Peterson's latest old smoke and old mirrors...

[_I have a question]

He could have produced a series of short revelatory documents and teachings over an extended length of time — just like the Doctrine and Covenants, in fact. But what happened at first, rather, was the dictation of a lengthy, complex book within the stunningly short period of just two or three months. The Book of Mormon recounts a thousand years of history for a people of whom none of his contemporaries had ever heard. (And throwing in the Jaredites just makes the story longer and more complex.) Joseph Smith's neighbors expected no such thing. They wouldn’t have missed it had it not been provided.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... ormon.html

The methodology used in computing translation time is seriously flawed. The lost 116 pages, according to the text of the Book of Mormon itself, is essentially duplicated in the subsequent version which we now have as First and Second Nephi. That takes up a significant amount of the 275,000 words. The first 116 pages took months to create alone. During the interim period, after the manuscript was lost, of about a year (which Nibley and others don't include in the calculation) Joseph wasn't doing much of anything. He didn't have a job. He could have easily been coming up with text for the book. Joseph Smith's mother stated that Joseph was telling stories about the Indians from the time he was young. The plot and narrative could have been worked on for two or three years or more. Nibley's assertion that it was done in only two or three months is pure speculation at best.

http://www.mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm#speed

[_moksha]

Dr. Peterson's audience at the Deseret News is not looking for critical thinking and I am uncertain if the Deseret News would even allow him to supply it. The Deseret News pays its writers by the column inch and they want all their inches to be packed with faith or else be mildly interesting for the reader. Dr. Peterson tries to balance these two items.

[_Jersey Girl]

Can I just point something out here?

Daniel's original:

He could have produced a series of short revelatory documents and teachings over an extended length of time — just like the Doctrine and Covenants, in fact. But what happened at first, rather, was the dictation of a lengthy, complex book within the stunningly short period of just two or three months. The Book of Mormon recounts a thousand years of history for a people of whom none of his contemporaries had ever heard. (And throwing in the Jaredites just makes the story longer and more complex.) Joseph Smith's neighbors expected no such thing. They wouldn’t have missed it had it not been provided.

In offering such a history, with its multitudes of interacting characters, scores of place names and geographical descriptions, and complicated story and chronology, a fraud would have exposed himself to a host of risks and possible pitfalls. But to what end? It seems, superficially at least, quite unnecessary.

Now watch.

The Book of Mormon recounts a thousand years of history for a people of whom none of his contemporaries had ever heard.

Right. So how do you imagine that this could have happened:

In offering such a history, with its multitudes of interacting characters, scores of place names and geographical descriptions, and complicated story and chronology, a fraud would have exposed himself to a host of risks and possible pitfalls.

When he was writing about the history of people none of them had ever heard about? If he were a fraud, how could he be exposing himself if there was no way for people to investigate, research, verify or disprove his claims?

Viewed through an alternative lens, does that seem like an all too convenient set up for a win:win? I mean, if he were a fraud.

Think much, Daniel?

[_Rosebud]

It's called writing a book. This is how books happen. Joseph Smith is one of many authors who have accomplished this feat. He's not the only person in the world who's been better at dictating than holding the pen.

But the story that Joseph couldn't possibly have enough genius to write a book sure sounded good before I was old enough and experienced enough to understand that the Book of Mormon wasn't really that amazing of a feat. Human are smart little puppies. We can do things.

But Joseph's book? It isn't genius, it's insipid. It's like too little butter spread across too much bread. Its characters are flat, it's stories unbelievable and its morals trite. It was written by someone lacking in life experience. My 18-yo wants to be a writer and he's writing his way through a much more sophisticated book. Adding more and flatter characters and making it take place over a longer period of time would probably simplify the task. It's not easy to write complex characters with deep histories and individual incentives and produce a book that challenges people to think. Joseph didn't accomplish that. He was too silly. Lamen, Lemuel and Sam? Not impressive. Captain Moroni? A young boy's fantasy.

Joseph's genius was in his ability to influence and convince others of his book's origins, not in the writing of it. Cults aren't rocket science, but not every human is capable of starting a successful one.

[_Chap]

I have read extensively in the Book of Mormon, and I have to say that the evaluation below hits the button for me.

People who have been brought up to regard the Book of Mormon as a sacred text, and its 'translator' (for which read 'author') as a prophet approach the text wearing special Mormon spectacles through which it seems a marvellous book. But to the rest of us it really is a series of flat, implausible and repetitive moral fables. (Though unlike the Bible, its morality is set out in prudish 19th terms - 'Yea, even great wickedness!", but never a detail given.)

It is frankly dull.

