Critics should be able to produce their own Book of Mormon to attack its miraculous creation

[Gadianton]

This was one person’s view. I’m bringing this book to the attention of those that may not have read it. For me, at the time I read it, it simply opened up my understanding to the fact that if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon (Vogel et al) then he was an absolute genius

Hardy's book was sheer genius in my opinion, but not for reasons that most people would agree with or appreciate.

As BYU and the Church faded in my rearview mirror, I became convinced postmodernism was the last hope. I inquired with certain professors who were knee deep setting the stage for that, but I was shot down. Maybe I was too obvious about it, and besides, they didn't know me. But, years later, it was gratifying to see that my instincts proved correct. While much of the scene has been predictable, Hardy's book blew me away. Definitely jealous that he thought of it and I didn't, and I never would have.

One of the challenges to bringing in postmodernism, which is usually brought with nothing but the ham-fisted objective of relativism to make religion unfalsifiable, is that so much of postmodernism is subversive, and particularly subversive regarding texts. The Book of Mormon, even if it's a marginal book, is written from the grandiose BDE male point of view. It's a sitting duck for deconstruction. An example of that kind of analysis, what folks like Hardy and the new MI crowd will call a "close reading", would be reading Paradise Lost from the perspective of Satan, and show how God ultimately props himself up by all of Satan's tricks. It's hard to imagine how this tradition of basically craping on sacred texts (not to mention the association with radical leftism) could benefit the Church. Is securing relativism worth the price tag?

But Hardy knocked it out of the park. He owned it. The iconic example is Moroni -- Moroni becomes a war criminal and a murderer, he turns heel but heels are now cool. At the time I read through Hardy's book at Barnes and Noble, I was watching The Shield, and I realized how Hardy had totally owned me. The Shield was a deconstruction of cop narratives that's sympathetic to Vic Mackey, the protagonist and negative hero. You know he's bad, but you're on his side. The plot is twisty and intricate. The story is interesting (to a point). And that's what Hardy did (attempted) with the Book of Mormon. The payoff of making good guys not so good and bad guys not so bad is the same as it is with television. More interesting, complex story. The Book of Mormon loses innocence, but now it's complex, and if it's complex, how could Joseph have invented it?

Unfortunately, I can answer Hardy on that one. "Close reading" in his circles in my opinion is really "inventive reading". You can do that with the Little Engine that Could. In this case, it's not that Joseph Smith is brilliant, it's that Hardy is brilliant.

[Morley]

Hardy's book was sheer genius in my opinion, but not for reasons that most people would agree with or appreciate.

As BYU and the Church faded in my rearview mirror, I became convinced postmodernism was the last hope. I inquired with certain professors who were knee deep setting the stage for that, but I was shot down. Maybe I was too obvious about it, and besides, they didn't know me. But, years later, it was gratifying to see that my instincts proved correct. While much of the scene has been predictable, Hardy's book blew me away. Definitely jealous that he thought of it and I didn't, and I never would have.

One of the challenges to bringing in postmodernism, which is usually brought with nothing but the ham-fisted objective of relativism to make religion unfalsifiable, is that so much of postmodernism is subversive, and particularly subversive regarding texts. The Book of Mormon, even if it's a marginal book, is written from the grandiose BDE male point of view. It's a sitting duck for deconstruction. An example of that kind of analysis, what folks like Hardy and the new MI crowd will call a "close reading", would be reading Paradise Lost from the perspective of Satan, and show how God ultimately props himself up by all of Satan's tricks. It's hard to imagine how this tradition of basically craping on sacred texts (not to mention the association with radical leftism) could benefit the Church. Is securing relativism worth the price tag?

But Hardy knocked it out of the park. He owned it. The iconic example is Moroni -- Moroni becomes a war criminal and a murderer, he turns heel but heels are now cool. At the time I read through Hardy's book at Barnes and Noble, I was watching The Shield, and I realized how Hardy had totally owned me. The Shield was a deconstruction of cop narratives that's sympathetic to Vic Mackey, the protagonist and negative hero. You know he's bad, but you're on his side. The plot is twisty and intricate. The story is interesting (to a point). And that's what Hardy did (attempted) with the Book of Mormon. The payoff of making good guys not so good and bad guys not so bad is the same as it is with television. More interesting, complex story. The Book of Mormon loses innocence, but now it's complex, and if it's complex, how could Joseph have invented it?

