Don, you don't seriously believe this is a good mime, do you?
I think it's decent. I could have done better.
For a start look at how short this is, and it took you 25 minutes to write that?
You're missing a few crucial points, Ray. First, I wrote without preplanning. Joseph Smith's revelations were produced in contexts he would have had time to consider, usually at length, before producing a revelation to address them. Second, Smith's revelations would have been produced more slowly than you seem to think--especially his early ones ostensibly through the seerstone. It seems nearly certain that Smith would have had the scribe
read back each revelatory phrase after he dictated it
I would say no one replied because it was such a poor imitation. If it was a serious and good imitation you probably would have received responses. The truth is they've dismissed it.
WHY have they dismissed it? Is the style really that different? How? Explain it to me, in detail.
The truth is that most LDS would never acknowledge even a far, far better imitation than this--ANY imitation--as meeting the D&C 67 challenge, for the same reason that Muslims won't acknowledge the imitation Qur'anic suras.
Can you write something like Section 76 in one sitting?
No. But where is the evidence that Joseph Smith could, especially at the beginning of his career when he lacked experience? D&C 76 was likely a joint production of Smith and Rigdon--the co-visionaries referred to as "we" in the text, and I know of no evidence that it was dictated as it stands on the first attempt or on the spot. Smith himself often edited his own revelations, sometimes to remove ungrammatical phrases or inconsistent ideas (like John the Baptist being baptized in his mother's womb). Notably, Smith produced D&C 76 only after he had acquired
four years of experience with dictating revelations. And if Smith produced D&C 76 he would have first concocted his experience of the vision itself, and would thus have had preplanned material for the document.
In the presence of peers who observe you go through it without long pauses?
Give me some practice, and who knows? But, again, you only assume there were no long pauses, when, in fact, Smith's known practice of having scribes read back the dictated text would have given him more time to compose as he dictated.
Here's my challenge to you - produce 521 pages of scripture like the Book of Mormon in just over two months, without notes, with witnesses observing you dictating word after word, resuming after breaks exactly where you left off without reference to notes. After you do this submit it to a publisher, where it will thereafter be published for the world to examine, and be accepted by millions as the word of God. Scholars like Michael Coe must say of your work, "this has never been done before"!
Hmm. Well, you and God seem to have different standards. For him it was enough to imitate "the least" of the D&C revelations. But you want me to waste an enormous amount of time and effort just to show you what you
should be able to figure out for yourself--that human beings can perform fantastic feats.
This kind of argument that if
I couldn't produce a work with the same impact as the Book of Mormon, God must have done it simply stinks.
One might just as well come up with a variety of other challenges in which a skeptic must duplicate a gifted person's feat in order to show they were not inspired of God. You don't believe the Beatles were divinely inspired? Alright, then
you produce scores of hits and revolutionize contemporary music in less than a decade. You don't believe the guy who invented Jell-O was inspired? Then
you come up with something comparable. We could go on and on through thousands and thousands--and more--of great achievements. Those of Einstein, Mozart, George W. Bush (let's see
you get elected chief executive!), Harrison Ford (can
you act like that?), et al.........
If you don't match their achievements before you die, I'll know that all those in history who achieved more than you were inspired of God.
Don