It isn't genius, it's insipid. It's like too little butter spread across too much bread. Its characters are flat, it's stories unbelievable and its morals trite. It was written by someone lacking in life experience. My 18-yo wants to be a writer and he's writing his way through a much more sophisticated book. Adding more and flatter characters and making it take place over a longer period of time would probably simplify the task. It's not easy to write complex characters with deep histories and individual incentives and produce a book that challenges people to think. Joseph didn't accomplish that. He was too silly. Lamen, Lemuel and Sam? Not impressive. Captain Moroni? A young boy's fantasy.

Joseph's genius was in his ability to influence and convince others of his book's origins, not in the writing of it. Cults aren't rocket science, but not every human is capable of starting a successful one.

[Guest]

When my kids were between the ages of seven and twelve they loved Christopher Paolini's Eragon series. They couldn't believe at 14-yo had written such an amazing book! If I criticized his Arya character, trying to make the point that she was nothing more than a young teenage boy's flat fantasy, they'd get defensive. They loved the books and her. She was the most beautiful, intelligent, strong and powerful female elf!

Ten years later they get it: "Oh, this book was written by a 14-yo kid. He did a good job for a kid. What more can you expect? But his characters are boring and flat and he doesn't have much insight into women."

But at least Arya was more interesting than Isabel. Arya was beautiful, sexual AND she even had a role in the story.

[_sock puppet]

The Book of Mormon recounts a thousand years of history for a people of whom none of his contemporaries had ever heard. (And throwing in the Jaredites just makes the story longer and more complex.) Joseph Smith's neighbors expected no such thing.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... ormon.html
http://www.mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm#speed
These three sentences are loaded. "...of whom none of his contemporaries had ever heard." And from no other source than what JSjr wrote, nor has anyone ever since then either. JSjr's history of those people have not been verified by artifacts. It is corroborated by no other, independent tellings. The supposed gold plates are nowhere to be found or examined. Go figure. Kind of reminds me of Lewis Caroll's Alice in Wonderland. None of his contemporaries had ever heard of Wonderland. But perhaps DCP has been there. Maybe he guides people on tours of Wonderland.

No doubt about it, JSjr did just 'throw' the Jaredites in. It made the story longer. And more complex. Still doesn't hold a candle, either in complexity or literary genius, to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. So if adding other people, making a book longer and more complex is proof of its validity, can you just imagine the order of magnitude more 'true' that LotR is than the Book of Mormon?

Third, "Joseph Smith's neighbors expected no such thing." In that same vein of conjecture about what neighbors of some past person knew or not, I suppose that Carroll's neighbors expected no such thing as Wonderland, nor Tolkien's neighbors expected no such thing as Hobbits and Middle Earth. But there they are, confined to the pages of their books, just like Nephites, Lamanites and even the thrown-in Jaredites are found nowhere but in JSjr's Book of Mormon.

It is safe to say that one would expect more from "the most correct book on earth", "another testament of Jesus". I certainly would expect a better argument from a man of letters like DCP than these three sentences betray.

[_Rosebud]

LotR was the first book that came to my mind when I read Peterson's argument too. That's probably why I was thinking of too little butter on too much bread.

"I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."

Fitting description of the Book of Mormon as well.

The world is full of brilliant books.

[_Tator]

He could have produced a series of short revelatory documents and teachings over an extended length of time — just like the Doctrine and Covenants, in fact. But what happened at first, rather, was the dictation of a lengthy, complex book within the stunningly short period of just two or three months. The Book of Mormon recounts a thousand years of history for a people of whom none of his contemporaries had ever heard. (And throwing in the Jaredites just makes the story longer and more complex.) Joseph Smith's neighbors expected no such thing. They wouldn’t have missed it had it not been provided.

Is it me or is the bolded sentences worded weird?

To me "would" makes more sense than "wouldn't".

Joseph Smith's neighbors expected no such thing. They would have missed it had it not been provided.

[_bcuzbcuz]

LotR was the first book that came to my mind when I read Peterson's argument too. That's probably why I was thinking of too little butter on too much bread.

"I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."

Fitting description of the Book of Mormon as well.

The world is full of brilliant books.

I taught English composition for a number of years at a Secondary school. I am totally convinced that the art of writing and describing complex, rounded characters that engage the reader's imagination and empathy is very difficult. Flat, static, two-dimensional characters are all too common. Young writers. especially those unacquainted with complex plot and well developed characters, fill pages with dialogue and action scenes (also poorly developed) and think they are telling interesting stories.

Joseph's Book of Mormon is like reading a 500 page essay of a ninth grader. Mark Twain apparently called it "chloroform in print". How right he was.