Joseph Smith's intelligence

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Apples and oranges, for a variety of reasons, the biggest being that we have way more documentation for the process of the Book of Mormon's translation. As well as the evidence against his use of the Bible, as I mentioned in the previous post. In other words, Joseph Smith's lack of mentioning Adam Clarke's commentary isn't truly analogous to the question of whether he had a Bible or was well-versed in the Bible during or before the period of the Book of Mormon's translation. I'm guessing that was your point. 

The question is about whether one can rely on witnesses' version of how it was produced. If Joseph, for example, clearly used Adam clarke's commentary but he and witnesses did not reference it, or if he or they further went so far as to say he produced the JST without such help, then that is problematic. It could imply that, if we cannot trust the claimed origins of the JST, the claimed origins of the BOM also cannot be trusted.

[Ryan Dahle]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I didn't ask if he used the Bible during the translation. 

I'm asking if you think he didn't even read after he retired at night, or when he rose in the morning for a private devotional. I am talking about his use of the Bible on the days of translation but not while translating.

In addition to Calm's point, I'm not sure why this is being singled out anyway. It is just one of a variety of complex factors.

Even if you want to assume he was reading a Bible at night, there are a lot of nuanced complexities in the use of biblical content that go beyond just integrating a passage from whatever was read the previous night. And, like I said, the lengthy quotations of biblical content don't seem to be from an existing Bible. 

[Ryan Dahle]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The question is about whether one can rely on witnesses' version of how it was produced. If Joseph, for example, clearly used Adam clarke's commentary but he and witnesses did not reference it, or if he or they further went so far as to say he produced the JST without such help, then that is problematic. It could imply that, if we cannot trust the claimed origins of the JST, the claimed origins of the BOM also cannot be trusted.

To my knowledge, very little is reported about the production of the JST. I've never heard of any eye-witness (or any witness for that matter) saying that no commentary was used. 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Which is my point. Surely there must be another text that you at least think is likely to be comparable, that can't be ruled out at the outset because of fundamental advantages in its mode of production and in the experience and education of its author. 

Charles ****ens was prolific, Jane Austen brilliant, and Mary Shelley another notable author who had little to no formal education.

12 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This seems pretty tangential. Not sure what the point is here. 

I think it should be obvious.

First, it's difficult to find out the history for books that were of less controversial origins. How many other books in the 19th century of similar length have undergone this much scrutiny, and therefore, been the subject of testimonials because even contemporary reporters asked questions and successive generations sought out such information? For example, Samuel Noble wrote An Appeal in the the 19th century, more than 250K words as an apologetic response gathered from a series of lectures. Did people try to prove that he wrote it? Did people ask him or his associates details and then report it in articles for public consumption, or write in journals for posterity? Not that I can find. 

Second, the people surrounding Joseph Smith during the production of the Book of Mormon were intimately involved in it, it was woven into the paths their lives took. Were there disinterested observers who, as much as the personally invested witnesses, witnessed the translation and recorded what they saw? Not that I know of. The Book of Mormon touts these witnesses and says that none ever denied their testimony even if they left the church. However, one obvious point is that they all began not as objective, detached observers but faithful followers. Many people left the church in the early days for various reasons, but few people like to say they were ever fooled or participated in fooling others.

 

[champatsch]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Were there disinterested observers who, as much as the personally invested witnesses, witnessed the translation and recorded what they saw? Not that I know of.

There's Michael Morse, a non-Mormon brother-in-law, whose observations were taken down later.

Quote

     He further states that when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he, (Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation.
  The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph’s placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribe — Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other, wrote it down.
  Bro. Cadwell enquired as to whether Joseph was sufficiently intelligent and talented to compose and dictate of his own ability the matter written down by the scribes. To this Mr. Morse replied with decided emphasis, No. He said he then was not at all learned, yet was confident he had more learning than Joseph then had.
  Bro. Cadwell enquired how he (Morse) accounted for Joseph’s dictating the Book of Mormon in the manner he had described. To this he replied he did not know. He said it was a strange piece of work, and he had thought that Joseph might have found the writings of some good man and, committing them to memory, recited them to his scribes from time to time.
  We suggested that if this were true, Joseph must have had a prodigious memory — a memory that could be had only by miraculous endowment. To this Mr Morse replied that he, of course, did not know as to how Joseph was enabled to furnish the matter he dictated.

