Joseph Smith's intelligence

[Amulek]

On 12/11/2019 at 10:53 AM, alter idem said:

What is complex about the Book of Mormon is the wealth of information found there that needed to not contradict what was said earlier--keeping track of maps, peoples, events, etc.  That is complex and considering it spans 100s of years and different cultures, it would've been a feat to be able to do that, IMO.

Exactly. Complex in terms of multiple, complicated, interrelated parts that all come together seamlessly. Not complex in terms of verbiage or whatnot.

 

[alter idem]

On 12/11/2019 at 12:40 PM, Calm said:

There is the Senior family and Junior family. The question is I believe if the Junior family had one while the BoM was being translated. Iirc, there was an occasion those involved borrowed a bible to check something or had to buy one**** and that has led to speculation. A record of them needing to borrow a Bible would be the only reason imo to wonder if they had one all the time due to the importance of the Bible in the general community as well as it appearing to be important to Joseph himself, which leads me to assume it would be a high priority to have one available.  Iow, the default position is assume they owned a Bible unless something pretty solid suggests otherwise  

It seems probable that they had a family bible relatively early in their married life, but at times they were living in others’ homes iirc and I wonder if some of their possessions were stored or maybe sold to pay for expenses of moving.  If so, that might explain the absence of what was a typical family possession of the time as they might assume they could use the Bible of the family they stayed with.  Also Emma and Joseph eloped and therefore might have been missing some of the usual family basics for awhile.

****https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_own_a_Bible_at_the_time_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation%3F

 

Thanks for this information.  My assumption has always been that when he read that passage in James, he was reading his family's bible.  The church does have two bibles, that belonged to Hyrum Smith, I think dated 1833 and 34; he probably bought them himself.  Wasn't Joseph staying at the Whitmer's home in 1829, while working on the Book of Mormon?  I'd assume the Whitmer family would have a Bible also.

https://findingaid.lib.byu.edu/viewItem/Vault MSS 774/Series 4/

Edited December 12, 2019 by alter idem

[Meadowchik]

On 12/10/2019 at 5:41 PM, Amulek said:

Which tells us what, exactly?

Is the Old Testament somehow not scripture just because literary critics aren't inspired by reading page after page of genealogies or chapter after chapter detailing the differences between sin offerings vs peace offerings, etc.?

I'm sorry, but this doesn't even make sense as a criticism. It's like a complete, category error, in fact. 

 

 

It's actually just creating a reference for the claims about complexity, etc..., because criticism frequently favours literary works that are more skillful, which can involve managing high complexity.

[Meadowchik]

On 12/10/2019 at 5:45 PM, alter idem said:

I'm always skeptical of things read out of context.  I have no knowledge that anyone other than critics claiming Brigham H. Roberts lost his testimony of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.  And thankfully, Fairmormon has put an extensive article online which explains the purpose of these studies he wrote.  My suggestion is that you and anyone else who has questions about B.H. Roberts or believes the critic's claims that he lost his testimony, ought to read it.

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

A couple of excerpts from the article:

 

 

 

 

Hold on there, I have not argued about Robert's testimony, so you can put that strawman away I've quoted a statement he made to demonstrate a church historian's literary-related analysis, regardless of his overall conclusions about the work.

 

[Meadowchik]

On 12/10/2019 at 5:47 PM, alter idem said:

Agreed.  But there is also no need to frame B.H. Roberts as having lost his testimony in the Book of Mormon or in Joseph Smith jr. as a Prophet of God.  There might be people like that, but Roberts wasn't one of them and the article above shows this.

I did not say he did.

[Meadowchik]

On 12/10/2019 at 6:08 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

And far less complex. 

Actually, that isn't conceded. Some scholars believe that some of the vocabulary in the Book of Mormon was likely above Joseph Smith's ability. Furthermore, linguistic research shows that the text's lexis, grammar, and syntax (its words and the ways they are arranged) is consistent with extrabiblical and biblical Early Modern English, and furthermore that this archaic English is absent in Joseph Smith's linguistic environment (or anywhere, else, for that matter) in the textual record in the early 19th century. I don't want to hash out the merits of the so-called Early Modern English theory, but it is backed up by lots of hard linguistic data researched by experts in that field. This is all simply to point out that your premise isn't conceded. The Book of Mormon isn't a typical of example of an early 19th century English text, and standard linguistic assumptions would preclude Joseph Smith from having the linguistic ability to have produced it. 

