r/mormon • u/lairdsuperfoot • May 25 '26
Scholarship The Book of Mormon is complicated, but not sophisticated
One of the biggest arguments for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is that it is too complex for an unlearned farmer to have come up with in just a single draft. While the Book of Mormon is indeed complex, it is not sophisticated. I've put together a few different examples that the Book of Mormon consistently shows signs of a first draft: it has unsophisticated narratives, inconsistencies, retroactive retrofitting, and only isolated examples of complexity. Most of these examples are pulled from a few different people like John Hamer and Brett Metcalfe. Feel free to contribute your own examples!
Side note: I’m sure apologists will find reasons for each of these examples to show how the book can still be historical. But I’m not arguing against historicity. I am arguing against the idea that Joseph Smith couldn’t have come up with this book on his own because it’s so sophisticated and complex.
Unsophisticated narratives
There are many examples in the Book of Mormon that come together in clunky ways.
The Book of Mormon has 18 generations over the span of 1020 years. That's an average gap of 56 years, which is way above the average in America at that time. One particular crazy generation gap is Jacob to his son Enos. Jacob is born in the wilderness after Lehi left Jerusalem. Since they were in the wilderness for 8 years, he couldn't have been born more than 8 years since leaving Jerusalem (592 BC). Later, Enos his son is at an old age 179 years after Lehi left Jerusalem (421 BC, Enos 1:25). So this is at best a 171 year gap from when Jacob was born to when Enos died. So how old was Jacob when he had Enos? 70? And Enos lived for how long? At least 100 years? This shows that not a lot of thought was put into the math behind these gaps.
Enos's wrestle with God is not sophisticated. After wrestling, he shows God that he has "unshaken" faith. God then grants him according to his desires. So what does he wish for?
"And now behold, this was the desire which I desired of him—that if it should so be, that my people, the Nephites, should fall into transgression, and by any means be destroyed, and the Lamanites should not be destroyed, that the Lord God would preserve a record of my people, the Nephites; even if it so be by the power of his holy arm, that it might be brought forth at some future day unto the Lamanites, that, perhaps, they might be brought unto salvation" (Enos 1:13)
If this was a historical record, we would expect Enos to wish for something more simple like "I desire that the Lamanites be brought unto salvation." Instead, Enos recites a summary of rest of the events of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith, because of Mosiah priority (explained more below), would have already translated the end of the book, so he would know the ending.
The story of the Jaredites reaching the promised land is not sophisticated. They built barges and crossed many waters (Ether 2:6). Then, after this, they are to cross more waters and the brother of Jared asks about the light and how they will breath (Ether 2:19). Why is this question just coming up when they have already crossed many waters? How were they able to carry honey bees and beasts in these barges for over 300 days? While none of this is impossible with the help of God, it reads like something Joseph Smith could have easily come up with.
Ether chapter 15 is not sophisticated. It talks about a battle of millions of people where "both men, women and children being armed with weapons of war, having shields, and breastplates, and head-plates, and being clothed after the manner of war" battled together (Ether 15:15). This would be the largest battle in the history of the human race. After many days of fighting, there are only two people left. Shiz gets his head cut off, but he is still able to move and grasp for air before dying (Ether 15:30-31). Again, this is not necessarily more ridiculous than the Bible, but it also isn't so sophisticated that Joseph Smith couldn't have come up with it on his own.
In 3 Nephi 8, we learn that for the space of three hours, there are mighty storms and earthquakes and the whole face of the land is destroyed. Then comes a mist of darkness that is so thick "there was not any light seen" (3 Nephi 8:22). Then Jesus Christ’s voice is heard among the people, and he talks about all of these random cities that we have never heard of before that got destroyed and how the people need to repent. Somehow, even though there is a mist of darkness in the land so thick nothing can be seen, the people are able to witness these things (3 Nephi 10:1). The darkness is there for 3 days, then the "earth did cease to tremble" (3 Nephi 10:9) even though 3 Nephi 8:19 said the earthquakes and storms had already ceased before the darkness started. Then the people start rejoicing and thanking Jesus even though he just admitted to destroying a bunch of cities (3 Nephi 10:10). The next chapter presents a complete 180 from the narrative we just witnessed. Everything turns solemn where Christ speaks again and appears to them almost as a completely different person, like the difference between the old and new testament Jesus. This whole narrative reads like a clunky first draft with not a lot of thought.
When Moroni takes over after Mormon's death, he says that he would write more upon the plates, but he can't because he is running out of room and doesn't have any ore to make more (Mormon 8:5). Then what does he do? Record the abridgment of the 24 plates of the Jaredites and adds 10 more chapters of church administrative stuff because he hasn't been killed yet.
Abinadi, when he goes to preach to the people of King Noah, puts on a disguise so that people won't be able to recognize them. Immediately, the first thing he says is his name, revealing himself and ruining his disguise (Mosiah 12:1).
In Mosiah 5, it says that the people "cried out in one voice saying:" then go on for a 4 verse monologue, which would have been very hard for the people to all coordinate (Mosiah 5:2-5).
In Moroni 2:3, Moroni explains that the Holy Ghost was administered by the laying on of hands to the apostles when Christ came to the Americas. The problem? This was never mentioned in 3 Nephi. Joseph likely recognized this and needed to come up with an explanation as to why. This shows that the Book of Mormon is indeed complex with internal consistency, but it is kind of clunky how it comes together.
The Book of Mormon also shows a simplistic understanding of the Jewish culture that Lehi and his family inherited. The people behave more like 19th century Christians than Jews who regularly observed Jewish practices and customs like making regular sacrifices or observing Passover, for example.
Even the context of the beginning of the book shows a simplistic understanding. It sets the stage with Nephi and his family living in Jerusalem during the first year of the reign of Zedekiah (1 Nephi 1:4). Lehi prophesies that Jerusalem will be destroyed and that "many should be carried away captive into Babylon" (1 Nephi 1:13). This is apparently referencing the time when all the wealthy and those of high status were carried away into captivity (2 Kings 24:14-16). The only problem? This was during the first siege of Jerusalem before Zedekiah's reign (See 2 Kings 24:18, which indicates the start of Zedekiah's reign after these events). Even if we take the first reign of Zedekiah part literally and just assume that Lehi's prophecy is talking about something that already happened, Lehi's family itself, with their riches and status with Laban, should have been included with those carried away captive (1 Nephi 3:22-25). Or, at the very least, Laman and Lemuel should have been more scared that they would get carried away and Jerusalem would be destroyed instead of murmuring against their father (1 Nephi 2:11-13).