 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, champatsch said:

There's Michael Morse, a non-Mormon brother-in-law, whose observations were taken down later.

 

Interesting. How long did he observe the process?

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This seems pretty tangential. Not sure what the point is here. 

I think it should be obvious.

First, it's difficult to find out the history for books that were of less controversial origins. How many other books in the 19th century of similar length have undergone this much scrutiny, and therefore, been the subject of testimonials because even contemporary reporters asked questions and successive generations sought out such information? For example, Samuel Noble wrote An Appeal in the the 19th century, more than 250K words as an apologetic response gathered from a series of lectures. Did people try to prove that he wrote it? Did people ask him or his associates details and then report it in articles for public consumption, or write in journals for posterity? Not that I can find. 

So, you are assuming that other comparably uneducated and inexperienced authors dictated highly complex, lengthy books to scribes in comparably short amounts of time without reference materials, notes, outlines or substantive revisions, but we just don't know about it because neither they, nor their scribe(s), reported on the unusual circumstances of those texts' productions. Seems more than unlikely to me. And honestly, you could say that about any remarkable achievement.

For instance, maybe a number of people have free-soloed El Capitan in Yosemite national park; we just don't know about it because none of them have reported their accomplishment, except for Alex Honnold, of course. After all people do amazing things. I'm sure some novice climber who has never free climbed much less free soloed before has probably accomplished the feat at some point. I, mean, after all, people climb things all the time without reporting it to the world. I once climbed a tree fort when I was a kid and didn't mention it to anyone. 😎

Edited December 16, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

55 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Second, the people surrounding Joseph Smith during the production of the Book of Mormon were intimately involved in it, it was woven into the paths their lives took. Were there disinterested observers who, as much as the personally invested witnesses, witnessed the translation and recorded what they saw? Not that I know of. The Book of Mormon touts these witnesses and says that none ever denied their testimony even if they left the church. However, one obvious point is that they all began not as objective, detached observers but faithful followers. Many people left the church in the early days for various reasons, but few people like to say they were ever fooled or participated in fooling others.

This ventures into a whole new topic. But if one resorts to trying to impeach the testimonies of the witnesses in order to explain away the production of the text, then that is a pretty good hint that something about its reported production is indeed inconsistent with typical naturalistic assumptions.

In my experience, theories of collective fraud or mass hallucination are inconsistent and simply unsupportable. If you think it can be done, though, by all means give it a whirl. Here is Daniel C. Petersons initial framing of the issues involved in such an endeavor:

https://www.archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/peterson/2016-03-16/daniel_c._peterson_the_divine_source_of_the_book_of_mormon_2001.pdf 

 

  

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Charles ****ens was prolific, Jane Austen brilliant, and Mary Shelley another notable author who had little to no formal education.

 

My two most memorable classes at BYU when I was a freshman, before my mission, were a 100-level English class and College Algebra.

In the English class, we had to write a Comparison and Contrast essay. I wanted to compare my dad’s 3/4 ton Ford pickup with my brother’s Camaro.

But the teacher shook his head. “They’re too different. Yes, I know. They both have 4 wheels and each has an engine under the hood. But otherwise, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Why not compare a 3/4 ton Ford pickup to a 3/4 ton Chevy pickup? That would work.”

Likewise, comparing Jane Austen et al to Joseph Smith and the BOM is comparing apples to oranges.

You either do not understand the basic rules of elementary Comparison and Contrast, or you know very little about the BOM. (I’m guessing it is that you know very little about the BOM.)