Here is much of the research to which I am referring:

Skousen and Carmack, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon; Stanford Carmack, “Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28 (2018): 177–232; Stanford Carmack, “Barlow on Book of Mormon Language: An Examination of Some Strained Grammar” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 185–196; Stanford Carmack, “How Joseph Smith’s Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 25 (2017): 239–259; Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack, “Editing Out the ‘Bad Grammar’ in the Book of Mormon,” The Interpreter Foundation, 2016; Stanford Carmack, “The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 79–108; Stanford Carmack, “The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 109–137; Stanford Carmack, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 41–61; Stanford Carmack, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 33–40; Stanford Carmack, “Exploding the Myth of Unruly Book of Mormon Grammar: A Look at the Excellent Match with Early Modern English,” The Interpreter Foundation/BYU Studies, 2015; Royal Skousen, “‘A theory! A theory! We have already got a theory, and there cannot be any more theories!’” The Interpreter Foundation/BYU Studies, 2015; Stanford Carmack, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 65–77; Stanford Carmack, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 14 (2015): 119–186; Stanford Carmack, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 175–217; Stanford Carmack, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11 (2014): 209–262. 

I am talking about the time it takes to say the words. 

[Meadowchik]

On 12/10/2019 at 7:06 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

But I think we all place limits on what we think human beings will reasonably be capable of doing. It is true, for example, that some humans can run a mile in under 4 minutes. It is also true that some humans can juggle more than 10 balls at a time. But is it plausible that some human can run a mile in under 4 minutes while juggling more than ten balls at a time?

By analogy, that is sort of like what you are proposing about the Book of Mormon. Some authors can write complex and consistent books. Some authors can write a lot of impressive words in a short amount of time, with few revisions. Some authors can write impressive works of literature with limited literary experience or education. Some people can produce fairly impressive (although not usually complex) stories through oral discourse. But all of these things on their own are fairly rare. And together they are, to my knowledge, completely unprecedented.

I think you are missing the point, which is that when you combine separate difficult tasks together, their compounded difficulty is amplified. No one can prove that it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon under the circumstances described by the witnesses. Yet, no one can prove that it is humanly impossible to run a mile in under 4 minutes while simultaneously juggling more than 10 balls. All one can do is make reasonable inferences about how difficult such feats would be and note that, so far, they are unprecedented. 

For me, when all of these relevant factors are accounted for, I find it highly implausible that Joseph Smith could have produced the text of the Book of Mormon, and in my mind that provides one good reason to believe that the text was produced by the gift and power of God. I don't think the argument can go much beyond that. If someone isn't inclined to accept the miraculous nature of the text, they will likely try to make the extrapolations (however unproven, unprecedented, and, imo, unlikely as they may be) that you seem to favor.

 

 

Even that assumes, that if not divinely aided, Smith must have invented all of it on the spot. You're arguing for complexity (the juggling balls) being produced as he dictated.

Yet as I've already pointed out, Smith had already been producing content very similar before the 65 days of dictation. To use your analogy, evidence confirms that a very significant amount of juggling occured when he was not running.  Possibly the most difficult bits.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Ryan Dahle]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I am talking about the time it takes to say the words. 

Oh, gotcha. In other words, you are conceding, for the sake of argument, that Joseph actually did dictate those words in the estimated timeframe. As supported by quite a bit of historical documentation:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-is-the-timing-of-the-book-of-mormons-translation-so-marvelous

which is based primarily on: 

John W. Welch, “Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon: ‘Days [and Hours] Never to Be Forgotten’,” BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2018): 10–50.

 

 

[Ryan Dahle]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Even that assumes, that if not divinely aided, Smith must have invented all of it on the spot. You're arguing for complexity (the juggling balls) being produced as he dictated.

Yet as I've already pointed out, Smith had already been producing content very similar before the 65 days of dictation. To use your analogy, evidence confirms that a very significant amount of juggling occured when he was not running.  Possibly the most difficult bits.

Actually, I think it makes little difference if he was mentally or physically outlining the text or creating notes beforehand.

But, as for physical notes or outlines, we don't have any physical evidence or reports from Joseph's spouse, family members, or acquaintances that he did create such items. And because we would expect someone to have noticed such activities, the absence of evidence in this context provides a pretty good reason to assume he wasn't involved in creating such items.

As for mental notes, that is simply unprovable either way. Joseph's recitations (to his family) of information that he learned from his interviews with Moroni don't, imo, at all count as evidence that he was actually mentally drafting the specific complexities found in the Book of Mormon. Clearly the Book of Mormon narrative or peoples were, in some form, on his mind (either because Moroni was explaining things to him or, as skeptics assume, because he was concocting it from his imagination), but vague accounts of his recitations don't provide evidence that he had mentally mapped out the complex features found in the final text of the Book of Mormon. Most of them aren't the types of things you can just think about beforehand and then integrate into your story. 

For example, I have been planning to write a complex novel for years. I think about it often. I have told my family about many aspects of it. I have asked them to help me brainstorm ideas about it. But none of my very extensive preparations are even close to sufficient for me to start dictating the final version of the text for hours on end without revisions. Not even close. There are still so many little details that I haven't worked out. Plot threads, characters, world-building elements, etc.