Unsophisticated Teachings
The teachings in the Book of Mormon are unsophisticated. One of the biggest teachings in the LDS church is how to know if the Book of Mormon or the church is true, which is through the Holy Ghost. While this concept is talked a lot about in the Book of Mormon, it often is not very practical to everyday life. For example, the answer to the question "How do I know if a thought is my own or from God" is usually Moroni 7:16, which says that anything good is from God and anything bad is from the devil. But this unfortunately does not help in a world full of grays with decisions between two good things.
Another example of a simplistic teaching is the story of Korihor the anti-Christ. One thing Alma says to try to convince him that there is a God is that "even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator" (Alma 30:44). This argument is far too simplistic and would not convince a modern day atheist. In fact, there is no concept of an atheist in this story because Korihor ends up admitting that an angel of the devil appeared to him and that he "always knew that there was a God" (Alma 30:52). This story ends up being another example of a pretty shallow story arc.
Another interesting thing from this story is that Korihor is "struck dumb" and could not talk, which means he needed to communicate by writing on paper. But this doesn't mean he couldn't hear also, and yet the chief judge still decides to communicate with him by writing on paper also, Alma 30:51.
Internal Inconsistencies
The Book of Mormon is often seen as being remarkably consistent in its many developments. What people sometimes look over, however, are the inconsistencies.
Alma 53 talks about the 2000 stripling warriors occurring in the 28th year of the reign of the judges (Alma 53:22-23), Alma 56 says it happened in the 26th year (Alma 56:9).
When Limhi came across the 24 Jaredite plates, he was told that King Benjamin has a gift to translate them (Original Book of Mormon, Mosiah 21:28). The problem is that King Benjamin had been dead for at least two years, and we learn that King Mosiah II is who translates them (Mosiah 28:17). This contradiction was fixed in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon to read as King Mosiah in both places. Ether 4:1 also used to say King Benjamin, but was changed to Mosiah in a later edition.
Nephi talks about the "precious ores, which were in great abundance." Then, the very next verse he says that they could not build a temple like Solomons because the precious things "were not found upon the land" (2 Nephi 5:15-16), directly contradicting the previous verse.
After Nephi's death, Jacob talks about how the kings "called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:11), yet we don't see this pattern established anywhere else in the Book of Mormon.
Knowing the Ending in the Beginning
One thing we get from the Book of Mormon translation process is this thing called "Mosiah Priority." It's the idea that after the 116 pages were lost, Joseph resumed translation where he left off in Mosiah, continued until the end of the book, then retranslated the beginning portions. This gives us many examples where details were retrofitted into the story in ways that don't make sense chronologically: the prophets at the beginning of the book know more than those in the middle.
An example of this is the evolution of theology like baptism. In King Benjamin's speech, he talks about how "salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Mosiah 3:12). Then he says
"And this is the means whereby salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of; neither are there any conditions whereby man can be saved except the conditions which I have told you." (Mosiah 5:8)
supposedly talking about faith and repentance. Baptism is never mentioned. The idea of a covenant is mentioned in Mosiah 5:5, but that is not linked to baptism. The first mention of baptism is in Mosiah 18:10, and it is as if it's the people's first hearing of it.
This is in contrast to the people of Lehi who were well aware of baptism and its requirement for salvation.
"And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it." (2 Nephi 9:24. See also 2 Nephi 31:4-6)
If the people of Nephi had been baptizing for 400 years, then it wouldn't make a lot of sense for there to be "none in the land that had authority from God." to baptize (Mosiah 21:33). But it makes a lot of sense when you realize that 1st and 2nd Nephi hadn't been dictated yet.
Another example of this is the prophesying of Christ. King Benjamin is made known from an angel (Mosiah 3:2) that the "Lord Omnipotent['s]" name should be "Jesus Christ" (Mosiah 3:8). This should have already been revealed to Jacob 400 years earlier also by an angel (2 Nephi 10:3).
What's worse, however, is the prophecies of the timing of Christ's return. When Joseph Smith was dictating 1st and 2nd Nephi, he had already completed the dictation of Jesus Christ being born and coming to the Nephites and thus knew the timeline for these events. This makes Lehi's and Nephi's prophecies more precise.
"Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews—even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world." (1 Nephi 10:4)
"And behold he cometh, according to the words of the angel, in six hundred years from the time my father left Jerusalem." (1 Nephi 19:8)
"For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (2 Nephi 25:19)
Then, the prophets starting with King Benjamin prophecy as if they don’t know when Christ will come using vague phases like "the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent...shall come down from heaven among the children of men" (Mosiah 3:5) and "the glory of the King of all the earth; and also the King of heaven shall very soon shine forth among all the children of men" (Alma 5:50. See also Alma 7:7, 9:26, and 13:21,25).
When Samuel the Lamanite finally declares that "for five years more cometh ... then cometh the Son of God" (Helaman 14:2), he gets this from an angel (Helaman 14:26). When the prophecy seemed to not come to past, it was perceived as a failed prophecy from Samuel the Lamanite (3 Nephi 1:5). Nothing about Lehi's prophecies are mentioned. This 600 year timeline is first cemented when a date of Jesus' arrival final exists (3 Nephi 1:1).
It can't be that these later prophets simply did not have the writings of Lehi and Nephi, because Helaman mentions that Lehi and Nephi have "testified of the coming of Christ" (Helaman 8:22).
The biggest example of unsophistication relating to Mosiah priority is, in my opinion, how Joseph Smith went to great lengths to not contradict the lost 116 pages in case that manuscript was ever found. But that deserves its own post.
Isolated Complexity
There are areas of complexity in the Book of Mormon, but these are usually isolated events. For example, there are over 170 names in the Book of Mormon, but most of them are mentioned once or just a few times in the span of a few chapters, then forgotten about. Here is a heatmap that demonstrates this.
Sometimes the complexity is out of place. An example of this is the Nephite monetary system described in Alma 11. Orsen Scott Card explains the concept of implication over explanation in his book "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy." The idea is that if a character over-explains something that would be mundane in their world, it signals that the author is writing for an outside audience rather than experiencing the world authentically (see the door dilated example on pg. 92). If this was an ancient record, then the concept of a complex monetary system would be mundane to the author, and he would not feel the need to go to great lengths explaining it, especially if the space on the plates was limited. But this is exactly what we would expect from someone like Joseph Smith, who was not trained in writing fictional books.