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So, you are assuming that other comparably uneducated and inexperienced authors dictated highly complex, lengthy books to scribes in comparably short amounts of time, but we just don't know about it because neither they, nor their scribe(s), reported on the unusual circumstances of those texts' productions. Seems more than unlikely to me. And honestly, you could say that about any remarkable achievement.

For instance, maybe a number of people have free-soloed El Capitan in Yosemite national park; we just don't know about it because none of them have reported their accomplishment, except for Alex Honnold, of course. After all people do amazing things. I'm sure some novice climber who has never free climbed much less free soloed before has probably accomplished the feat at some point. I, mean, after all people climb things all the time without reporting it to the world. I once climbed a tree fort when I was a kid and didn't mention it to anyone. 😎

Lol.

Thing is, IF a person was planning to dupe others by producing a treasure of scripture out of treasure he claimed to find from out of the ground, he might go to some effort at performance and plan beforehand to make it happen.

I honestly don't know which way it did happen, (no one alive knows)  just that there are plausible possibilities, be it a highly-coordinated dupe, an earnest series of fantasies producing the unknowing fiction of a suggestible imagination, some combination of the above, or something else entirely.

Anyways, there were many works written in the 1800s or earlier times by people with little formal education. Who knows, maybe some were truly inspired by God but the writers too humble and not ambitious enough to make outrageous claims that invited scrutiny. Or just impressive works that were published without anyone noting their details of production.

Remember that Joseph was rejected by the Canadian publishing house. He had to essentially "self-publish" with the help of an affluent patron. So good luck finding all the1800s manuscripts that were rejected by publishers. Hopefully you can concede that, even if there were works written under "amazing" conditions, a catalogue of as ll of them is not at our disposal.

The more intelligent thing is to work from the available information and see what can be extrapolated intelligently from it.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

My two most memorable classes at BYU when I was a freshman, before my mission, were a 100-level English class and College Algebra.

In the English class, we had to write a Comparison and Contrast essay. I wanted to compare my dad’s 3/4 ton Ford pickup with my brother’s Camaro.

But the teacher shook his head. “They’re too different. Yes, I know. They both have 4 wheels and each has an engine under the hood. But otherwise, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Why not compare a 3/4 ton Ford pickup to a 3/4 ton Chevy pickup? That would work.”

Likewise, comparing Jane Austen et al to Joseph Smith and the BOM is comparing apples to oranges.

You either do not understand the basic rules of elementary Comparison and Contrast, or you know very little about the BOM. (I’m guessing it is that you know very little about the BOM.)

We were only comparing limited characteristics of the Book of Mormon. (However, Jane Austen's works are highly insightful about human nature.)

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Anyways, there were many works written in the 1800s or earlier times by people with little formal education. Who knows, maybe some were truly inspired by God but the writers too humble and not ambitious enough to make outrageous claims that invited scrutiny. Or just impressive works that were published without anyone noting their details of production.

So a possibility is evidence in your view?

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This ventures into a whole new topic. But if one resorts to trying to impeach the testimonies of the witnesses in order to explain away the production of the text, then that is a pretty good hint that something about its reported production is indeed inconsistent with typical naturalistic assumptions.

In my experience, theories of collective fraud or mass hallucination are inconsistent and simply unsupportable. If you think it can be done, though, by all means give it a whirl. Here is Daniel C. Petersons initial framing of the issues involved in such an endeavor:

https://www.archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/peterson/2016-03-16/daniel_c._peterson_the_divine_source_of_the_book_of_mormon_2001.pdf 

 

  

And yet that comment was one of a three-part response.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

So a possibility is evidence in your view?

Why do you ask that?

That was about Ryan asking for examples of other comparable works. My point was that, even if there are many works produced in Joseph's lifetime, we do not have as much historical information about them. So comparing conditions with quality is a scientific and historical challenge which becomes more difficult as you insist on matching up similar characteristics.

[Ryan Dahle]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Lol.

Thing is, IF a person was planning to dupe others by producing a treasure of scripture out of treasure he claimed to find from out of the ground, he might go to some effort at performance and plan beforehand to make it happen.