So, based on my personal experience and my familiarity with how most complex novels are produced, Lucy's recollection that Joseph was telling his family stories about the Nephites doesn't mean much. There is a huge difference between thinking about writing a complex book, or preparing notes or outlines for writing a complex book, and actually writing a complex book, especially for a first time author with limited education. I don't think Joseph Smith could have created the text at all, under any circumstances, much less dictate it day after day without notes, outlines, or reference materials present in the translation sessions. 

By the way, are you actually very familiar with the Book of Mormon's degree of complexity? Is it something you have studied in depth? Have you personally read the relevant literature, of which there is a lot? If not, then you and I probably have very different conceptions of what the text is even like. 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Oh, gotcha. In other words, you are conceding, for the sake of argument, that Joseph actually did dictate those words in the estimated timeframe. As supported by quite a bit of historical documentation:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-is-the-timing-of-the-book-of-mormons-translation-so-marvelous

which is based primarily on: 

John W. Welch, “Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon: ‘Days [and Hours] Never to Be Forgotten’,” BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2018): 10–50.

 

 

I am trying to examine your argument objectively and be specific as possible about the limitations. I can agree that there are limits on how fast words can be pronounced. According to a word counting algorithm I use, it takes a bit less than 24 hours to read 250k words.

This isn't intended to be exact, but just to give a point of reference: if Joseph worked five days a week for 8 weeks, that makes forty days. On average, "24 hours of words" means 36 minutes of words per day if spoken at normal speed. Of course I don't think anyone expects a dictation at normal speaking speed.

The point is the pauses and speed. In a full 8-hour day's work, that would mean 12 minutes of pausing for every 1 minute of speaking. Or smaller pauses and slower speaking.

So, imagine that.

29 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Actually, I think it makes little difference whether he was mentally outlining the text or creating notes beforehand, (of which we don't have any evidence that he did). There is a huge difference between thinking about writing a book, or preparing notes or outlines for writing a book, and actually writing it, especially for a first time author, and especially for a book like the Book of Mormon. I don't think he could have created the text at all, under any circumstances, much less dictate it day after day without notes, outlines, or reference materials present in the translation sessions. 

We have the reports of the 116 pages, which are supposed to be very similar to major portions of the Book of Mormon, in addition to Joseph telling his family stories of the Book of Mormon peoples. So there is the argument that a significant portion of the Book of Mormon, or something extremely similar, was indeed already put down on paper through Joseph Smith.

 

37 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Are you actually very familiar with the Book of Mormon's degree of complexity? Is it something you have studied in depth? Have you personally read the relevant literature, of which there is a lot? If not, then you and I probably have very different conceptions of what the text is even like. 

I am willing to concede levels of sophisticated complexity. And I also think writers are able to create complex patterns on intuitive levels, not always requiring diagrams or post-it notes. 

One thing I've learned living in many countries of foreign languages and dialects, learning and watching my children learn languages, and teaching English professionally, is that people can vary vastly in verbal and linguistic abilities. Stories are a skill as old as language itself and I fully believe we have the evidence to suggest Joseph Smith was a naturally skilled storyteller, even extremely so.

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Actually, I think it makes little difference whether he was mentally outlining the text or creating notes beforehand, (of which we don't have any evidence that he did). There is a huge difference between thinking about writing a book, or preparing notes or outlines for writing a book, and actually writing it, especially for a first time author, and especially for a book like the Book of Mormon. I don't think he could have created the text at all, under any circumstances, much less dictate it day after day without notes, outlines, or reference materials present in the translation sessions. 

Are you actually very familiar with the Book of Mormon's degree of complexity? Is it something you have studied in depth? Have you personally read the relevant literature, of which there is a lot? If not, then you and I probably have very different conceptions of what the text is even like. 

I disagree, I think it takes more time to compile all of it. 

[Ryan Dahle]

24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We have the reports of the 116 pages, which are supposed to be very similar to major portions of the Book of Mormon, in addition to Joseph telling his family stories of the Book of Mormon peoples. So there is the argument that a significant portion of the Book of Mormon, or something extremely similar, was indeed already put down on paper through Joseph Smith.

Except, it could actually be argued that the lost 116 pages would have made things more difficult. Have you ever heard of complexity creep. You get a novel you have been working on for years mostly finished, and then all of a sudden you have to substantially change its beginning. Besides, if the texts are different enough, then you have to introduce new types of complexity to replace the old complexity that you had supposedly had more time to work out. And you would have to make it all integrate at the end. I just don't see this helping your argument any, especially when, in my opinion, many of the most complex aspects of the book are between Mosiah and 3 Nephi anyway. 

See, for example,

Alan Goff, “Positivism and the Priority of Ideology in Mosiah-First Theories of Book of Mormon Production,” FARMS Review 16, no. 1 (2004): 11–36.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Are you actually very familiar with the Book of Mormon's degree of complexity? Is it something you have studied in depth? Have you personally read the relevant literature, of which there is a lot? If not, then you and I probably have very different conceptions of what the text is even like. 

