plenty of time to prepare those notes he was sneaking in and out of his hat, and even got some extra practice when Satan was going to alter the manuscript using the scribe's handwriting.

Regardless, it should be remembered that Joseph Smith didn't lead the life of a late 20th/early 21st Century American, where leisure time for pursuing trivial entertainment was and is abundant. He had to farm to make a living, which was arduous in those days. Even in the thick of translating, he still had most of his regular daily tasks to perform. Considering he had no background in extensive writing or in publishing anything, how logical is it that even 80% of a book of that size could be easily compiled in 8-10 weeks? This is, of course, the logic for a pre-existing text. However, there is no evidence for any text being used during the process, and those close to Joseph never mention him using any written materials. This seems to be a forgotten disconnect between the Spalding/Ethan Smith documents and the Book of Mormon. Despite similarities (which, in my opinion, are underwhelming), there still is absolutely no point of connection between Joseph Smith and these other documents.

[hondo]

One thing that I find cool about the whole Book of Mormon is that when the three witnesses left, some of the eight witnesses and the early leaders none of them ever said that Joseph Smith told them to say certain stuff or that the whole thing was a ruse. I think the one book that blows holes into this idea of another writer is Richard LLoyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. If some think that he is biased then you can look up his references yourself. Which is one reason that references are given.

[hondo]

I suppose some one might say that the church archives are suppressing vital information that casts doubt on the validity of the witnesses. I do not think so becasue the witnesses came back and testified that the church was true and the Book of Mormon was true, except david whitmer but he testified it was true, I think that the archivist and historians who hold the documents would leave if they read damaging stuff about the early restoration but I don't know anyone who has left because of that. Why is Hugh Nibley, Truman Madsen, the late? Roy Doxey or other professors emeritus still active? Surely in all their years and years of study they would have come across a reference or a footnote or something that would indicate a ruse by Joseph Smith. They have nothing to prove anymore, no academic hoops to hurl through, just a thought.

[t2t2]

Goethe:

1. Inverted Parallelism Or Chiasmus

Then to a flowing stream I ran,--

The stream ran past me hastily.

2. Inverted Parallelism Or Chiasmus

No! in truth there's here no lack:

White the bread, the maidens black!

To another town, next night:

Black the bread, the maidens white!

3. Antithetic Parallelism

Silence, loved one, my heart!

Cracking, let it not break!

Breaking, break not with thee!

4. Synonymous Parallelism

WHAT wondrous noise is heard around!

Through heaven exulting voices sound,

5. Synonymous Parallelism

Attempts to fly, but vain is flight;

Vainly she hastes to 'scape pursuit

I only had to look through a few of his poems to see examples of such. His prose is not meant to mimic Biblical stylings, so of course there are subtle differences.

The point being - Joseph Smith was just using basic poetic lines. Chiasmus aren't Hebrew artifacts - they're poetic artifacts found in lines from poems all over the world over the last couple thousand years.

[t2t2]

But it does go to show that given time most literary frauds are exposed. There is no consensus that the Book of Mormon has been "exposed" at all. Quite the contrary it contains many things consistent with Mesoamerican culture, as noted by Brant.

This is specious. There's no consensus because science considers the BOM so lacking in positive evidence that they don't even deam it worthy of negation. It's just fiction.

As for similarities to the BoM? John says pyramids found in meso-America are evidence for the BoM. Um...where does the BoM say 'pyramid'? It says temples, sure. But practically every culture has had temples. The Bible is full of them. Rome had them. The Greeks. The word "temple" has been associated with every ancient civilization Joseph would have ever heard about. No stretch for him to plug it into a story about Indians.

I wonder what archaeological find has overwhelmingly said "Lamanite or Nephite" to you guys.

-------------

One thing that I find cool about the whole Book of Mormon is that when the three witnesses left, some of the eight witnesses and the early leaders none of them ever said that Joseph Smith told them to say certain stuff or that the whole thing was a ruse.

I live in Texas. We execute a LOT of people. Some are retarded. Some are crazy. But we love to kill people here so they all die.

With a wife who's addicted to crime stories and shows I see a lot of the stories that come up each time someone here is executed. These days most of the cases are pretty tight. The one thing that strikes me over and over is how few ever death-bed confess. They're lying on the table ready to go and they proclaim their innocence. DNA proves their guilt. And still they testify.

Why is this?? Legacy? Pride? I dunno. But I can see a bunch of men who once said they saw an angel finding themselves later afraid of recanting. Who would believe a thing they say after admitting to a lie like that? Maybe better to just say "Joseph's a fallen prophet - but we never lied". That said - several of them did clarify the experiences later and it appears that there are conflicting accounts as to whether they literally saw these things or saw them only in a "dream" or "vision".

[pseudogratix]

science considers the BOM so lacking in positive evidence that they don't even deam it worthy of negation.

Sigh. Science isn't a person. It doesn't consider, eat, breathe, express opinions, or make claims. Also, they certainly doesn't fit here either.

[hondo]

maybe someone should get a law degree and PH.D. and write a book exposing the witnesses and how another person with the same credentials got it wrong. I would buy that book!

[t2t2]

Sigh. Science isn't a person. It doesn't consider, eat, breathe, express opinions, or make claims. Also, they certainly doesn't fit here either.

Heh...if one cannot tackle the ideas contained in a post one might as well attack the grammar, spelling and/or usage of words.

"While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations" How can science reach an important conclusion? It doesn't eat, drink or express opinions. That idiot Einstein!! I wish you had been around in his day to correct him.

I don't think the Church cares so much about what or how you believe but what you do. How can a church care? It doesn't think, does it? Again - this is poor English. You should correct him. Oh wait - this was you. Let me help you out. A church does not think, teach, breathe or express opinions.