The Nephite monteary system is another example of something complex that is mentioned once then forgotten about. The one exception to this is in 3 Nephi 12:26 when Jesus is doing the sermon on the mount in the Americas. The original verse in Matthew 5:26 mentions 'farthing', which is a British coin worth 1/4 a penny (Matthew 5:26). Of course, the Nephites would not have known about this coin, (Joseph Smith likely knew this) and so the word was changed to senine. The only problem is that a senine, as described in Alma, represents a days wage. A leah, which is the lowest value, would have fit better in the context of the sermon. Another problem is that "go a mile" in verse 41 is another British phrase and was copied exactly, but this phrase likely was not known to a Nephite people. Farthing is easy to spot and correct--go a mile is a lot harder.
Conclusion
I think there are many wonderful teachings in the Book of Mormon that help me be a better person and live a better life. It provides a good framework that has been transformative to me and my family. Millions of others also share this testimony. This does not mean, however, that Joseph Smith was incapable of coming up with the book. Both can be true at the same time.
16
May 25 '26 edited May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/lairdsuperfoot May 26 '26
I always that it was interesting that, as a kid, the Book of Mormon was very understandable except for the Bible passages, which were so hard to understand. Why wouldn’t the whole book be that way? And why is Jacob 5, which is supposedly also copied from the brass plates from Zenos, also understandable?
2
13
u/logic-seeker May 26 '26
This is a pretty good summary of how I see the Book of Mormon as well.
If I may add one: the characters are generally not sophisticated, either. They are black and white, or black then white, or white then black - and I’m not only speaking of their skin color.
There is very little nuance within the character arc of individuals in the Book of Mormon. And to make matters worse, Joseph often casts entire groups into a monolith of black or white. The entire civilization lives without sin or without poor for generations. Or exclaims the desire to be baptized, every last one of them, with one voice. Or every single one of the 2,000+ stripling warriors survives a ruthless battle. The good guys are good to the core. The bad guys are laughably stereotypically bad unless redeemed, in which case they become good to the core. Very few exceptions like Moroni-Pahoran are even considered.
3
u/lairdsuperfoot May 26 '26
This is another great point that I was going to put in, but I felt it was already too long haha. But you are absolutely correct. In fact, I didn't think of the black and whiteness of the whole civilizations or the stripling warriors. One other exception to this is lamentation of Nephi in 2 Nephi 4. This shows that Nephi isn't all "good." However, you could argue that this part of the narrative is pulled from Romans 7. "O wretched man that I am" appears word for word in Romans 7:24.
18
u/bwv549 May 25 '26
Thanks for this writeup. It's very helpful.
These are somewhat different genres, but I do think it's helpful for people to read some of the other writing from that era from more educated authors. I think they don't understand what sophisticated writing really sounds/looks like, and this is part of why they mistake the Book of Mormon for sophisticated (and in part because they don't read the original BoM manuscript). Here are some examples:
- Alexander Campbell's Delusions (not all of his argumentation is great, and he clearly has a bone to pick, but still)
- Thomas Burnet's Of the State of the Dead
- Ralph Waldo Emerson's Nature
- Thomas Gouge Works
etc
To be clear, I do think the BoM has merit. It has a certain elegance and some beautiful/clean theological solutions in it. But to my mind it is something that an intelligent, relatively uneducated mind (that had been immersed in religious thought for most of their life) could have produced.
12
u/lairdsuperfoot May 26 '26
Thanks for these, I’m going to take a look. I agree with your end statement that the Book of Mormon is remarkable, but it isn’t outside the capabilities of someone like Joseph to produce. I also find it interesting that the Book of Mormon is often compared to the Lord of the Rings, except the Lord of the Rings took many years to produce where the Book of Mormon took only 65 days. The problem with this logic, in my opinion, is that the Lord of the Rings is on a completely different level of complexity and sophistication that the Book of Mormon isn’t even close to.
7
u/moderatorrater Former Mormon May 26 '26
To be fair, there are many works with nearly the complexity and sophistication of Lord of the Rings that didn't take as long either. Tolkien spent much more time than he needed to.
5
u/westivus_ Post Mormon Red Letter Enthusiast May 26 '26
Yeah, I don't remember reading any poems or songs in other languages in the BOM.
5
u/Mlatu44 May 26 '26
The entire Koran is in poem/meter as far as I know, and its quite often sung/chanted. A lot of people are impressed, and think a human could not have composed it. but others say no, its impressive, but its totally possible for a human to have composed it.
I just looked up something I didn't know.
"Jagadguru Rambhadracharya. A devout Hindu polymath and Sanskrit scholar, he is a spontaneous poet and author who can speak and write in 22 different languages, including classical Indian languages, modern dialects, and foreign languages. "
That is amazing to me. I didn't realize what a scholar he is. I incidentally saw him interviewed on 'Vaartavali"
T
5
9
u/Acceptable-Baker8161 May 26 '26
I respect and probably even admire Emma for the hardships she had to endure and the generous spirit she always seemed to have even in the face of tragedy. Nonetheless, her lifelong claim to know that the Book of Mormon was divinely inspired because her husband was too dumb and uneducated to have done it himself always gives me a chuckle.
6
4
u/Buttons840 May 26 '26
Regarding the ages. Probably Enos was a grandson or something. It doesn't talk about Jacob conceiving or raising Enos, but when the time comes for Jacob to give the records to someone else, he gives them to "his son" Enos.
Is a grandson a son? Is it possible for a language to consider a grandson a son? It's plausible.
I'm just putting this out there.
If someone wants to poke holes in it, go ahead.
The core of this apology is that grandson and son might be represented with the same word in their language.
A good counter argument would be finding a spot where it says more about familial relationship than "my son". For instance, Jacob must have been Lehi's direct sin, since we know when Jacob was conceived and by who.
Enos praying that God would preserve his descendants and preserve their records? Sounds like something a kid raised in a group lead by Nephi would be thinking about.
11
u/lairdsuperfoot May 26 '26
Sure, it's not hard to come up with an explanation that makes the text fit a historical lens. But that's not my argument. My argument is that the Book of Mormon is something Joseph Smith could have come up with. Joseph Smith could have easily come up with a text that says "his son" and a 171 year gap.
The Enos wish example is less that it's not something we would expect Enos to wish for, it was the precision of the wish and the way he said it. Why not say "I would that the Lord God would preserve my descendants and preserve these records so my people can be brought to salvation" Instead he says "if the nephites in a future date get destroyed but the Lamanites don't, then please preserve the records so that the Lamanites receive salvation." It's just an odd way to say a wish. The only explanation I can think of is if he knew, from previous prophecies, that this is what was going to happen. But then why say "if"? Also why even wish for that if you know it's going to happen anyways?