I am willing to concede levels of sophisticated complexity. And I also think writers are able to create complex patterns on intuitive levels, not always requiring diagrams or post-it notes. 

One thing I've learned living in many countries of foreign languages and dialects, learning and watching my children learn languages, and teaching English professionally, is that people can vary vastly in verbal and linguistic abilities. Stories are a skill as old as language itself and I fully believe we have the evidence to suggest Joseph Smith was a naturally skilled storyteller, even extremely so.

But are you actually deeply familiar with the Book of Mormon and the specific types of complexity that are involved? Have you personally read the relevant literature? If not, then you probably have no idea what I am even talking about. Honestly. 

 

BTW: I added a bit more to my post that your comment is responding to (after you responded). You may want to see the updated content.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This isn't intended to be exact, but just to give a point of reference: if Joseph worked five days a week for 8 weeks, that makes forty days. On average, "24 hours of words" means 36 minutes of words per day if spoken at normal speed. Of course I don't think anyone expects a dictation at normal speaking speed.

The point is the pauses and speed. In a full 8-hour day's work, that would mean 12 minutes of pausing for every 1 minute of speaking. Or smaller pauses and slower speaking.

I personally have conducted translation experiments pertaining to the Book of Mormon, and the rates come out just about right. Remember the text had to be read back to him to avoid audio transcription errors (and perhaps visual and speaking errors on his part). Either way, 7-8 pages a day of essentially finalized text is extremely fast, especially for a complex text like the Book of Mromon. So I'm not really sure what your overall point is. Sure, people can talk faster than the translation took place. It is still way beyond normal.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Actually, I think it makes little difference if he was mentally or physically outlining the text or creating notes beforehand.

But, as for physical notes or outlines, we don't have any physical evidence or reports from Joseph's spouse, family members, or acquaintances that he did create such items. And because we would expect someone to have noticed such activities, the absence of evidence in this context provides a pretty good reason to assume he wasn't involved in creating such items.

As for mental notes, that is simply unprovable either way. Joseph's recitations (to his family) of information that he learned from his interviews with Moroni don't, imo, at all count as evidence that he was actually mentally drafting the specific complexities found in the Book of Mormon. Clearly the Book of Mormon narrative or peoples were, in some form, on his mind (either because Moroni was explaining things to him or, as skeptics assume, because he was concocting it from his imagination), but vague accounts of his recitations don't provide evidence that he had mentally mapped out the complex features found in the final text of the Book of Mormon. Most of them aren't the types of things you can just think about beforehand and then integrate into your story. 

For example, I have been planning to write a complex novel for years. I think about it often. I have told my family about many aspects of it. I have asked them to help me brainstorm ideas about it. But none of my very extensive preparations are even close to sufficient for me to start dictating the final version of the text for hours on end without revisions. Not even close. There are still so many little details that I haven't worked out. Plot threads, characters, world-building elements, etc.

So, based on my personal experience and my familiarity with how most complex novels are produced, Lucy's recollection that Joseph was telling his family stories about the Nephites doesn't mean much. There is a huge difference between thinking about writing a complex book, or preparing notes or outlines for writing a complex book, and actually writing a complex book, especially for a first time author with limited education. I don't think Joseph Smith could have created the text at all, under any circumstances, much less dictate it day after day without notes, outlines, or reference materials present in the translation sessions. 

By the way, are you actually very familiar with the Book of Mormon's degree of complexity? Is it something you have studied in depth? Have you personally read the relevant literature, of which there is a lot? If not, then you and I probably have very different conceptions of what the text is even like. 

Regarding the significance of the absence of mental notes, or your experience writing (of which I can empathize), we're not just talking about improbability but impossibility. Objectively, the most you might establish is a level of improbability, based on available information. (And that relies upon a significant concession to the limited quantity and nature of testimonials.)

Regarding your question about my familiarity with the literature, I'm sure I'm not as familiar with it as you are, atleast not regarding the Book of Mormon. But I do have an appreciation for probabilities and mathematical relationships and am accostomed to uncovering layers of meaning and patterns in literature.

I wonder if you've applied similar complexity tests to a proportional number of works unrelated to the Book of Mormon. Anyways, you're welcome to provide links to what you feel is the most compelling arguments for the literary skill demonstrated in its pages.

And before you continue to dismiss my point on the surprising capacity of human beings, let me (re)introduce you to Srinivasa Ramanujan, a largely self-taught mathematician who in solitary research solved several mathematical problems thought unsolvable. He died young, and even ninety years after his death mathematicians continued to identify results he produced that are much more profound than heretofore realized.

Humans are amazing.

 

[alter idem]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I did not say he did.

No, you did not.  But IMO, you implied it.  In one of your earlier responses to me, you quoted this from B.H. Roberts--and you bolded this portion.

Quote

but I shall hold that what is presented illustrates... that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator, it is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they came upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America.