Unfortunately, I can answer Hardy on that one. "Close reading" in his circles in my opinion is really "inventive reading". You can do that with the Little Engine that Could. In this case, it's not that Joseph Smith is brilliant, it's that Hardy is brilliant.

Well done, Gad. Best summary of Hardy that I've read. Thank you.


...

edit to add: I admit that I still find it kind of sad that the only intellectual wiggle room the modern LDS Church has is to be found in a kind of bizarre post-structuralism.

[IHAQ]

This book does about as good a job in looking at plot line, complexity, etc. as any other book I’ve come across. Some here disagree, but I’ll point it out to you anyway in case you’re not aware of it:

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Bo ... adcf170fd3

Regards,
MG

Can you give a few examples from the book, assuming you've read it , where it does a good job of looking at plot line, complexity etc?

Nothing MG? No examples? I'm not surprised.

[Doctor Steuss]

Critics need not, as the Lord's new prophet, Christopher Marc Nemelka has already translated the sealed portion of the plates. This solidifies the miraculous creation. Note, that as of right now, Prophet Menelka's translation of the sealed portion has over 600 reviews on Amazon, and it has a perfect 5-star rating. Even critics are unable to ignore the witness of this final testament. Note that the so-called Mormon apologists won't even engage the scholarship surrounding this book.

Those who disparage this prophetic translation have likely never read it, and prayed about it.

Checkmate Atheists

[dastardly stem]

Critics need not, as the Lord's new prophet, Christopher Marc Nemelka has already translated the sealed portion of the plates. This solidifies the miraculous creation. Note, that as of right now, Prophet Menelka's translation of the sealed portion has over 600 reviews on Amazon, and it has a perfect 5-star rating. Even critics are unable to ignore the witness of this final testament. Note that the so-called Mormon apologists won't even engage the scholarship surrounding this book.

Those who disparage this prophetic translation have likely never read it, and prayed about it.

Checkmate Atheists

Yep and a lot of these positive reviews have been penned after he came out and admitted it was a hoax:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISQrqN1974A

Granted some might be playing along with the hoax and admitting it was quite clever of him to accomplish it, but some seem to be religious about it.

[drumdude]

From Saints:
​
"On the morning of July 12, William Clayton was in Joseph’s office when the prophet and Hyrum entered. “If you will write the revelation,” Hyrum told Joseph, “I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.”

“You do not know Emma as well as I do,” Joseph said. That spring and summer, he had been sealed to additional women, including a few whom Emma had personally selected.17 Yet helping Joseph choose wives had not made obeying the principle easy for Emma.

“The doctrine is so plain,” Hyrum said. “I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity, and heavenly origin.”

“We will see,” Joseph said. He asked William to take out paper and write as he spoke the word of the Lord.

Much of the revelation was already known to Joseph. It described the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage, along with associated blessings and promises. It also revealed the terms governing plural marriage, which Joseph had learned while translating the Bible in 1831. The remainder of the revelation was new counsel for him and Emma, addressing their questions and current struggles with plural marriage."
​
What Saints implies here is that Joseph learned this revelation in 1831, which is contradicted by their own source. We discuss that in the annotated polygamy essay, but the 1831 revelation was to marry Native Americans who God (through Joseph) called Lamanites, even though DNA has proven the Native Americans came from Asia. By marrying Native Americans, the church members could help make them 'white and delightsome' again, removing their cursed skin color.
​
But the bigger implication here is that Joseph Smith produced this revelation in the same manner he produced earlier ones, meaning with the seer stone or in deep vision/prayer. Instead, William Clayton, who dictated the revelation, described it this way: "Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end." (History of the Church)
​
That entry by William Clayton is so important to understanding Joseph Smith's revelations in the following ways:
​
First, D&C 132 is over 3,200 words long. Joseph Smith claimed to know the entire revelation "perfectly from beginning to end" to the point that he did not want to utilize the Urim and Thummim (stone) as he had done for previous revelations. There is no way that anyone could retain and memorize a 3,200 word revelation in the way that Joseph Smith claims here - this is a revelation Joseph would have been given many years earlier that was never recorded.

