I’ll hand you the fact that if Joseph did have the ability to cobble together a complex and cohesive book as the Book of Mormon on his own then, well, we would need to take that seriously. I think there is evidence…and plain common sense…to demonstrate otherwise.
I’ll see your Vogel, and raise you a Kyler Rasmussen:
At the end of the day you’re going to go your way and I’m going to go mine. I’ll respect your path as I’m sure you will respect mine and other believers that find it reasonable and sensible to ‘keep the faith’.
Regards,
MG
Vogel has historian credibility, Rasmussen who? Thank you for showing me I have precious little to worry about much of your testimonial argument.
Not to nit pick or question Vogel’s historian chops but I’m curious…what’s his day job? What part of his income is dependent on selling books to a certain audience? Mostly, I would guess, to critics and/or others that have a bias against the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
I, like you, like to ‘follow the money’.
Kyler Rasmussen’s day job is working as a policy analyst for the Government of Alberta.
The fact that the Book Of Moses required no extant media but is scripture just like the Book of Mormon is evidence that restoring ancient scripture doesn't in principle require extant physical media.
Your counter to that was the two can't be compared because with the Book of Mormon, there was media, with the BoMo, there was no media.
You’re right. In principle ancient scripture doesn’t need extant media. Yet the Book of Mormon was translated from plates. So in these two instances you’re comparing, one did not require extant media and the other did.
To compare the two and say that the mode of operation in regards to how the revelatory component worked and must be the same is an interesting point of view.
What’s not to say that the Lord has more than one way to get his word in print?
You might remember I only posted the link only because someone requested it. I was interested in a reference Hales made, but wasn't horribly impressed by the article itself. Hales himself admitted that the nature of the historical evidence admits varying valid interpretations.
I would think that it matters whether or not the text of the Book of Mormon was ‘physical’ (originating in the mind of Joseph’s brain) or ‘visionary’ (originating from a supernatural source).
If so, might we make a connection? That much depends on whether the plates were physical vs. purely visionary?
Many witnesses in the Interpreter article you linked to seem to have a common theme. Joseph pre 1830 would have been more than unlikely to compose the Book of Mormon ‘physically’ at that point in time. If this is true we ought to be then be open to other alternatives. One being the ‘visionary’ alternative.
And here is the connection. If the Book of Mormon had its origins in the visionary realm the likelihood of there having been real plates comes up a notch. In other words, if Joseph is telling the truth in regards to the translation being done through the “gift and power of God”…and that seems to be a likely alternative to him doing it on his own…then why would he have lied about the angel and the plates? The translation, the plates, and the angel are all intertwined.
This article you linked to makes it clear that at the very least the jury ought to be out on Book of Mormon origins. If so, it seems unreasonable to simply cast off the plates as being a hoax.
Occam’s razor comes in there somewhere. But only if we acknowledge that there is a creator God. It all starts there.
Thanks for the link to that article. Looks like it just came out recently.
I would suggest everyone read it from beginning to end.
Regards,
MG
I think it is a great leap to go from the Book of Mormon having its origins in the visionary realm to having that fact increase the likelihood the plates were physical. There is nothing precluding both being visionary. The translation, the plates, and the angel could all be visionary without necessary contradiction.
Brian Hale’s essay points out that pre 1830 there is very little evidence that Joseph had the ability to write a book as complex as the Book of Mormon.
Coming to a belief in God was only a first step for me in coming to a realization that the plates and the Book of Mormon (as a bonafide and ancient book of scripture) were a real possibility.
Regards,
MG
The reason I didn't think much of Hale's essay is the very evidence he used could just as surely point to Joseph having the ability to do it. And he lost me completely when he used Emma's "not able to write a coherent letter" statement. As I've pointed out before, Joseph certainly did have the ability in that time period to write a coherent letter. Hales is almost certainly aware of this, but suppressed that information. That's a thread that when pulled could unravel the entire essay.
MG 2.0 wrote:Brian Hale’s essay points out that pre 1830 there is very little evidence that Joseph had the ability to write a book as complex as the Book of Mormon.
I'll see your Brian Hales, and raise you a Dan Vogel in his book Charisma, demonstrates using contemporary evidence of Smith's own followers, and non-Mormon neighbors that Smith was certainly intelligent enough and had the ability.
Interesting. I wasn't going to prioritize getting that one because, as per the title, I thought Vogel was going to pursue Joseph's live post-publication. I'm obviously going to have to move it up on my list!
Brian Hale’s essay points out that pre 1830 there is very little evidence that Joseph had the ability to write a book as complex as the Book of Mormon.
Coming to a belief in God was only a first step for me in coming to a realization that the plates and the Book of Mormon (as a bonafide and ancient book of scripture) were a real possibility.
Regards,
MG
The reason I didn't think much of Hale's essay is the very evidence he used could just as surely point to Joseph having the ability to do it. And he lost me completely when he used Emma's "not able to write a coherent letter" statement. As I've pointed out before, Joseph certainly did have the ability in that time period to write a coherent letter. Hales is almost certainly aware of this, but suppressed that information. That's a thread that when pulled could unravel the entire essay.
The coherent letter you referred to in no way represents the skill and acumen that would be necessary to write a complex work such as the Book of Mormon. The Hales essay gives MANY references, some of them from folks unfriendly to Joseph, that testified of his lacking the ability in regards to writing and composition abilities.
I’m not convinced by what folks here have said in regards to my contention that Joseph’s inability to write the Book of Mormon is intertwined with visionary experiences and divine help in the translation process.
Vogel has historian credibility, Rasmussen who? Thank you for showing me I have precious little to worry about much of your testimonial argument.
Not to nit pick or question Vogel’s historian chops but I’m curious…what’s his day job? What part of his income is dependent on selling books to a certain audience? Mostly, I would guess, to critics and/or others that have a bias against the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
I, like you, like to ‘follow the money’.
Kyler Rasmussen’s day job is working as a policy analyst for the Government of Alberta.
Vogel has been hawking his books for many years. One might reasonably ask if this is or isn’t his sole source of income.
Probably not…but just curious.
Regards,
MG
The ad hominem aside, it doesn't really matter what Rasmussen's credentials are or how he makes his living. The fact remains his argument is bunk.
If I may be excused for quoting an essay I'm still working on, consider this:
It is also possible to undercut Smoot’s demand in one fell stroke. Without any physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples actually existed, all that scholarship means nothing. It does not matter how airtight the scholarship is. If you can’t tie that scholarship to real people living in a real place at a real time, the weight of probability automatically tilts in favor of practically any other reasonable explanation for the evidence. And since there is already plenty of scholarship demonstrating Joseph Smith’s authorship and where he could have gotten his information, those who embrace IFT already have a strong position to work from.
As Rasmussen already notes, the only viable alternatives are a) Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon or b) the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text. Since there is no credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text, that leaves Joseph's authorship the only viable theory. So even assuming all Rasmussen's calculations are correct, and no matter how high the odds are against it, Joseph's authorship is the most likely theory.
