The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_Chap]

Let's think. A book written in a not very good version of 'Bible English' appears in an early 19th century American milieu. It's full of echoes of the religious consciousness of that time and place, and makes all kinds of clearly non-historical claims that also reflect the way people of that time and place thought about the past.

None of those statements are true or can be substantiated.

See this board for the past ten years, passim (as they say). But that's not the central point here, so let it pass ...

The person who produces it, Joseph Smith, claims it was a miraculously produced text, and it is claimed that he did not have the ability to write the book himself. But if not him, then who? Assuming for the sake of argument that Smith can not have been the author, two possible answers might be:

(a) Some other unknown person in early 19th century America wrote this text, and Joseph Smith merely acted as a front for the operation.

(b) A being of an unknown nature, location and powers (a 'deity') miraculously preserved this text and caused Smith to generate a translation by miraculous means, involving seeing visions in a lump of rock.

Somehow, I think I'd bet on (a) every time.

.

Your main point in reply seems to be this:

... Unless you can come up with a viable alternative to Joseph Smith's own claim, his claim remains unchallenged.

A man comes along and claims to have performed a task (in this case writing a certain kind of book), that it is argued he was not able to do.

Under such circumstances an obvious explanation of the situation is that he is lying, and that the book, or parts it, were in fact written by some other person, who wished his identity to remain concealed, and succeeded in ensuring that he remained anonymous. That is a perfectly viable alternative explanation.

It is by far the most economical hypothesis, in that it requires no miracles, and no supposition that there are special beings who intervene in the world to work miracles. It just requires the common human phenomenon of telling lies to win money, and the regard of others, and the practice of pseudonymous authorship, all of which are known from throughout human history.

[_Lemmie]

It just requires the common human phenomenon of telling lies to win money,

Of which Joseph Smith already had an established reputation, making your analysis even stronger.

[Guest]

Your main point in reply seems to be this:

... Unless you can come up with a viable alternative to Joseph Smith's own claim, his claim remains unchallenged.

A man comes along and claims to have performed a task (in this case writing a certain kind of book), that it is argued he was not able to do.

Under such circumstances an obvious explanation of the situation is that he is lying, and that the book, or parts it, were in fact written by some other person, who wished his identity to remain concealed, and succeeded in ensuring that he remained anonymous. That is a perfectly viable alternative explanation.

It is by far the most economical hypothesis, in that it requires no miracles, and no supposition that there are special beings who intervene in the world to work miracles. It just requires the common human phenomenon of telling lies to win money, and the regard of others, and the practice of pseudonymous authorship, all of which are known from throughout human history.

Except that the historical data does not substantiate such an assumption. That the point of Tad R. Callister's talk.

[_zerinus]

What would be the unique traits that would identify something as "God given"?

That it is a miraculous occurrence, which is what the Book of Mormon claims to be.

[_Chap]

A man comes along and claims to have performed a task (in this case writing a certain kind of book), that it is argued he was not able to do.

Under such circumstances an obvious explanation of the situation is that he is lying, and that the book, or parts it, were in fact written by some other person, who wished his identity to remain concealed, and succeeded in ensuring that he remained anonymous. That is a perfectly viable alternative explanation.

It is by far the most economical hypothesis, in that it requires no miracles, and no supposition that there are special beings who intervene in the world to work miracles. It just requires the common human phenomenon of telling lies to win money, and the regard of others, and the practice of pseudonymous authorship, all of which are known from throughout human history.

[Callister's talk suggests that] the historical data does not substantiate such an assumption.

OK, here is what Callister said:

ARGUMENT 2: SOMEONE ELSE WROTE IT

Accordingly, some critics proposed the theory that Joseph Smith conspired with someone who had the education, intelligence, and skills to write the Book of Mormon.6 One candidate for its authorship was Oliver Cowdery. After all, he was a schoolteacher, a scribe, and later a lawyer. But a major problem arose for the critics: Oliver never claimed to have written any portion of the book; in fact, he testified to the contrary:

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated it by the gift and power of God. . . . That book is true.7

Even though Oliver was excommunicated from the Church and it was some years before he returned, he remained true at all times to his testimony, even on his deathbed. As a result, this argument receives little acceptance today.8

Another candidate for authorship of the Book of Mormon was Sidney Rigdon. He was a Protestant minister and theologian. The supreme irony of this argument, however, is that he was converted by the very book he was supposed to have written. Parley P. Pratt, a former member of Rigdon’s congregation, introduced him to the Book of Mormon in October 1830—about six months after the Book of Mormon had already been published. Do we have any witnesses that this is how Sidney Rigdon was converted? We do. In fact, the historical evidence is compelling.9

First, Sidney Rigdon’s daughter, Nancy Rigdon Ellis, was eight years old when Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery presented her father with a copy of the Book of Mormon in their home. She said that she recalled the event because of the conflict that arose:

I saw them hand [my father] the book, and I am as positive as can be that he never saw it before. He read it and examined it for about an hour and then threw it down and said he did not believe a word in it.10

Later, however, he did accept the Book of Mormon, joined the Church, and became one of its leaders.