While humans are capable of memorizing long pieces of writing (actors/actresses would be a good example), they would be working with a script that they would be reading constantly to retain to memory. Apologists could argue that Joseph was given this revelation on a repeated basis, but we have no record of that in any of Joseph's writings nor would that make sense given the other accounts of revelation that we have. The story that Joseph told some of his polygamous brides of an angel visiting Joseph with a drawn sword does not mention the revelation being given to Joseph again, but a warning for Joseph to obey what had already been given to him.
​
From an apologetic view, one could argue that Joseph remembered the basic parameters of the revelation and that he expanded upon it when dictating to Clayton. This would be along the response that is given to anachronisms in the Book or Mormon or even to explain why the Book of Abraham translation does not match the papyri. But as Joseph Smith is writing this revelation in the voice and word of God, it would be problematic to expand on God's word and would only create more problems - this is also why it is so problematic that Joseph Smith altered previous revelations.
​
Second, as alluded to above, the revelation is written in the same language as the other revelations Joseph claimed to receive from God. Critics have long contended that Joseph Smith had a very distinct way of speaking 'in the language of God,' and this revelation shows just how quickly and effortlessly he was able to do it. If you read D&C 132 against Joseph's other revelations, you can see how well they fit together. Because this was not dictated while Joseph Smith claimed to be receiving it directly from God, it becomes clear that this is how Joseph constructed these revelations to take upon him the voice of God.
​
While we won't go through this line by line, the writing is obviously intended as if it is directly from God as it is being dictated and is written in the language of the King James Bible just as the Book of Mormon is written. It also includes many of the similar phrases that occur in Joseph's other revelations such as "I am the Lord thy God," "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega," "I am the Lord thy God," etc. Again it's not so much the exact phrases but the overall style -- compare this revelation to Joseph Smith's 'first' First Vision account in 1832 that Joseph wrote himself. It becomes pretty clear how gifted Joseph was at switching between a 'normal' manner of speaking and the 'voice of God,' even in a setting where Joseph is simply dictating a revelation he claimed to receive before he began polygamy.
​
Last, because this revelation was effectively dictated "on the fly" at the request of Hyrum in order to convince Emma, it gives more context as to why so much of the revelation is justifying Joseph marrying women without Emma's knowledge while also threatening to 'destroy' Emma if she does not comply. While apologists would argue that Joseph could've received these instructions years earlier, the fact that he never recorded them previously (while recording so many others) gives more weight to the overall argument by critics that he used the voice of God as needed to reestablish his authority or justify his actions.
​
Furthermore, the revelation is written as if it was given to Joseph before he entered into polygamous relationships, but the section about Emma reads as if it was given after Emma became more aware of Joseph's polygamous wives.

Dan Peterson says it’s unbelievable that Joseph could have dictated without notes, yet we have direct evidence of exactly that in DC 132.

https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/blog-rev ... -and-dc132

[MG 2.0]

…it's not that Joseph Smith is brilliant, it's that Hardy is brilliant.

Yes he is. I don’t think we should discount the genius of Joseph Smith, however.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... of-Mormon/

Critics have a pretty high bar to jump to discount the miraculous entry of the Book of Mormon onto the world stage of Holy Scripture.

Regards,
MG

[IHAQ]

…it's not that Joseph Smith is brilliant, it's that Hardy is brilliant.

Yes he is. I don’t think we should discount the genius of Joseph Smith, however.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... of-Mormon/

Critics have a pretty high bar to jump to discount the miraculous entry of the Book of Mormon onto the world stage of Holy Scripture.

Regards,
MG

Is there something in the link you’ve provided (assuming you’ve read it) that is relevant? If so, please quote the key part(s) and explain the relevancy as you see it.