Notice the elipses right before this statement that you bolded.   Sometimes elipses can be a problem.  But, this portion that you bolded, taken out of the context of Robert's writings, makes it sound like he is giving his own personal belief that Joseph Smith was the creator of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites, etc.   And why shouldn't I come to the conclusion that you are supporting that notion, since as you presented it, offering no explanation or background, it would seem you were suggesting it stand alone and speak for itself.  I had to look up the source material which was published as; 'Book of Mormon Studies'  by B.H. Roberts and read a lot of other information about it to figure out that his writings have been misrepresented and used by critics (namely James Spencer) to make the assertion that B. H. Roberts had lost his testimony in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.  If you did not want to support this assertion, you probably should not have presented in the manner you did.

[bdouglas]

41 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

But are you actually deeply familiar with the Book of Mormon and the specific types of complexity that are involved? Have you personally read the relevant literature? If not, then you probably have no idea what I am even talking about. Honestly. 

This, to me, is a key point. For example––

I have a friend, Mike (not his real name), who left the church a couple of years ago.

“Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon,” Mike said. “I’m 110% certain of this.”

But how familiar is Mike with the BOM?

“Well, I was raised in the church," Mike said, "plus I went on a mission and I was a High Councilman for three years.”

But I know Mike pretty well. I know for a fact that the only book he has ever really read, since returning from his mission, was “Think and Grow Rich”. He has never been a reader, and he has very little grasp of the kinds of complexity that are found in the BOM. He has no idea of the differences between fiction and something like the BOM (one is tidy, all the loose ends tied up, one is very messy, yet internally consistent); he has no idea of the kind of genius it would take to invent a new geography (there are over 400 references to geography in the BOM, almost all of them mentioned incidentally, and all internally consistent); and so on and so on.

Comparing the BOM to William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying” is as silly as comparing it to “War and Peace” or any other piece of fiction. The only book it could legitimately be compared would be the Bible––various authors i.e. distinct voices, long periods of time, grounding it in particular times, places and cultures, some vastly different (think how different the Book of Ether is from 1 Nephi); etc., etc.

What kind of genius would it take to create a book like this, like the BOM? It would take a genius the like of which the world has never seen before.

And it would also take an evil genius (no, the "pious fraud" theory doesn't work, not at all), someone willing (and able!) to manufacture fake plates, a Urimm and Thummin, somehow bamboozling the witnesses, somehow concocting other visions witnessed by others, pretending to dictate incredible revelations (and they are incredible!––unlike anything even found in the Bible) in the presence of others, when really he was just reciting something he’d concocted and committed to memory the night before; and so on and so on.

And he would have had to pass off this deception/fraud every day of his life, from 1820 to the day he died, not just in the presence of other church leaders like Brigham Young (who had a very finely-tuned b.s. detector) but Emma and other family members who knew him intimately.

If there is such a thing as a prophet, Joseph Smith was one of them. If he wasn’t … well then, I look forward to the ex-/anti-Mormons  coming up with a theory that actually works for everything he produced, did and said from 1820 to the day he died.

[bdouglas]

Let’s look at some of this complexity––

Of the BOM Title Page, Joseph Smith said:

Quote

I wish to mention here that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that said title page is not by any means a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation.

Why would JS put the Title Page at the back of the BOM, a book the ex-/anti-Mormons say is a product of the 19th century i.e. a it came out of JS’s own head? A book's title page should appear at the front of the book, not the back. (I will let the scholars who visit this site answer the question why the BOM's title page appears at the end of the book. Hint: That's where title pages appeared in ancient writing.)

One imagines Joseph Smith, up late in the log cabin he shared with his family, surrounded by sleeping siblings (they hadn't yet moved into the frame house), a candle burning, and unknown to everyone else, he is writing a book. (Where did he get the paper, pen and ink to write this book? Or maybe he wrote it in his head, committing it all to memory. If he wrote it, was there even a table to sit at? And when did he find the time to write it, since he worked literally every day excepting Sundays with his fathers and brothers, from dawn to dusk.)

“I think I’ll stick the title page in at the end, not the front,” he says, with a devilish smile, “and then I’ll have Nephi write in Reformed Egyptian. That’ll fox ‘em!”

The title page and Reformed Egyptian are only two examples of complexity, and we aren't even 5 lines into the book yet.

But there are hundreds, thousands, of details like this literally on every page of the BOM.

So forgive me if I say, “People who blithely say Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon”, or “The Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th century,” really don’t know what they’re talking about.

P.S. - I am aware that nothing I (an ordinary reader of the BOM, not a scholar) or any of the scholars (Hugh Nibley et al) say will move the typical ex-/anti-Mormon. Moroni could appear in the heavens with the Gold Plates, and the typical ex-/anti-Mormon would find a way to deny what he/she had plainly seen.

Belief is a choice, and unbelief is also a choice.