I honestly don't know which way it did happen, (no one alive knows)  just that there are plausible possibilities, be it a highly-coordinated dupe, an earnest series of fantasies producing the unknowing fiction of a suggestible imagination, some combination of the above, or something else entirely.

Anyways, there were many works written in the 1800s or earlier times by people with little formal education. Who knows, maybe some were truly inspired by God but the writers too humble and not ambitious enough to make outrageous claims that invited scrutiny. Or just impressive works that were published without anyone noting their details of production.

Remember that Joseph was rejected by the Canadian publishing house. He had to essentially "self-publish" with the help of an affluent patron. So good luck finding all the1800s manuscripts that were rejected by publishers. Hopefully you can concede that, even if there were works written under "amazing" conditions, a catalogue of as ll of them is not at our disposal.

The more intelligent thing, given available ok information, is to work from the available information and see what can be extrapolated intelligently from it.

I guess I'll give you the last word. I'll be waiting for a truly comparable text, once you think you have found it. 

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Charles ****ens was prolific, Jane Austen brilliant, and Mary Shelley another notable author who had little to no formal education.

 

You throw out so many different arguments, almost as if to see what will stick. This seems to be a variation of the "big list" argument, whether unconsciously on your part or nor. But so much of what you say is seriously flawed. For example, that Mary Shelley "had little to no formal education." But according to wiki––

Quote

Mary Shelley was born Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin in Somers Town, London, in 1797. She was the second child of the feminist philosopher, educator and writer Mary Wollstonecraft and the first child of the philosopher, novelist and journalist William Godwin.

...

Though Mary Godwin received little formal education, her father tutored her in a broad range of subjects. He often took the children on educational outings, and they had access to his library and to the many intellectuals who visited him, including the Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the former vice-president of the United States Aaron Burr. Godwin admitted he was not educating the children according to Mary Wollstonecraft's philosophy as outlined in works such as A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), but Mary Godwin nonetheless received an unusual and advanced education for a girl of the time. She had a governess, a daily tutor, and read many of her father's children's books on Roman and Greek history in manuscript. For six months in 1811, she also attended a boarding school in Ramsgate. Her father described her at age 15 as "singularly bold, somewhat imperious, and active of mind. Her desire of knowledge is great, and her perseverance in everything she undertakes almost invincible."

Mary Shelley was surrounded by books, and both her parents were published authors. Jane Austen came from well-to-do wool merchants, and her father was a rector in the Anglican church. She was surrounded by books, and from her surviving 161 letters, one can tell she was highly literate, apart from her creative work—–this in contrast to JS, who's surviving letters, circa 1830, show a barely literate hand.

But comparing the BOM to anything Jane Austen, Mary Shelley or Charles D. wrote is pointless anyway. Can you find something like the BOM to compare it to?

(The only book I am aware that the BOM could be legitimately compared to is the Bible.)

Edited December 16, 2019 by bdouglas

[theplains]

On 12/14/2019 at 3:44 AM, InCognitus said:

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. 

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

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.

 

Yes to your first question.

I think God's answer to the question would be supported by what He has currently revealed.

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 12/14/2019 at 3:46 AM, InCognitus said:

But even if that was the case, I would take his comments on such things (as I do with the leaders that actually said such things) the same as I do with the apostle Paul in the Bible indicating that the second coming would happen during his own lifetime.

Would you explain your comment about Paul.

Thanks,
Jim

[InCognitus]

Just now, theplains said:

Yes to your first question.

I think God's answer to the question would be supported by what He has currently revealed.

Me too.  And it is supported by or in harmony with what he has previously revealed, 100%. 

You may disagree, but if so then you are back to that pesky interpretation issue.

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

Would you explain your comment about Paul.

1 Cor 15:51-52; "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17:  "13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.  14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.   15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.    16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:  17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

On 12/16/2019 at 9:22 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

I guess I'll give you the last word. I'll be waiting for a truly comparable text, once you think you have found it. 

