President David O. McKay Believed That Joseph Smith Wrote The Book of Mormon

[I Have Questions]

Considering that this is a third-hand account, I don't think it's going to make much of a ripple. It's very possibly true, but given that Nibley is far from prominent nowadays, I think the fact that this book came out years ago but doesn't seem to have caused a splash in the interim suggests that the account isn't going to be regarded as respectable.

I agree.

Regards,
MG

If you agree that third-hand accounts should not be regarded as "respectable" or "believable" then I would simply point out that The Book of Mormon is (if you believe it is what it claims to be) also a third-hand account, in exactly the same way.

[Moksha]

Twenty years from now, the new and revised Interpreter Institute can point to this thread and say, "We've known and been saying for quite some time that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. So get with the program and don't act so surprised! Even David O. McKay knew this."

[MG 2.0]

I agree.

Regards,
MG

If you agree that third-hand accounts should not be regarded as "respectable" or "believable" then I would simply point out that The Book of Mormon is (if you believe it is what it claims to be) also a third-hand account, in exactly the same way.

One might quibble with that on one critically important difference.

God was involved. (Yes, if you believe that.)

And that would make ALL the difference. It wasn't all 'human to human'.

Regards
MG

[I Have Questions]

If you agree that third-hand accounts should not be regarded as "respectable" or "believable" then I would simply point out that The Book of Mormon is (if you believe it is what it claims to be) also a third-hand account, in exactly the same way.

One might quibble with that on one critically important difference.

God was involved. (Yes, if you believe that.)

And that would make ALL the difference. It wasn't all 'human to human'.

Regards
MG

God’s involvement in it is again an anecdotal third hand account at the point you read about God’s supposed involvement in it. Joseph claimed it. Somebody wrote it down. It was then passed along to others. They in turn passed it along, until it got to your Mummy and Daddy. They then passed it along to you and conditioned you into accepting it as true.

[MG 2.0]

One might quibble with that on one critically important difference.

God was involved. (Yes, if you believe that.)

And that would make ALL the difference. It wasn't all 'human to human'.

Regards
MG

God’s involvement in it is again an anecdotal third hand account at the point you read about God’s supposed involvement in it. Joseph claimed it. Somebody wrote it down. It was then passed along to others. They in turn passed it along, until it got to your Mummy and Daddy. They then passed it along to you and conditioned you into accepting it as true.

That is your conclusion. Not mine.

Regards,
MG