But for those who have chosen to believe, the evidences attesting to the authenticity of the BOM are on every page (literally).

Edited December 13, 2019 by bdouglas

[Ryan Dahle]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Regarding the significance of the absence of mental notes, or your experience writing (of which I can empathize), we're not just talking about improbability but impossibility. Objectively, the most you might establish is a level of improbability, based on available information. (And that relies upon a significant concession to the limited quantity and nature of testimonials.)

In my view, mental plans are far less important than, say, pre-written notes, outlines, or preliminary drafts, and especially the ability to make revisions. So I don't think it is really that relevant of a point. If someone wants to assume that Joseph Smith was one of those rare individuals with essentially total mental recall, and that he could apply his unusually gifted memory to his creative imaginings, and that his creative imagination of the text included tons of data-rich nuances, they are free to do so. They just need to realize how rare (and in this specific type of circumstance, probably unprecedented) that type of creative memorization would be, and also to account for the fact that those around Joseph never mentioned him manifesting such creativity/memorization skills in other relevant contexts. 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Regarding your question about my familiarity with the literature, I'm sure I'm not as familiar with it as you are, atleast not regarding the Book of Mormon. But I do have an appreciation for probabilities and mathematical relationships and am accostomed to uncovering layers of meaning and patterns in literature.

I wonder if you've applied similar complexity tests to a proportional number of works unrelated to the Book of Mormon. Anyways, you're welcome to provide links to what you feel is the most compelling arguments for the literary skill demonstrated in its pages.

No, I have never scientifically or systematically compared the Book of Mormon to other complex texts. I don't think anyone has, at least not in a holistic way. There is so much data in so many fields to wade through that it would be a very difficult project. It usually takes years of careful research to become passingly familiar with the nature of the Book of Mormon's complexity. And to compare all of that with multiple other texts on all the relevant levels would be a monumental task. But I am familiar with a variety of complex texts other than the Book of Mormon, and feel that I am at least somewhat qualified to reach preliminary conclusions about their comparative complexity. 

As for sources, you might start with Grant Hardy's, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide. I actually disagree, at least with the nuances, of a lot of Hardy's analysis, at least when he gets into speculative mind-reading about motivations. But overall, I think his book identifies numerous consistencies and patterns in editorial choices, the use of source texts, and narrative complexities. I could flood you with dozens of other sources, but that is a good place to start.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

And before you continue to dismiss my point on the surprising capacity of human beings, let me (re)introduce you to Srinivasa Ramanujan, a largely self-taught mathematician who in solitary research solved several mathematical problems thought unsolvable. He died young, and even ninety years after his death mathematicians continued to identify results he produced that are much more profound than heretofore realized.

Humans are amazing.

Yes, I am familiar with Ramanujan. A very impressive individual. But I don't think he is really that analogous.

And I think what you mean to say is that a very small portion of humans can do extraordinary things. Most of our abilities are rather ordinary. So, in context, very few humans are truly amazing. And, in the case of Joseph Smith's production of the Book of Mormon, his degree of amazing is to my knowledge unprecedented. 

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Yes, I am familiar with Ramanujan. A very impressive individual. But I don't think he is really that analogous.

And I think what you mean to say is that a very small portion of humans can do extraordinary things. Most of our abilities are rather ordinary. So, in context, very few humans are truly amazing. And, in the case of Joseph Smith's production of the Book of Mormon, his degree of amazing is to my knowledge unprecedented. 

I'll be curious as Teryl Givens latest on the Pearl of Great Price plays on these issues.  It seems he is very intent on suggesting that Joseph used materials of his day took them and incorporated them in his scripture production.  I do believe there is a yet to come out publication about Joseph using Adam Clark's bible commentary to help create the retranslation of the Bible.  GIvens, apparently, I haven't read it yet, suggests that the same could be said of the book of Moses and Abraham--Joseph used materials available to him, took pertinent parts and put them into his scripture.  

I dont' know, nor do I know if anyone does, if some of these same things can be shown to be true for the BOM.  The BoM could be inspired and still could be said to be written by Joseph.  As is the case with anything that inspires people--some of which things have proven to inspire far more than Joseph's BoM. 

[Ryan Dahle]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'll be curious as Teryl Givens latest on the Pearl of Great Price plays on these issues.  It seems he is very intent on suggesting that Joseph used materials of his day took them and incorporated them in his scripture production.  I do believe there is a yet to come out publication about Joseph using Adam Clark's bible commentary to help create the retranslation of the Bible.  GIvens, apparently, I haven't read it yet, suggests that the same could be said of the book of Moses and Abraham--Joseph used materials available to him, took pertinent parts and put them into his scripture.  

I dont' know, nor do I know if anyone does, if some of these same things can be shown to be true for the BOM.  The BoM could be inspired and still could be said to be written by Joseph.  As is the case with anything that inspires people--some of which things have proven to inspire far more than Joseph's BoM.