What criteria exactly are you looking for to feel a text comparable?

[Meadowchik]

On 12/16/2019 at 9:28 PM, bdouglas said:

You throw out so many different arguments, almost as if to see what will stick. This seems to be a variation of the "big list" argument, whether unconsciously on your part or nor. But so much of what you say is seriously flawed. For example, that Mary Shelley "had little to no formal education." But according to wiki––

Mary Shelley was surrounded by books, and both her parents were published authors. Jane Austen came from well-to-do wool merchants, and her father was a rector in the Anglican church. She was surrounded by books, and from her surviving 161 letters, one can tell she was highly literate, apart from her creative work—–this in contrast to JS, who's surviving letters, circa 1830, show a barely literate hand.

But comparing the BOM to anything Jane Austen, Mary Shelley or Charles D. wrote is pointless anyway. Can you find something like the BOM to compare it to?

(The only book I am aware that the BOM could be legitimately compared to is the Bible.)

That quote says she had little formal education.

Joseph Smith lived with and was taught at home by schoolteachers and his family did have books in the home and access to more.

I refer to different arguments because there are many different arguments. An extraordinary claim is predictably going to face a plethora of arguments of varying kind and intensity.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Ryan Dahle]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What criteria exactly are you looking for to feel a text comparable?

Well, first of all, I don't expect there to be an exact replica of the Book of Mormon out there in regard to its production history and the specific nature of its complexity. Such an expectation would be unrealistic and unnecessary. But it does seem reasonable to expect a comparable combination of factors on both fronts.

As far as production history, I already outlined what I think are relevant factors:

1. the author's age
2. the author's formal education
3. the author's prior literary experience
4. the length of the text 
5. the author's rate of production 
6. the author's revision and editing process
7. the author's access to notes, outlines, or reference materials
8. the author's mode of storytelling (dictation, pen and ink, typewriter, computer, etc.)

Like I said, I don't expect a perfect match. Perhaps another author was younger than Joseph Smith, but had a little more formal education. Or what if she or he produced a somewhat longer text but also had somewhat longer time to accomplish it. Or what if a younger author with less education but a little more literary experience produced a somewhat longer text in a shorter amount of time, with access to notes or outlines (but didn't make substantive revisions). I'd be fine with balancing those types things out. In my mind the most crucial factors are 3, 5, 6, and 7. 

The same goes for complexity. There are lots of different types of complexity, and I can't really get into all the ways the Book of Mormon is complex right now. But if you find a text that you think comes close to the Book of Mormon's production history and which you think is remarkably complex, then I'd be happy to start weighing and balancing its complex features. Perhaps another text has fewer characters, no calendar systems, no editorial promises, no prophecies, no detailed geographic relationships, etc., but has other comparable complexities that in the aggregate, sort of balance out. I'd be fine with going through that type of analysis. 

 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, first of all, I don't expect there to be an exact replica of the Book of Mormon out there in regard to its production history and the specific nature of its complexity. Such an expectation would be unrealistic and unnecessary. But it does seem reasonable to expect a comparable combination of factors on both fronts.

As far as production history, I already outlined what I think are relevant factors:

1. the author's age
2. the author's formal education
3. the author's prior literary experience
4. the length of the text 
5. the author's rate of production 
6. the author's revision and editing process
7. the author's access to notes, outlines, or reference materials
8. the author's mode of storytelling (dictation, pen and ink, typewriter, computer, etc.)

Like I said, I don't expect a perfect match. Perhaps another author was younger than Joseph Smith, but had a little more formal education. Or what if she or he produced a somewhat longer text but also had somewhat longer time to accomplish it. Or what if a younger author with less education but a little more literary experience produced a somewhat longer text in a shorter amount of time, with access to notes or outlines (but didn't make substantive revisions). I'd be fine with balancing those types things out. In my mind the most crucial factors are 3, 5, 6, and 7. 

