For those who dismiss the Book of Mormon, what's your explanation for it?

[Levin]

The thread on whether God exists, and several of the responses, rekindled a persistent question I have that is rarely directly answered.

For those who don't believe that the Book of Mormon is from God, what's your explanation for it? As far as I can see, the only explanation is that Joseph Smith was a crazed genius who wrote it in 75 days (copying several chunks from the KJV of the Bible).

Kind of like when Cormac McCarthy wrote The Road in 60 days -- except much more impressive from an output point of view.

None of this historicity crap of a mealy-mouthed middle-ground either. Either it's from God, or it's the work of a mad man.

So for those who reject it's from God, you obviously think Joseph Smith could have written it in 75 or so days.

[scottie]

The thread on whether God exists, and several of the responses, rekindled a persistent question I have that is rarely directly answered.

For those who don't believe that the Book of Mormon is from God, what's your explanation for it? As far as I can see, the only explanation is that Joseph Smith was a crazed genius who wrote it in 75 days (copying several chunks from the KJV of the Bible).

Kind of like when Cormac McCarthy wrote The Road in 60 days -- except much more impressive from an output point of view.

None of this historicity crap of a mealy-mouthed middle-ground either. Either it's from God, or it's the work of a mad man.

So for those who reject it's from God, you obviously think Joseph Smith could have written it in 75 or so days.

Who says it was written in ~75 days?

[Levin]

Who says it was written in ~75 days?

It's generally accepted that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon between 60 and 90 days. I chose the center. But choose 100 days if you want. Same honest question.

[scottie]

It's generally accepted that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon between 60 and 90 days. I chose the center. But choose 100 days if you want. Same honest question.

If he wrote the book before he dictated it, we really have no idea how long it took to write.

[ERCougar]

Cmon, Levin, you're a smart guy. You've never considered this possibility?

[CardiacCoug]

My 2 cents: Joseph Smith was a religious genius. And I think we underestimate the power of the human mind. The Bible and Christian theology/sermons were something Joseph had obsessed over for 20 years (yes, since he was a young child) already when the Book of Mormon was written.

It's hard for normal people to relate to the way a religious fanatic/genius like Joseph could obsess over these ideas to the point that yes, he could produce the BOM over the course of a few weeks. One of my pre-teen sons is so freaking obsessed with a few topics that he has literally encyclopedic knowledge on them. The human mind is an amazing thing.

And when you really analyze the BOM text from an objective viewpoint, I wish I felt differently, but it sure seems like the product of a 19th century religious fanatic/genius who mixed his own fantasy with what he knew and/or copied from the King James Bible. I think the BOM is impressive sure, but it is quite well explained and yes I think best explained as a 19th century product of Joseph Smith's mind.

When I read the BOM, it just honestly doesn't strike me as an authentically ancient document. I don't see anything in it that could not very easily have come from the brilliant and religion-obsessed mind of Joseph Smith. That's obviously not to say that there aren't a lot of inspired and divine Christian ideas in there that are as good as anything in the Bible or anywhere else. In that sense the BOM can still be great and inspired even if it doesn't seem to be exactly what it claims to be.

[pellegrino]

It's generally accepted that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon between 60 and 90 days. I chose the center. But choose 100 days if you want. Same honest question.

key word here: dictated.

[Levin]

My 2 cents: Joseph Smith was a religious genius. And I think we underestimate the power of the human mind. The Bible and Christian theology/sermons were something Joseph had obsessed over for 20 years (yes, since he was a young child) already when the Book of Mormon was written.

It's hard for normal people to relate to the way a religious fanatic/genius like Joseph could obsess over these ideas to the point that yes, he could produce the BOM over the course of a few weeks. One of my pre-teen sons is so freaking obsessed with a few topics that he has literally encyclopedic knowledge on them. The human mind is an amazing thing.

And when you really analyze the BOM text from an objective viewpoint, I wish I felt differently, but it sure seems like the product of a 19th century religious fanatic/genius who mixed his own fantasy with what he knew and/or copied from the King James Bible. I think the BOM is impressive sure, but it is quite well explained and yes I think best explained as a 19th century product of Joseph Smith's mind.

When I read the BOM, it just honestly doesn't strike me as an authentically ancient document. I don't see anything in it that could not very easily have come from the brilliant and religion-obsessed mind of Joseph Smith. That's obviously not to say that there aren't a lot of inspired and divine Christian ideas in there that are as good as anything in the Bible or anywhere else. In that sense the BOM can still be great and inspired even if it doesn't seem to be exactly what it claims to be.

Thanks for the response. This is the type of honest answer from thoughtful people I was looking for --- not the dismissive Dawkins-like answers.

The explanation has to be that he brooded over the subject of writing a new scripture, invented that it would be from a people here on America, organized the general structure and theology of the book, and then dictated it in a burst of creative energy rarely released by human minds.

But I also find the act of dictating/writing so quickly -- with only very minimal editing -- to be almost equally remarkable. For someone who writes for a living, I find it impossible. But as you imply, we can't judge the capacity of the human mind based on our own personal incapacity.

[Levin]

How do you think he came up with all those crazy names!?! Has there ever been a reference book or baby names book discovered from the period that included these names? He must have also thought that out beforehand.

[Levin]

Cmon, Levin, you're a smart guy. You've never considered this possibility?

Of course. But I want to hear why people think it was possible for a mad genius to do it rather than just dismiss it as untrue.

[ERCougar]

Thanks for the response. This is the type of honest answer from thoughtful people I was looking for --- not the dismissive Dawkins-like answers.

The explanation has to be that he brooded over the subject of writing a new scripture, invented that it would be from a people here on America, organized the general structure and theology of the book, and then dictated it in a burst of creative energy rarely released by human minds.

But I also find the act of dictating/writing so quickly -- with only very minimal editing -- to be almost equally remarkable. For someone who writes for a living, I find it impossible. But as you imply, we can't judge the capacity of the human mind based on our own personal incapacity.

Not trying to be dismissive--you asked for a direct response that you "rarely" get. A pretty quick, easy, and direct response would be to say that he gathered notes and thoughts over the three years and then "dictated" it.

[Levin]

Cardiac, why do you use the adjective "inspired"? Seems kind of disingenuous. You can't thoughtfully explain why you think the BofM isn't inspired, and then say you think it's inspired b/c it's kind of neat in some respects. I know the sense you're using "inspired," but it doesn't really work when talking about scripture you think is definitively NOT inspired in the theological sense.

[Levin]

Not trying to be dismissive--you asked for a direct response that you "rarely" get. A pretty quick, easy, and direct response would be to say that he gathered notes and thoughts over the three years and then "dictated" it.

You're not getting the real question. The question is why is that the more plausible explanation.

[ERCougar]

Cardiac, why do you use the adjective "inspired"? Seems kind of disingenuous. You can't thoughtfully explain why you think the BofM isn't inspired, and then say you think it's inspired b/c it's kind of neat in some respects. I know the sense you're using "inspired," but it doesn't really work when talking about scripture you think is definitively NOT inspired in the theological sense.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your question here, because I know you believe plenty of works to be inspired, but not scriptural.

[scottie]

How do you think he came up with all those crazy names!?! Has there ever been a reference book or baby names book discovered from the period that included these names? He must have also thought that out beforehand.

One theory:

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonis...holleymaps.htm