You also say "The Bible never mentions itself." on Oct. 20th and 1 day later say "Sigh. The Bible doesn't do anything, let alone teach." in response to someone saying "The Bible teaches that...".

Hypocrite. Most of us are pretty forgiving when it comes to grammar, spelling and the like. And if you want to debate the content and merit of the posts - great. Just keep your word usage attacks to yourself lest you find your own under scrutiny.

[pseudogratix]

Heh...if one cannot tackle the ideas contained in a post one might as well attack the grammar, spelling and/or usage of words...

Wow, it looks like I have a stalker. I feel so honored. So, after all that diversion on your part, perhaps you would consider trying to better articulate what it was that you really intended to say when you wrote "science considers the BOM so lacking in positive evidence that they don't even deam it worthy of negation."

BTW, "the Church" in this forum stands for "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and in my usage in the case cited properly represents a body of members (people). However, "the Bible" or "science" can't be properly used in replace a body of theologians/believers and scientists. I am sure you will agree that Einstein was incorrect in his usage.

[t2t2]

Nah...not a stalker. Knew nothing about you before that last post. I just know a hypocrite when I see/hear one.

What did Einstein mean when he said "Science...may reach important conclusions.."? Did he think there was some man named "science" who walked around explaining how the world worked? No. If you've ever studied languages, ours or another, you know that there are various forms. Studying Korean over the years I'm constantly amazed at Korean vs. colloquial Korean. Big differences in many cases. Like English vs. Bush's English. Some might say he speaks a totally different dialect. The thing is...would you stop him in a conversation and point out his errors? Of course not. You know what he means. I know what he means, even if I privately get a kick out of it. We try to be polite to each other. It's the Christian thing to do. It's the golden rule. If you don't follow it you will find it sneaking up behind you to whack you in the back - like it did you just now.

What did I mean when I said "There's no consensus because science considers the BOM so lacking in positive evidence that they don't even deam it worthy of negation". ?

Well...as you pointed out, I used a "they" in the sentence. Odds are I was referring to more than one person. No? Let's re-write it to read in a way that anyone who wasn't looking to pick on another would have taken it in the first place: There's no consensus amongst scientists because they consider the BoM so lacking in positive evidence that they don't deem it worthy of negation.

Outside of a few LDS men of science (who start from a much different vantage of faith) there is no reason within the vast community of scientists to look into the idea that the BoM explains any part of meso-American history. Specifically, and again outside of LDS members, I know of no credible expert on the whole region of central America/Mexico who believes any part of the BoM. But I would be happy to entertain your own finds in this area.

With millions of individuals who are referenced in the BoM - why did not one leave a signature or marker clear enough to positively say "This was Nephite or Lamanite in origin."?

[t2t2]

BTW, "the Church" in this forum stands for "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and in my usage in the case cited properly represents a body of members (people).

And yet is still incorrect. Science can certainly represent "the body of scientists". Does that mean ALL scientists agree? No. It just means that the vast majority will conceed said point. If you say "the church says X" you cannot possibly mean every single member agrees, can you? No. Heck - I'm a member, technically, and I likely don't agree. It's either or. Can't have it both ways.

[pseudogratix]

There's no consensus amongst scientists because they consider the BoM so lacking in positive evidence that they don't deem it worthy of negation.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Perhaps you can start citing some real scientists (not theologian-wannabes that think they are scientists) that have actually gone public (in a journal, et al) with scientific studies regarding the Book of Mormon, in the which they have expressed that they, in their scientific opinion, find the Book of Mormon "so lacking in positive evidence that they don't deem it worthy of negation."

[Daniel2]

Ahhh.... I remember first reading a similar type 'challenge' from my Seminary days... Something like "30 Things You'd Have to Do to Write Something Similar to 'The Book of Mormon'" (and then proceeded with the 'Tibet' challenge...). We even used it a few times to give to investigators on my mission. Quite the persuasive document for 'Milk-Feed' minds...

I recently came across the following two links, which are particularly relevant to this so-called 'challenge.' As marvolous a work of literature as it is, it seems like much of the 'Book of Mormon' isn't necessarily as 'original' or 'challenging' as I once believed:

http://www.mormonstudies.com/early2.htm

http://www.post-mormons.com/whitefield.htm

http://www.post-mormons.com/tories.htm

Hmmm.... amazing coincidence..?!

[pseudogratix]

I recently came across the following two links...

...Hmmm.... amazing coincidence..?!

Sigh. Scripture and Influential Writings > Book of Mormon > Textual Issues @ http://fairlds.org/apol/ai111.html

Scripture and Influential Writings > Book of Mormon > Environmental Influences @ http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai275.html

[t2t2]

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Perhaps you can start citing some real scientists (not theologian-wannabes that think they are scientists) that have actually gone public (in a journal, et al) with scientific studies regarding the Book of Mormon, in the which they have expressed that they, in their scientific opinion, find the Book of Mormon "so lacking in positive evidence that they don't deem it worthy of negation."

I said there is NO consensus because the BoM is not deemed worthy of an investigation in the first place. Anyone who has looked at both the BoM and studied meso-America can see the obvious problems right off the bat. No need to go deeper.

Example:

Why are scientists not pooring their energy into the claims made by the Flat Earth Society? Are there scientists out there spending their time refuting these claims? Um - not many. Why not? Because, like the above with the BoM, there's so little to nothing positive to their claims they don't seem it even worthy of negation.

You don't HAVE to negate the idea that the Holocaust never happened...though I personally know someone who believes that. You don't HAVE to challenge the point that the US government has men on Mars in a secret program they don't want us to know about...though there's a group out there that thinks this. Are scientists being lax for ignoring these claims? I don't think so. Maybe you disagree.

The point is that the absense of a group of scientists crusading against the BoM says nothing for the validity of the book. It's the opposite.