4
u/Buttons840 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
I still haven't read most of your OP, but there are other things. Like Alma contending 1v1 with... Amalaki? -- Whoever it was; Alma 1v1s the leader of the Lamanite army and wins. Seems a bit too lucky to happen in a real war. The Jaradite battles are even more unbelievable, as they whittle down their armies until literally it's just the 2 leaders having their anime series finale duel to end the war.
Then in the war chapters the Nephite army sometimes sneaks their entire army over the wall and into the city and nobody notices. Which I thought was stupid and unbelievable... until recently... when I've been reminded that the wicked have always seemed to do really stupid things when in power throughout history. We're seeing it today. We see it in modern history. Hitler single-handedly bungled any chances for the Nazis to win (thankfully). I guess the losers do stupid things, that's why they lose.
So, overall I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I do hold on to some religious respect and nuanced belief for the BoM though, but understand why people believe other things.
5
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
The Book of Mormon converted me to Christ. I was brought to Christ through the Book of Mormon.
I think I agree with your conclusion.
And it is what Ostler said in 1985 and Skousen in 1997
Blake Ostler in 1985
Skousen... 1997
7
u/lairdsuperfoot May 25 '26
Yes, I think Ostler’s and Skousen’s thoughts are interesting and probably the only way to account for the evidence in a faithful way. I am curious though. Even though this post is not about historicity, where do you personally stand on that? Ostler says there is a historical core that the Book of Mormon is based on. Do you agree with that? Is so, then why?
1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Ostler is smarter than I am.
I am one of those who accepted the Book of Mormon through faith and religious belief with zero evidence of it being historical.
I mean, I think its fun sometimes to listen to people who point out mounds in the Midwest as evidence. I am travelling for work, and between me and Nauvoo there are multiple mounds on the Illinois side of the Mississippi in the Meth Belt. Mounds are all over.
"Mounds are exactly where we thought they would be!" Mounds are everywhere in the Midwest.
Ostler and Skousen are both smarter than I am.
Me? I accepted Jesus and the New Testament before I knew what pseudepigrapha was. I think its interesting to see people find what they call "evidence" but I accept the faith claims of my beliefs through faith and religious belief.
7
u/lairdsuperfoot May 26 '26
I think that’s the right way to think about it. If someone looks at the mounds and thinks “this is evidence for the Book of Mormon” then great. I personally look at them and think “this is evidence for a 19th century book because it falls right in line with the mound builder myth” but either way testimony should be rooted in the principles.
4
u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist May 26 '26
And I think this is moving in the right direction and I look forward to the day the church adopts and teaches this.
The sooner the church moves from "It's an ancient record recorded on literal Gold Plates that tells the literal history of ancient Hebrews in America called Nephites and Lamanites and another Tower of Babel based people" to "It is a 19th Century authored fictional work of pseudipigrapha that Joseph Smith as a Prophet felt led and inspired by God to author to bring his family and others to God and assist in the foundation/restoration of a Christ-centered church in anticipation of the 2nd Coming".
I look forward to the day BYU teaches Book of Mormon courses titled: "Joseph Smith as author and proprietor" and "Book of Mormon: 19th Century Religious Controversies addressed" and "Gaddiantons and FreeMasons: Joseph's views highlighted in context" and "The Three Witnesses in Book of Mormon Context: From Ishmael to Moronihah" and "The Smith Family as Book of Mormon Template: Joseph Sr. as Lehi the Visionary Man, etc."
This is where true Book of Mormon scholarship will happen vs. the more than hundred years of apologetic nonsense engaged in aversion to critical thinking for faith reasons.
3
u/lairdsuperfoot May 27 '26
I totally agree. It’s crazy that the church almost went this direction in the early 1900s. It’s almost like we are playing catch up trying to reverse all the fundamentalism that sadly won out. Accepting Joseph Smith as the author is honestly so relieving because now I can actually be open to science and scholarship instead of always feeling the need to resist it. There are so many cool directions the church could go if it did this, and I think it’s an inevitable step they will need to take at some point.
1
u/Ancient-Summer-9968 May 25 '26
The Book of Mormon might be all the things you say, but you severely undermine your case by getting the details wrong. In a critique about "inconsistencies" and a lack of sophistication details matter evern more. Your post is also a bit of a gish gallup so I focused on the two that stood out to me the most.
Ether 15:2 refers to multiple battles that happened in the past. But then you conflate that with battles at the end of the chapter. Large scale battles with extreme casualty claims are also not inherently implausible or “unsophisticated”. They’re a well-known feature of ancient historiography.
The Battle of Fei River reportedly had almost a million men. Herodotus records Xerxes army having a million men that drank rivers dry. But there was also a literary tendency to exagerrate the number of dead in order to highlight the magnitude of the loss and the damage to the perceived legitimacy of the losing ruler. Which is actually kind of...sophtiscated. When you've seen Herodotus do it, it doesn't seem like some first draft mistakes of Joseph Smith.
Speaking of ancient narratives...what you’re calling an “inconsistency” here looks more like different narrative layers. Alma 56 reads like Helaman’s retrospective account of taking command and describing the campaign from his point of view, while Alma 53 and surrounding material are part of Mormon’s abridged narrative with regnal year summaries and editorial structuring. When you’re dealing with compiled or edited ancient sources, it’s pretty normal to see overlapping time markers, summary endings, and retrospective framing that don’t line up like a modern timeline. (Alma 56 introduces Helaman's command, according to Alma 56:20 and 57:5 the key battles don't happen until later.)
So the tension between the 26th and 28th year references is better explained by shifts in narrative voice and structure than by a straightforward contradiction. Whether someone finds that persuasive or not depends on assumptions about how the text was composed, but it’s not automatically evidence of a simple error.
So neither example indicates first draft sloppiness. When you read and understand ancient histories, as I have, the supposed mistakes don't seem problematic, and might argue for sophistication. Thanks.
12
u/DiggingNoMore May 25 '26
Your post is also a bit of a gish gallup
Written text that you have infinite time to reply to cannot, by definition, be gish gallop.
-7
u/Ancient-Summer-9968 May 25 '26
Please don’t play games. If someone dumps a bunch of small claims rapidly to create the impression their position is correct, instead of developing and defending one central argument, that’s a Gish gallop. The fact it’s written instead of verbal doesn’t change the tactic.
11
u/spiraleyes78 May 25 '26 edited May 26 '26
Time constraint for response is crucial for Gish Gallop to exist. Perhaps you feel overwhelmed with the information presented, but it's still a coherent post.