Second, Sidney Rigdon’s son John spoke to his father as he lay on his deathbed: “[Father], you owe it to me and to your family to tell [the truth about the Book of Mormon].”

In other words, this is the day of reckoning; be totally honest before you go to the judgment bar.

The son then recounted his father’s response: “My father looked at me a moment, raised his hand above his head and slowly said, with tears glistening in his eyes: ‘My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of that book is true.’”

After this tender moment, the son said, “I believed him.”11

Later, John joined the Church, and thus another argument fell by the wayside.

Gosh, two possible candidates for pseudonymous authorship never admitted writing the Book of Mormon, and denied having done so? Faith-promoting stories are told about their sincerity and persistence?

Wow. That's a clincher, isn't it? Goddidit!

Seriously, this is all you have?

[_zerinus]

Gosh, two possible candidates for pseudonymous authorship never admitted writing the Book of Mormon, and denied having done so? Faith-promoting stories are told about their sincerity and persistence?

Wow. That's a clincher, isn't it? Goddidit!

Seriously, this is all you have?

Anybody can claim that any book was written by someone other than the purported author. That is equally true of Shakespeare's plays, or Charles Dickens' novels, or Mark Twain's, or anybody else's. When somebody makes such a claim, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim; not on the purported author to disprove it. A man is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

[Guest]

Gosh, two possible candidates for pseudonymous authorship never admitted writing the Book of Mormon, and denied having done so? Faith-promoting stories are told about their sincerity and persistence?

Wow. That's a clincher, isn't it? Goddidit!

Seriously, this is all you have?

Anybody can claim that any book was written by someone other than the purported author. That is equally true of Shakespeare's plays, or Charles Dickens' novels, or Mark Twain's, or anybody else's. When somebody makes such a claim, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim; not on the purported author to disprove it. A man is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

Sorry to be so persistent, zerinus, but you are getting a bit tangled up here.

I'm perfectly happy to admit that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon (or, rather, dictated it to scribes who could spell and write grammatical English a lot better than he could). No problem at all about that.

What we are dealing with here is an apologetic argument in the classic form, as we see it in Callister's talk:

(a) Joseph Smith was an illiterate farm boy who could not have composed the Book of Mormon.
(b) Therefore it is of divine origin.

My immediate reaction is to say that (a) is open to considerable doubt, especially given his collaboration with scribes. However, as you will have noticed, I said:

The person who produces it, Joseph Smith, claims it was a miraculously produced text, and it is claimed that he did not have the ability to write the book himself. But if not him, then who? Assuming for the sake of argument that Smith can not have been the author, two possible answers might be:

And at that point I suggested that, if we must exclude Smith's authorship, the hypothesis that the book was written by somebody other than Smith, who wished to remain anonymous, is a simple, not improbable and quite economical route to take. No divine intervention is required.

I do think Joseph Smith was a liar. But personally, I suspect he was mainly responsible for the Book of Mormon. You are the one who has a problem about that, not me.

[Edited for typos]

[_I have a question]

What would be the unique traits that would identify something as "God given"?

That it is a miraculous occurrence, which is what the Book of Mormon claims to be.

In what way(s) does the content of the Book of Mormon suggest it was produced in a way that is inexplicable except that God produced it?

[_zerinus]

Sorry to be so persistent, zerinus, but you are getting a bit tangled up here.

It is more likely that you are.

I'm perfectly happy to admit that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon . . .

Except that he didn't, nor claim to.

. . . (or, rather, dictated it to scribes who could spell and write grammatical English a lot better than he could). No problem at all about that.

Lots of problems with that. It is an absurd suggestion, if nothing else.

What we are dealing with here is an apologetic argument in the classic form, as we see it in Callister's talk:

(a) Joseph Smith was an illiterate farm boy who could not have composed the Book of Mormon.
(b) Therefore it is of divine origin.

Except that that is not what he is stating, nor is anybody else.

My immediate reaction is to say that (a) is open to considerable doubt, especially given his collaboration with scribes. . . .

Except that your "immediate reaction" is to your own made-up stuff, not to anything anybody else has said.

However, as you will have noticed, I said:

The person who produces it, Joseph Smith, claims it was a miraculously produced text, and it is claimed that he did not have the ability to write the book himself. But if not him, then who? Assuming for the sake of argument that Smith can not have been the author, two possible answers might be:

And at that point I suggest that, if must exclude Smith's authorship, the hypothesis that the book was written by somebody other than Smith, who wished to remain anonymous, is a simple, not improbable and quite economical route to take. No divine intervention is required.

The OP is not about your preferred hypothesis, but what hypotheses others have made during the past 200 years, all of which have fallen flat on their faces.

I do think Joseph Smith was a liar. But personally, I suspect he was mainly responsible for the Book of Mormon. You are the one who has a problem about that, not me.

Except that what you "think" is no better than what others have thought in the past, none of which have borne the test of time. Unless you can come up with a new idea that no-one had through of before, merely regurgitating the failed hypotheses of the past gets boring, and will not help your case.

[_zerinus]

In what way(s) does the content of the Book of Mormon suggest it was produced in a way that is inexplicable except that God produced it?

Listen more carefully to Tad R. Callister's talk to get some ideas.