I haven't read his new book yet. I usually agree with (or at least closely align with) Jeff Lindsay on most issues, so I would probably have somewhat the same reaction he did:

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2019/11/review-of-terryl-givens-and-brian.html

As for the Book of Moses, I think it is very hard to assume that the majority of its contents came from materials available in Joseph Smith's environment. For instance, see 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/could-joseph-smith-have-drawn-on-ancient-manuscripts-when-he-translated-the-story-of-enoch-recent-updates-on-a-persistent-question/ 

I basically feel the same way about the Book of Abraham. Eventually, Pearl of Great Price Central will have most of the relevant (positive) evidentiary data on these texts summarized in a way that is easier for lay readers to access.  

[InCognitus]

On 12/10/2019 at 4:25 AM, Meadowchik said:

I think it is rational to believe that Joseph probably told the family stories about a given subject matter if Lucy said he did. Yet the other claims she repeats are not things she witnessed herself but only second-hand at most, and those claims are far more extraordinary than a child telling stories. They do, consequently, require more evidence to be reasonably believable.

Yet most any mother would know if her child was apt to make up and tell stories, or if the child was just good at remembering and recounting events that actually happened in his or her life.  The point here is that the very source that everyone uses to try to claim that Joseph was a mere “storyteller” is one that explicitly states that he was only recounting the things that were shown to him from the Lord.  A person can choose to disbelieve that the revelations and visions happened, but then they need some way to explain away the things that he said happened to him.  One of the ways to do that is to say he just made it all up.  But that line of thinking gets more problematic as more and more witnesses participate in the visions and revelations as time goes on. 

On 12/10/2019 at 4:25 AM, Meadowchik said:

I did say "just about every element." 

Anyway, the name Alma and the phrase "land of Jerusalem" don't seem very unlikely, the first being a name that already existed then, whatever the gendered use of it at the time or previous times. The "land of Jerusalem" seems an obviously generic way to denote a geographical area. 

Again, the point here is that the unlikely use of Alma as a male name turned out to be historically accurate based on archaeological discoveries made decades later.  The same for the phrase “land of Jerusalem”.  Why not just say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem like any child would have easily known in the early 19th-century?  What are the chances of just happening to use an odd phrase in that context that turns out to be a historically accurate usage from the 600 BC time period?  How did he get so lucky on so many things?

On 12/10/2019 at 4:25 AM, Meadowchik said:

And, regardless of what Alexander Campbell thought, many among the early colonists believed that there were more advanced societies there previously. There was much speculation and many writings at the time about the "New Jerusalem," and about the location of the lost tribes of Israel. And so Joseph Smith would not have been the only one to believe that there were advanced people living in the Americas previously. That wouldn't have required research, just an adoption of ideas common to his culture.

But there is a reason that he would need to do extensive research, or at least that’s what many critics say that Joseph must have done.   Otherwise, how did he get all of the old world geography right, including the exact location of the place called Nahom, and some things not known in 1829?  (See:  Evidences of the Book of Mormon:  Old World Geography:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yjKSaegLJg       This video is concise and makes the point quite well).   And how did he know about and execute some of the best examples of chiasmus ever discovered?   "As evidence of Book of Mormon authorship, the discovery of biblical-style chiasms in the Book of Mormon strongly tends to reduce the probability that Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries could have written the book."  (See:  https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-is-the-presence-of-chiasmus-in-the-book-of-mormon-significant).  Some have suggested that he got these ideas from reading the Bible, but his mother described him (in the quote I posted previously) as a boy “who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.”   If Joseph had written the Book of Mormon, why didn’t he promote these features of the book as evidence of its authenticity?  There’s so much more that could be said about this.

On 12/10/2019 at 4:25 AM, Meadowchik said:

Again, that's your interpretation. The dreams and the biographies of the Smith family serve as possible content that is relevant to the question of how the Book of Mormon was written, if not through a divine source.

I'm not sure what you mean pointing out there's no evidece of a large scale war around the hill Cumorah. I said that Joseph Smith being familiar with recent wars, implying that would have helped him write the Book of Mormon. Such familiarity with the War of 1812 and others could have served as content helping to write about the Book of Mormon wars.

But the assumption that Joseph got his ideas about war from his 19th-century environment also works against your claims.  Several articles have been written on the type of warfare depicted in the Book of Mormon, and it’s nothing like anything that Joseph would have known.  See a summary here:  Is the Book of Mormon's Depiction of Guerrilla Warfare Realistic?  ( https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/is-the-book-of-mormons-depiction-of-guerrilla-warfare-realistic).

Quote

During the 19th century, it was commonly expected that opposing troops would formally array themselves for battle and engage in an all-out contest on a set-piece battlefield. Guerrilla warfare, on the other hand, operates on the principles of stealth, surprise, hidden base camps, small-scale skirmishes, strategic retreats, advantageous terrain, and—importantly—propaganda. These types of tactics, although foreign and even shameful to 19th-century thinking, were used repeatedly by the Gadianton robbers of the Book of Mormon.