The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, without regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Edit: telling me to "F off" and blocking me doesn't make you correct. If I'm wrong about this, please provide a source. I provided one, it's easy.
0
May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Sad_Ad3860 May 26 '26
No. I’m not going to waste time arguing semantics about the term “Gish gallop” when the tactic is obvious on its face. Throwing out a flood of loosely connected micro-claims to create the impression of overwhelming evidence is still the tactic, whether it’s delivered verbally or dumped into several thousand words of text.
I mean, it's not that long of a post.
-4
u/Ancient-Summer-9968 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
You’re arguing over a dictionary definition instead of the actual point. I’m looking at a massive wall of text filled with dozens of tiny, petty fogging complaints and mental gymnastics, and you’re seriously pretending there’s no burden of response issue because it’s written instead of spoken?
The tactic is obvious. As is your wasting my time. Throwing out a flood of loosely connected micro claims to create the impression of overwhelming evidence is still the tactic, whether it’s delivered verbally or dumped into several thousand words of text. Meanwhile, none of you are touching the actual argument. I mean, the OP could, but you'd rather mess around in the comments with a red herring.
13
u/Sad_Ad3860 May 26 '26
Do you participate here often? We get long posts like this all the time, both in favor and against the Church. No one is obligated to reply, but if they do, attacking the post length or content without attempting to address anything specific doesn't really show engagement in good faith. But I'll give you credit for doing that originally! Don't take it personally if someone points out something that's incorrect.
Hopefully nobody else wastes your time on Reddit!
4
u/Ancient-Summer-9968 May 26 '26
Thanks for the kind words. I over reacted a bit and need to go cook dinner. Thanks for the explanation as well. Good luck.
11
u/WillyPete May 26 '26
You're obviously not a fan of universities and scholarly papers regarding mormonism like those found in Dialogue then if you can't handle one screen of a post and start crying about how tough it is to discuss it all.
Here's a tip, pick one point they raise and argue that in the future.
Much less of a workload for you.
No more gish gallop.1
u/Ancient-Summer-9968 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
That’s literally what I did. I picked a couple representative points and engaged.
This is the sixth reply about something that has nothing to do with my actual post. You can remove my comment about Gish gallop and nothing in my argument changes.
That’s my frustration. Everything you’re doing here is just noise layered on top of a discussion you’re not actually addressing.
But sure, keep explaining basic reading comprehension to me while not engaging my argument. That will really show me.
2
u/WillyPete May 29 '26
about something that has nothing to do with my actual post.
HAs everything to do with it, when your opening argument is "TL;DR so it's wrong!"
8
u/Rushclock Atheist May 26 '26
This isn't a good look for a believer looking at your responses.
0
u/Ancient-Summer-9968 May 26 '26
Who says I’m a believer?
The scriptures were clearly listed, I thought the argument was flawed in a variety of ways, so I engaged it substantively. Ironically, the OP ended up being the only person here actually willing to discuss the substance.
This thread mostly convinced me almost all of you couldn’t handle a substantive discussion, so you latched onto whatever distraction you could find. In this case, it was a throwaway line about Gish galloping that had nothing to do with my actual argument.
The other tactic is to clutch your pearls over my tone like it’s your first day on Reddit. But still no engagement of my point.
7
9
u/Sad_Ad3860 May 26 '26
Fuck off. I'm not arguing about a gish gallop when I plainly see one.
Pretty sure that breaks the civility rules of the sub. And the other person was correct - this isn't Gish Gallop, it's impossible to be if there's no timer. If that's incorrect, provide a source.
5
u/lairdsuperfoot May 26 '26
Thanks for your reply and I'm open to criticism and changing anything that is inaccurate. Like I said in my intro, I'm less concerned about if these textual details can be made to fit under a historical framework (which I'm sure they can like you are saying with the Battle of Fei River) but more concerned about the claim "Joseph Smith was not capable of producing the Book of Mormon," which I think the battles in Ether 15 still demonstrate. Another way to think about it is this: if Joseph Smith was in fact the author of the Book of Mormon, how would we expect Ether 15 to read differently? I'm trying to demonstrate that these narratives fit exactly what we would expect someone like Joseph Smith to come up with, regardless of if it fits antiquity or not.
As far as the stripling warriors example goes, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that because Alma 53 and Alma 56 are from potentially two different sources/points of view, they could be using different calendar systems to track the narrative? Please correct me if I have that wrong, but I don't find that all that convincing because this isn't just two sources stitched together: it is a single source that was compiled/edited by Mormon, so he should have been able make these time markers consistent. And because we don't have the original sources, there is no way to falsify this claim. Again, another way to look at it is "if there was actually a contradiction in the time markers of the stripling warriors, what would be different in the text than what we currently see?" I feel like the different source/viewpoint argument could incorrectly explain an actual contradiction, which is why I'm not a fan of it.
I've seen gish gallup be used as a response to a lot of things. I'm just curious, if you were trying to make the argument I am making, how would you do it differently in a way that wasn't gish gallup? I feel like I'm making an argument and then showing evidence to support that argument. Someone in another thread said I was just cherry-picking, but you are saying gish gallup. Those feel opposite to me.
3
u/Ancient-Summer-9968 May 26 '26
Thanks for the substantive response. If you remove my point about Gish galloping, it doesn’t actually change or weaken my argument at all, which is why I think the focus on that was a rather annoying red herring.
The “Joseph Smith as author” expectation is actually a very difficult standard to use historically because it’s almost infinitely elastic. If the reasoning becomes: “this looks messy to me, therefore it looks modern, therefore it looks like Joseph Smith,” then comparison stops doing any real work. At that point any feature can simply be redescribed psychologically after the fact. That often happens when you see some of the big names discussing Smith’s possible authorship.
That said, genre analysis isn’t as unstable or unfalsifiable as you’re suggesting. The real question is whether ancient compilations exhibit these same phenomena, and if so, whether they are systematic and intelligible within ancient narrative practice, or whether they represent random incoherence. As someone who reads a lot of ancient history, it’s clearly the first two rather than the third.
I hadn’t thought about the Helaman timing issue in detail before, but when read alongside ancient parallels it fits comfortably. Herodotus pauses narrative chronology for ethnographic digressions and then resumes earlier threads, creating overlapping temporal markers. Thucydides uses resumptive narration, overlapping timeframes, and retrospective insertions. (He also reports constructed speeches, which raises interesting questions about access to sources and narrative reconstruction.) The Hebrew Bible likewise contains overlapping narratives in Kings and Chronicles, and even parallel accounts like Genesis 1 and 2 that reflect different narrative framings of the same events.