[doubtingthomas]

Yes he is. I don’t think we should discount the genius of Joseph Smith, however.

We should, Smith did nothing impressive.

"This certificate is proudly presented to Master.Abisheik Emmanuel Joseph (born on 09 January 2011 at Chennai) Set a New world record by memorizing and reciting 2461 Bible verses ,from the portion of the Psalms ,chapter 1 to 150 continuously in 2 hours 16 mins 33 secs, This record is reviewed,validated and registered in the Lincoln Book of Records."
https://www.lincolnbookofrecords.com/post/view/38

Critics have a pretty high bar to jump to discount the miraculous entry of the Book of Mormon onto the world stage of Holy Scripture.

Regards,
MG

It wouldn't be that hard to produce a Book of Mormon 2.0 in just one month.

[MG 2.0]

Yes he is. I don’t think we should discount the genius of Joseph Smith, however.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... of-Mormon/

Critics have a pretty high bar to jump to discount the miraculous entry of the Book of Mormon onto the world stage of Holy Scripture.

Regards,
MG

Is there something in the link you’ve provided (assuming you’ve read it) that is relevant? If so, please quote the key part(s) and explain the relevancy as you see it.

Let’s pick one of the criteria:

Composition Methodology

Multiple witnesses declared that Joseph Smith spoke the words of the Book of Mormon rather than personally writing them. This observation separates him from more than 99% of all authors who ever published a book.
Historically, the composition technique taught in schools worldwide is called creative writing and comprises three general steps.
Pre-writing: choosing a subject, creating an outline, and performing the required research.
Writing: making the initial draft and combining sections.
Re-writing: revising, content-editing, and all subsequent drafts.
When dictating a book to a scribe (or stenographer), as Joseph Smith did, step one is restricted to memory, and step three is eliminated. There is no evidence Joseph engaged in step one in any discernable way, [Page 158]although mental preparations would not be detectable. The manuscript went straight to press without step three enhancements.
Dictating a book without pre-writing or re-writing might be called creative dictation. The advent of smart phones and voice-to-text apps has facilitated cell phone users today to produce long manuscripts using creative dictation and thereby attempt to replicate Joseph Smith’s efforts. The need for a scribe is removed by dictating text messages of 20 to 30 words each (the apparent word blocks Joseph spoke to his scribes) into the app. These are received in order and copied into an expanding document. Before hitting send, grammar and spelling can be corrected, but once sent, the sequence of the sentences cannot be changed. The author does not consult manuscripts or books while dictating. Repeat this process 10,000 times until a document of roughly 270,000 words is formed that can be sent to a publisher for typesetting and printing.
Creative dictation is more difficult than creative writing because, as Louis Brandeis, who served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939 explained: “There is no good writing; there is only good rewriting.” Popular novelist and essayist Robert Louis Stevenson concurred: “When I say writing, O, believe me, it is rewriting that I have chiefly in mind.” This inherent limitation of creative dictation is probably why none of the authors in the comparisons charted below elected to recite their books from memory and then send them directly to the printer. Even genius-level intellects today pre-write, write, and rewrite their books prior to completion.
Throughout the remainder of this article, all the authors listed in the comparisons except Joseph Smith used creative writing techniques, rather than creative dictation, to produce their books. The possible significance of this distinction deserves additional study that is beyond the scope of this essay.

Sure, Joseph was able to entertain his family with stories concerning ancient inhabitants of the Americas. But the composition of the Book of Mormon in around three months is nothing less than miraculous.

Again, check out the timeline I posted in this thread that Eldon Watson put together.

You can take each one of the other five criteria and then remember that Joseph ‘created’ this book in one blast of ‘genius’ and then tapered off in output.



Comparatively speaking he was a youngster compared to other authors that created well known literary works.

You can go through the six criteria laid out by Brother Hales and see that the coming forth of the Book of Mormon can be seen as nothing short of miraculous.

But I’m sure you’ll see what you want to see.

I’m assuming you read Hale’s piece.

Regards,
MG