 

On 12/10/2019 at 4:25 AM, Meadowchik said:

On 12/10/2019 at 12:22 AM, InCognitus said:

The early Mormons believed the Book of Mormon lands stretched throughout all of North and South America, but this is clearly at odds with the book itself.  This also demonstrates that Joseph wasn’t as familiar with the book as one would need to be to keep all the land distances and place locations straight in his mind in writing the book, and the book is very precise and consistent in its geographical descriptions.  If Joseph made up the book based on his 19th-century ideas and was so specific in his construction of the geography described within the book, then why didn't he seem to know what the book itself says?

Sure, you can use the inconsistency between what Joseph dictated and what he said to try to validate the claim that it was only a dictation. That would not, however, make it divinely dictated.

But this inconsistency between what Joseph dictated and what he said invalidates the claim that Joseph wrote the book himself, and also eliminates your need to hold on to the myths about the story telling abilities of Joseph Smith, doesn’t it?

[InCognitus]

On 12/10/2019 at 10:09 AM, Meadowchik said:

I thought that the second quote I provided answers your questions. Roberts very frankly says,

"but I shall hold that what is presented illustrates... that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator, it is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they came upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America." 

That does not sound like a rehearsal of the words of hypothetical critics.

alter idem has already pointed out that this wasn't something that B. H. Roberts himself actually believed.  He was simply compiling all the things that critics have said or might say against the Book of Mormon.   He was quite clear in his cover letter to the study (that he intended to submit with it) in stating that the contents of his "Study" did not represent his own beliefs:

Quote

Let me say once [and] for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine....I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it." (B.H. Roberts to President Heber J. Grant, Council, and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, dated March 15, 1923.) 

It's ironic that the very thing that he wished to avoid (a repeated explanation) is also the very thing that seems to need a repeated explanation.

Additional evidence of Elder Roberts' lack of acceptance of the arguments set  forth in Studies of the Book of Mormon is available.  For example, in an article written by Elder Roberts published in Deseret News, June 16, 1928, after asking if "common knowledge and general discussion in the time and vicinity of Joseph Smith when the Book of Mormon was undergoing production" would have been enough to account for the production of the Nephite record, he responded,  "Emphatically no."

Edited December 14, 2019 by InCognitus
typo fix

[InCognitus]

On 12/10/2019 at 8:50 AM, theplains said:

Both the Bible and Book of Mormon are silent on some topics so we cannot really say one way or 
the other if something happened or not, whether something is a sin or not, or whether something
is true or false.  You even have different interpretations on certain passages in the Book of
Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. I can give you some examples if you request them of me.  Maybe
a new thread would suffice for that.

Different people will always interpret or understand a text in different ways because we all approach the text with preconceived ideas and teachings.  And none of the books of scripture were written with the intent that they be stand-alone do-it-yourself manuals without the teachings of living apostles and prophets.    It was the long period of time of apostasy, the “famine in the land” (Amos 8:11), when there were no living apostles and prophets, that created the environment of divisiveness over Bible doctrines that was rampant in Joseph Smith’s day and today. 

On 12/10/2019 at 8:50 AM, theplains said:

I don't believe that either the Bible or the Book of Mormon were written so that we could appeal
to them by asking the questions "Which church should I join? or Are all churches wrong?"

But God would obviously know the answer to such questions, don’t you think? 

On 12/10/2019 at 8:50 AM, theplains said:

I also don't believe that our confidence should be destroyed by appealing to either Books
if something is not explicitly mentioned and thus we cannot discover answers to our questions.

People try to use the Bible all the time to try to decide which church is teaching “true doctrine”.  But confidence in settling the question from the Bible alone can be easily destroyed by the “war of words and tumult of opinions” about Bible teachings (as Joseph described it) between the different denominations, which is why Joseph decided that he needed to ask God.

On 12/10/2019 at 8:50 AM, theplains said:

I have a different opinion about James 1:5-6. I believe it is not about asking God for knowledge
about which church to join but it is about wisdom and patience in dealing with trials and
temptations.

So if someone reads a Bible verse, but they misinterpret it, and in doing so it leads them to go pray to God to get answers to their question, would you think that God would say to them he’s not going to answer the question because the person misinterpreted the verse?   I’m pretty sure God would welcome anyone who has faith in him and is looking to him for answers.

But even so, James covers several topics in chapter 1, going beyond dealing with trials and temptations.  So I definitely see James saying that we can ask of God for his wisdom on pretty much anything.  The wisdom that comes from God leads to knowledge and understanding, as it says in Proverbs 2:6, “For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.”  Paul talked about the wisdom that comes from God in contrast to man's wisdom in 1 Corinthians 2 (whole chapter, really), and it is given by God through revelation.