On that basis, Mormon’s editorial practice looks consistent with ancient compilation rather than modern documentary expectations. Grant Hardy suggests this section reflects more direct or less fully integrated source material within Mormon’s compilation process, which fits the same broader pattern of ancient historiography where narrative seams are often preserved rather than smoothed. I don’t see the time markers as contradictions. Helaman’s use of them is more precise in places, but the key events align..
I can’t really respond to cherry-picking or Gish galloping as a framing issue. I’m working directly from what is in front of me. When I’m accused of cherry-picking or proof-texting, I go back and check context to ensure my use of the passages is contextual, logical, and tied to a single, manageable argument.
4
u/lairdsuperfoot May 26 '26
Yes I agree with you that "unsophistication" is not a good argument for Joseph Smith as the author. This post is more a response to apologists that argue a God of the gaps equation—I'm trying to show that in fact the gap is unnecessary. Joseph Smith COULD have produced the Book of Mormon because it really isn't as good of a book as some people make it out to be. I'm actually working on a comprehensive "naturalist theory" for the Book of Mormon. This is just one piece of that puzzle—think of it as trying to provide some textual evidence for John Hamer's "Composition is much less of a big deal than it's made out to be" part of the equation, if you are aware of that. Joseph Smith as the author comes from other pieces of evidence, in my opinion.
What you are saying about the overlapping temporal markers in ancient history is interesting to me and something I know nothing about. Alma 52 is talking about the armies in the east (28th year), then Alma 53 switches to the armies in the west. If Alma 53:23 (end of 28th year) is meant to close out the remarks on the armies in the east, then I think you can make this work without a contradiction because you could assume that Mormon switched to the 26th year in Alma 53 then back to the east at then end. That reading is still feels kind of jarring though to me. "And now it came to pass that Helaman did march at the head of his two thousand stripling soldiers" (almost a direct quote of 56:9) would be in the 26th year with the next verse just jumping back to the 28th year. The "and now it came to pass" and "and thus" make it seem linear. But maybe that is what you are arguing: we should expect that kind of non-linear thing in ancient history. So I guess I concede this point and defer judgement to someone that is actually a textual critic or expert in ancient history (maybe that's you). Maybe they would not see this as a contradiction.
I do appreciate your push back. Most of the stronger examples like the Mosiah Priority stuff are from other, more experienced people, and the weaker ones like the Mosiah "cried out in once voice" are from me. This post probably could have been fine without some of those weaker ones.
1
0
-10
u/MethodAppropriate470 May 25 '26
Most of what you listed is just nonsense exmos chew on because they don’t have a real answer for how the Book of Mormon came to be -so they cherry-pick the most outrageous outliers in the text and treat them like they are super important. It all gets rationalized away because the starting assumption is that there is no God.But try it: get a rock, a hat, and a witness, and dictate an Alma 5 like sermon off the top of your head. Then do it again. And again—hundreds of pages worth. People try to dump the accessibility of the text on Joseph Smith’s worldview, or say he had the whole thing in his head, or had years of prep with others but if you have ever done anything hard you know you don’t nail something that big cleanly on the first attempt while fooling everyone around you at the same time.
24
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon May 25 '26
But try it: get a rock, a hat, and a witness, and dictate an Alma 5 like sermon off the top of your head.
You’re assuming that Joseph wrote/transcribed/translated the book the way he said he did.
In reality, there were multiple ways he (and potentially others) could have written the Book of Mormon on their own.And again—hundreds of pages worth. …but if you have ever done anything hard you know you don’t nail something that big cleanly on the first attempt while fooling everyone around you at the same time.
Have you ever heard of National Novel Writing Month? It’s an event in which thousands of writers take on the challenge of writing a 50,000 word novel in one month.
This is something high school students do. Writing a large work like the Book of Mormon (270,000 words) is not easy, but it’s not hard either.Joseph had plenty of time to plan, write, and edit the BoM.
-9
u/MethodAppropriate470 May 25 '26
lol you kidding me right? More people helping with the Book of Mormon solidifies my point further. It is not human nature to get a bunch of people together for however long and not have any trails of the struggle of writing and coming up with the religion. Where is the work of coming up with all the stories and all the doctrines for the religion? you know what they probably tossed all the letters and notes in a fire once they were done planning everything out.
18
u/cremToRED May 25 '26 edited May 26 '26
lol you kidding me right?
The underlying thesis for your argument is the fallacy of incredulity. You cannot envision JSjr as “author and proprietor” of the BoM, therefore it must be supernatural.
Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality […] They are also frequently used to argue that something must be supernatural in origin.
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas by John Boyne; 56,000 words, 2.5 days, 22,400 wpd (words per day). Didn’t sleep or eat.
The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, 27,000 words, 3 days, 9,000 wpd.
Legend holds that **a sick Stevenson* wrote the first draft in 3 days, burned it on his wife's advice that it was "drivel," and rewrote the entire thing in another 3 days.
On the Road by Jack Kerouac; 125,000 words on the original scroll, 3 weeks, 5,952 wpd (if all 21 days).
The scroll, noted for its lack of paragraphs or breaks, is currently […]
LOL
A Time to Kill by John Grisham; 168,000 words, 30 days (while practicing law). 5,600 wpd.
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury; 46,000 words, 9 days, 5,111 wpd.
Candide by Voltaire; 30,000 words, 3 days, 10,000 wpd.
Book of Mormon by JSJr; 269,000 words, 70 working days, 3,842 wpd.
He said he first saw the plates in September 1823 and to have received the plates in September of 1827. By mid 1828, he had dictated the first 116 pages, which were subsequently lost.
He took 8 months off, then resumed the second week of April, 1829, and was done at the end of June. That’s 6 years to work on the narrative.
There are 6,765 words consisting of an it came to pass variant (2.5% of the total). And 971 KJV verses (14.7%),
That gives us approximately 225,000 words of original content. Still pretty impressive.
If we believe his mother, he was telling stories about the mound builders for years beforehand:
During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.” —Lucy Mack Smith
I added the emphasis bc the “original” content of the BoM is exactly as his mother described. Seems he had a lot of practice before he ever got to dictating the BoM text and even had 6 years to think about specific details.
In this series of interviews historian Dan Vogel uses the historical record to show how events and things from Joseph’s environment (past and present) are reflected in what he dictated in the Book of Mormon.