The same goes for complexity. There are lots of different types of complexity, and I can't really get into all the ways the Book of Mormon is complex right now. But if you find a text that you think comes close to the Book of Mormon's production history and which you think is remarkably complex, then I'd be happy to start weighing and balancing its complex features. Perhaps another text has fewer characters, no calendar systems, no editorial promises, no prophecies, no detailed geographic relationships, etc., but has other comparable complexities that in the aggregate, sort of balance out. I'd be fine with going through that type of analysis. 

These observations from DCP may be apt (particularly the Nibley quote):

Quote

On The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ first birthday — April 6, 1831 — the editors of the Brockport (New York) Free Press pronounced the Book of Mormon “a fiction of hobgoblins and bugbears.” The volume is “a bungling and stupid production,” said the Religious Herald in 1840. And, in their 1841 "Historical Collections of the State of New York," John W. Barber and Henry Howe described it as “mostly a blind mass of words … without much of a leading plan or design. It is in fact such a production as might be expected from a person of Smith’s abilities and turn of mind.”

In 1842, Daniel Kidder found it “nothing but a medley of incoherent absurdities,” and J.B. Turner called it “a bundle of gibberish.” In 1930, the literary critic Bernard DeVoto declared it “a yeasty fermentation, formless, aimless and inconceivably absurd.”
...
For the Book of Mormon is demonstrably neither “gibberish” nor “aimless.” (Grant Hardy’s Oxford volume “Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide” has recently destroyed that claim once again.) Many critics have, in fact, faulted the Book of Mormon not for what it actually is but for what they assume it must inevitably be.

As the Catholic sociologist Thomas O’Dea quipped in 1957, “the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.”

“It is a surprisingly big book,” remarked Hugh Nibley, “supplying quite enough rope for a charlatan to hang himself a hundred times. As the work of an imposter, it must unavoidably bear all the marks of fraud. It should be poorly organized, shallow, artificial, patchy and unoriginal. It should display a pretentious vocabulary (the Book of Mormon uses only 3,000 words), overdrawn stock characters, melodramatic situations, gaudy and overdone descriptions, and bombastic diction.” However, Nibley continues, “Whether one believes its story or not, the severest critic of the Book of Mormon, if he reads it with care at all, must admit that it is the exact opposite. … It is carefully organized, specific, sober, factual and perfectly consistent.”

While they’ll discount his obvious assumption that it was composed in the 19th century, believing Latter-day Saints should appreciate the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Daniel Walker Howe’s judgment that “the Book of Mormon should rank among the great achievements of American literature.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, first of all, I don't expect there to be an exact replica of the Book of Mormon out there in regard to its production history and the specific nature of its complexity. Such an expectation would be unrealistic and unnecessary. But it does seem reasonable to expect a comparable combination of factors on both fronts.

As far as production history, I already outlined what I think are relevant factors:

1. the author's age
2. the author's formal education
3. the author's prior literary experience
4. the length of the text 
5. the author's rate of production 
6. the author's revision and editing process
7. the author's access to notes, outlines, or reference materials
8. the author's mode of storytelling (dictation, pen and ink, typewriter, computer, etc.)

Like I said, I don't expect a perfect match. Perhaps another author was younger than Joseph Smith, but had a little more formal education. Or what if she or he produced a somewhat longer text but also had somewhat longer time to accomplish it. Or what if a younger author with less education but a little more literary experience produced a somewhat longer text in a shorter amount of time, with access to notes or outlines (but didn't make substantive revisions). I'd be fine with balancing those types things out. In my mind the most crucial factors are 3, 5, 6, and 7. 

The same goes for complexity. There are lots of different types of complexity, and I can't really get into all the ways the Book of Mormon is complex right now. But if you find a text that you think comes close to the Book of Mormon's production history and which you think is remarkably complex, then I'd be happy to start weighing and balancing its complex features. Perhaps another text has fewer characters, no calendar systems, no editorial promises, no prophecies, no detailed geographic relationships, etc., but has other comparable complexities that in the aggregate, sort of balance out. I'd be fine with going through that type of analysis. 

 

Thanks.