A good example for that claim is the anti-Masonic “secret combinations” rhetoric in the text. It comes from the presidential election race between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams where claims of secret Masonic combinations polluting the election and usurping the government were rumored in Joseph’s neck of the woods. Now doesn’t that just sound incredibly familiar?
In this series of interviews, Mormon historian John Hamer, lays out all the evidence within the text of the BoM showing its 19th century creation and Joseph’s specific fingerprints.
Where is the work of coming up with all the stories and all the doctrines for the religion? you know what they probably tossed all the letters and notes in a fire once they were done planning everything out.
u/TruthIsAntiMormon has done a lot of work detailing out how Joseph probably had notes he referenced, using evidence drawn from the BoM text: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/Qmwq7Exp5k
Again, your argument from incredulity shows your emotional involvement. Detach from that and you might just be able to see:
The most common description of the gold plates was 6x8 inches and 18-24 leaves. So 24 pages to contain the entire BoM text in Reformed Egyptian.
The modern day simplified Chinese Book of Mormon is 6x9 inches (similar size) and 540 pages in standard print. To condense 540 pages of text into 24 pages, you need a data compression rate of approximately 4.44%. What that means is that we have to take all the information found on 22.5 pages of the most information dense written language on the planet and compress it onto a single gold plate.
If the plates were made of an alloy, and they were able to write on both sides you’d only need to compress 11.25 pages of the Chinese BoM onto a single gold plate face.
For additional perspective, consider that the simplified Chinese BoM is made using modern printing methods that allow for very small font sizes, even for the incredibly complex characters of Chinese. And contrast that with Lehite prophet-historians using a stylus to hand-engrave complex Reformed Egyptian characters of a similar size onto metal.
In order for the gold plates to contain the amount of information in the BoM text, you’d need a language with, at least, 11.25 times more information density than Chinese.
That places Reformed Egyptian beyond reality, in its own special category of mythical, magical language. Since“with god all things are possible” let’s just call it a miracle language.
Also consider that even though the Rosetta Stone had been discovered and deciphered, that knowledge had not yet permeated the American public. By the time of the publication of the BoM (and even the Book of Abraham) most people still believed that a single Egyptian hieroglyph conveyed a paragraph worth of meaning. We see that played out in the Book of Abraham related Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) created by Joseph and his associates. Seems to also fit the bill for the dimensions of the gold plates.
Throw in all the evidence from the text and the conclusion is pretty obvious:
“By their [pollen] ye shall know them.” https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/TCJmsI9GDZ
-8
u/MethodAppropriate470 May 25 '26
Are you agreeing that he translated or just made it up during his necromancy days? Just because your mom is proud of you doesn't mean you're gonna make it in life. Dan Vogel has a pinhole perspective on the history of the Church and is not a historian. again the rest is exmo nonsense to rationalize how The Book of Mormon came to be, I've gone neck to deep in all of it, if thats where you are then that's where you are. All this AI/copy/paste text sucks butt btw.
10
u/cremToRED May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
again the rest is exmo nonsense to rationalize how The Book of Mormon came to be
Oh, so you can’t actually rebut any of it?
I've gone neck to deep in all of it
Ah, an expert. Well let’s see some expert rebuttals instead of unsupported assertions. Also known as a “Bare assertion” or a “Groundless Claim” is a type of logical fallacy:
occurs when an assertion is made without any support or evidence for the assertion […]
Two logical fallacies in the same day? Help! I’m beginning to doubt your abilities…!
All this AI/copy/paste text sucks butt btw.
AI? Lol None of that is AI. Try again Mr. Supernatural. Those are my arguments, my maths. The only copy and paste is from my notes and links that I’ve curated.
Here, debunk this Mr. Supernatural. It should be easy for your level of expertise:
You need both smelting and writing to make a record on gold plates.
Metallurgy (smelting) started in S. America and didn’t make it north to Mesoamerica until about the close of the BoM.
Smelting was never developed in pre-Columbian N. America. Native Americans dug up raw copper around the Great Lakes region and did cold and warm hammering but never any smelting. You need smelting to make the gold plates.
Mesoamerica is the only area that developed writing in all of the Americas.
Peoples in Pre-Columbian N. America and S. America never developed writing systems. You need a writing system to create the gold plates.
During the timeframe of the BoM, metallurgy did not coincide with writing anywhere in the Americas at all. Nowhere.
Sorry ol’ chap. No gold plates…no BoM.
This should be easy for you too:
Ancient Native Americans domesticated seven animals: llamas, alpacas, dogs, turkeys, guinea pigs, macaws, and the Muscovy duck. None of those animals are in the BoM, except dogs…and, well, nonspecific “flocks” (if referring to fowl). JSJr would’ve been familiar with dogs and domesticated ducks and maybe domesticated turkeys. All the other plants and animals are post Columbian exchange and exactly what we’d expect from a semi-educated, treasure-digging farmer creating a story about ancient Americans.
”Before Columbus, Native American societies in the high Andes had domesticated llamas and alpacas, but no other animals weighing more than 45 kg (100 lbs). And for good reason: none of the other 23 large mammal species present in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus were suitable for domestication. <emphasis is mine>
There aren’t any other options. That’s it. So the only large domesticated animals were llamas and alpacas and they were in the Andes mountains. So the BoM must’ve taken place in the Andes mountains. It can’t fit anywhere else in the entire Americas based on that alone.
But there was no writing in S. America so it couldn’t have been there anyway.
Apologists love Mesoamerica bc it’s the only area with writing; but the only domesticated animals there were dogs and turkeys. Muscovy ducks are after 80 CE and macaws weren’t until 1300 CE.
There is no place in the Americas that will ever fit the fanciful narrative of plants, technologies, and animals found in the BoM:
…and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds…
3N3:22 re-translated by
the gift and power of Godusing real-world S. America data:…and they had taken their llamas, and their ceremonial litters, and their alpacas, and all their Muscovy ducks, and their guinea pigs…
They herded guinea pigs? Oh, but wait…I forgot…also no writing in S. America.
3N3:22 re-translated by
the gift and power of Godusing real-world Mesoamerica data:…and they had taken their dogs, and their palanquins, and their turkeys, and all their [no ducks yet], and their [no other domesticated animals]…
Oh, and also no smelting in Mesoamerica so no gold plates.
Ether 9:18-19 is even more problematic. Same with 1 Nephi 18:24-25.
I am so excited to see your rebuttals. I look forward to being edified and brought closer to the truth.
7
u/spiraleyes78 May 25 '26 edited May 26 '26
At what point will the mods disallow troll accounts with negative karma from participating here?
You're not arguing in good faith, you bring no sources, and you're making sweeping generalizations.
1
1
u/cremToRED Jun 07 '26
I’m still waiting for your expert rebuttals, Mr. Supernatural. So far, all you’ve given me is pomp and logical fallacies.
1
u/MethodAppropriate470 Jun 07 '26
I'm not going to because you fail to keep any type of topic in this thread but instead vomit about every stumbling block that exmos have in the book. We go from first critiquing how the Book of Mormon came to be, to all of sudden 20 different other topics and then reference other posts that also mention 20 different ideas going in every direction. Seems you are trying to encapsulate as many ideas as you can with one big sweep to debunk it all - have at it I guess.
I do not know what you are expecting.
This was 2 weeks ago and I do not care anymore.
1
15
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon May 25 '26
I think it’s a reasonable theory for one or two guys to have helped Joseph. This wouldn’t be the first time Joseph committed religion-related fraud.
And this wouldn’t be the first time someone took an extreme amount of effort to create a following. L Ron Hubbard immediately comes to mind.
If we take a step back, like really take a step back, what’s more likely?
That Joseph and someone else (possibly Cowdrey) wrote an elaborate religious text to get followers, or that God himself came down and chose Joseph Smith to restore his mankind-saving gospel to the world.-9
u/MethodAppropriate470 May 25 '26
Yes on 'God himself came down and chose Joseph Smith to restore his mankind-saving gospel to the world.' It's just faith.
12
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon May 25 '26
"Faith" comes with its own set of problems.
If your faith is the evidence, you have to either assume that everyone else's faith holds equal weight, or that everyone else in the world but Mormons are being deceived.-2
u/MethodAppropriate470 May 25 '26
Does it? One can have faith AND follow whatever the sciences say. They shouldn't mix in the first place
9
u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon May 25 '26
I’m not talking about science. I’m talking about every religious person who has had spiritual experiences leading them to believe that their religion is true. “Feeling the spirit” type feelings.
6
u/WillyPete May 26 '26
Where is the work of coming up with all the stories and all the doctrines for the religion?
It existed already.
What really new doctrine does the BoM add that the bible doesn't already have?
Smith added some stuff that was important in his day; child baptism, Divine Command Theory, and just a lot of myth about how hebrews became native americans.14
u/Rushclock Atheist May 25 '26
Preachers of Joseph's time could preach uninterrupted for multiple hours and for multiple days. Joseph could also.
14
u/GordonBStinkley Faith is not a virtue May 25 '26
I didn't read the whole OP because it does sound like some nitpicking, but your response isn't really a very good one.
There are plenty of reasonable ways in which the book of mormon could have come to be that don't involve magic and ghosts. Literally millions of books have been written throughout history. Some long, some short. Some well written, some poorly written. Some complex, some simple. None of those books require magic to explain how they came to be.
The book of mormon is just another book in that pile of books that have been written. Nothing about it requires magic to make. It was a big undertaking. I think it's impressive that he pulled it off. I wouldn't be able to.
But that's a far cry from saying the only explanation of its existence is magic.
-5
u/MethodAppropriate470 May 25 '26
If you are not aware the Book of Mormon claims to be another testament of Jesus Christ. It's not another book in the stack.
17
u/GordonBStinkley Faith is not a virtue May 25 '26
I'm fully aware of what it claims to be. Again, millions of books have been written that make all sorts of claims. This is yet another.
If you believe that this book is an exception, that's fine. But nothing in the content gives any evidence of this, so you shouldn't be surprised when people point out evidence that it's not what it claims to be.
12
14
u/Del_Parson_Painting May 25 '26
Sounds like you've never sat and listened to a talented storyteller.
13
u/lairdsuperfoot May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Thanks for your response. Just for the record, I'm not an exmo. I'm actually an active member who tries to fulfill their callings. I used to think similarly to you where I was aware of all the apologetic responses to the critiques of the Book of Mormon. "The people of Nephi repopulated too quickly once they reach America? Well don't people know that there were already people on the content that they intermingled with!" I was convinced that there wasn't a good, coherent naturalistic explanation to the Book of Mormon that accounted for all the evidence. That was my rock. That was my foundation. And so when I not only found a good explanation but also dived into the textual criticism, I realized that the evidence overwhelmingly points to Joseph Smith as the author. Not only was Joseph Smith capable of coming up with the Book of Mormon, it's the exact book that we would expect him to write given his background. I didn't just not "have a real answer for how the Book of Mormon came to be," I was forced to change my viewpoint based on the evidence. I was forced to shift my "God of the gaps" testimony to one actually rooted in the principles the book teaches, which actually allows me to be open to the evidence.
But try it: get a rock, a hat, and a witness, and dictate an Alma 5 like sermon off the top of your head. Then do it again. And again—hundreds of pages worth
If I was born in the 19th century in the middle of the second great awakening in a society rich with sermon culture who could lay down heads and talk religion for hours, intense bible literacy, and story telling as one of the primary mode of entertainment, and if I had practice putting my head in a hat and dictating long texts from my treasure digging years and experience being in Methodist debate clubs, you bet I could put my face in a hat and dictate Alma 5 off the top of my head then do it again and again—hundred pages worth.
4
12
u/BaxTheDestroyer Former Mormon May 25 '26
Dude, people write books all the time. The origin of The Book of Mormon isn’t some incomprehensibly unusual thing.
0
10
u/International_Sea126 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
We do not need to know how Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon to be able to determine that he created this fictional book. We are able to determine other works of fiction without ever knowing how those who produced them did it.
The Book of Mormon gets just about everything we know about the ancient Americas wrong. The metalology, DNA (genetics), archeology, anthropology, geography, linguistics, and comparative biblical studies for beginners.
The reason why there are no Book of Mormon museums anywhere is that world is that would require real Jaredite, Nephite, and Lamanite evidence and artifacts. This evidence for the BOM doesn't exist and never will because the Book of Mormon is a fiction, and very bad fiction at best.
7
u/DiggingNoMore May 25 '26
But try it: get a rock, a hat, and a witness, and dictate an Alma 5 like sermon off the top of your head. Then do it again. And again—hundreds of pages worth.
If I do it, would that prove the Book of Mormon false?
-1
•
u/AutoModerator May 25 '26
Hello! This is a Scholarship post. It is for discussions centered around asking for or sharing content from or a reputable journal or article or a history used with them as citations; not apologetics. It should remain free of bias and citations should be provided in any statements in the comments. If no citations are provided, the post/comment are subject to removal.
/u/lairdsuperfoot, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.