Peterson the historical skeptic

[Physics Guy]

The Book of Mormon reads differently to me from the way most of the Bible reads. The Bible isn’t necessarily any more believable but it seems like more honest and natural myth and legend. A lot of stories are vague, softly focused. When details are offered, they seem to me more picturesque than realistic.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t succeed in being realistic, but it seems to be trying too hard. Noah doesn’t need tools to build his ark. Nephi has a bellows made of animal skins, iron ore accessible from the surface, and a fire that he makes by banging two rocks. As an account of ancient ship-building it’s still ludicrous but it’s also way too much detail. If Nephi smelted iron to forge tools then telling us how he banged rocks is like a modern contractor mentioning that he turned on his power saw.

To say that while much of the Bible reads as myth the Book of Mormon reads like fraud is not just a judgement on Joseph Smith’s character that we can’t make for the unknown authors of Biblical passages. It’s a literary judgement of genre. Between credible realism and myth there is an uncanny valley of detail that is too silly to be real but too much to be innocent. The Book of Mormon is deep in that valley.

[Chap]

To say that while much of the Bible reads as myth the Book of Mormon reads like fraud is not just a judgement on Joseph Smith’s character that we can’t make for the unknown authors of Biblical passages. It’s a literary judgement of genre. Between credible realism and myth there is an uncanny valley of detail that is too silly to be real but too much to be innocent. The Book of Mormon is deep in that valley.

That's a point I have not seen made before, in quite a few years on this board. It is nonetheless exceedingly telling.

I do remember thinking at times - "Why is he so verbose? All those repetitions of things already said, and the "Or, in other words" passages." And If I recall correctly, doesn't he complain of the difficulty of 'engraving' what he writes on the plates? But despite that, we get masses of detail that is, as you point out, quite unnecessary.

I mean - he hardly needs to tell us how he would have struck a spark to light a fire, does he? He was unlikely to be worried that his readers might think he struck a match or used a cigarette lighter, after all. But all the same, he carefully scrawls the unnecessary sentence on the metal plate ...

[Physics Guy]

Right, it’s especially hard to swallow these periodic descents into detail as scratching on gold plates. And in general the first-person narration introduces a lot of problems, I think.

But even if the text of the Book of Mormon were produced on a modern word processor it would just be weird as a story. To invoke Seinfeld, it’s a Yada problem. “I found ore, I made a bellows from skins, I banged rocks. Yada yada yada, I built an ocean-going vessel.” For the detail that’s given, far too much is omitted; considering how much is omitted, far too much detail is given. The impression is strong that someone is trying to convey verisimilitude but cannot just tell the real story. That’s the note of dishonesty.

[drumdude]

Right, it’s especially hard to swallow these periodic descents into detail as scratching on gold plates. And in general the first-person narration introduces a lot of problems, I think.

But even if the text of the Book of Mormon were produced on a modern word processor it would just be weird as a story. To invoke Seinfeld, it’s a Yada problem. “I found ore, I made a bellows from skins, I banged rocks. Yada yada yada, I built an ocean-going vessel.” For the detail that’s given, far too much is omitted; considering how much is omitted, far too much detail is given. The impression is strong that someone is trying to convey verisimilitude but cannot just tell the real story. That’s the note of dishonesty.

I was scratching my head while re-listening to the podcast again at that one. Let's assume that God wanted that section to be in there. What theological purpose were those incorrect details about ship building supposed to serve?

I couldn't think of any, and of course the idea that Joseph was trying to make it sound believable was the obvious alternate hypothesis.

[Tator]

How did Joe get all that detail from Reformed Egyptian? My understanding was Reformed Egyptian was an abbreviated or Reader's Digest form of Egyptian. Can you imagine the detail if Joe only had the original Egyptian?

[Alphus and Omegus]

I was scratching my head while re-listening to the podcast again at that one. Let's assume that God wanted that section to be in there. What theological purpose were those incorrect details about ship building supposed to serve?

I couldn't think of any, and of course the idea that Joseph was trying to make it sound believable was the obvious alternate hypothesis.

I think the portions that include excessive and useless details were also included to pad the word count. It is a common authorial vice. That's what all the "in other words" stuff is.

Regarding the Nephi discussions of building a fire and making tools, they are the exact wrong details that an ancient author would have included. No one gives a care that you had to make some tools. It's obvious that you did. But they would be interested in what wood you used. What the boat's dimensions were. If it had a mast, how tall was it?

The descriptions of the ocean-going vessels in the Book of Mormon seem so obviously written by people with no experience with real boats. "How could Joseph have known?" Indeed, he did not, and his book reflects that.

It's a great contrast to the details about Noah's ark that are included in the Genesis myths. There aren't many details included there, but at least we know how big the boat was, even if there aren't any details of how and where the animals, their food, and their sewage were kept.

[Physics Guy]

Noah's ark is an obviously fantastical story, but the details of size are at least good storytelling. They don't strike me as points that are only included to try to convince us that it all really happened, yep, for sure. They're there to make me visualise the giant ark; that's an honest purpose, in a sense at least, even if the storyteller knows it's a story.

The inconsistent bursts of pedantic detail in the Book of Mormon just don't have that effect at all, for me. Instead they just have the ring of somebody trying to sound realistic, but quickly falling back on vague miracles whenever he realises that he's out of his depth of technical knowledge.

[Dr Exiled]

Noah's ark is an obviously fantastical story, but the details of size are at least good storytelling. They don't strike me as points that are only included to try to convince us that it all really happened, yep, for sure. They're there to make me visualise the giant ark; that's an honest purpose, in a sense at least, even if the storyteller knows it's a story.

The inconsistent bursts of pedantic detail in the Book of Mormon just don't have that effect at all, for me. Instead they just have the ring of somebody trying to sound realistic, but quickly falling back on vague miracles whenever he realises that he's out of his depth of technical knowledge.

I am sure others would agree with me in thanking you for posting here. Your comments, especially because they come from an outsider, really aid in showing how Mormonism's historical claims just don't add up.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Noah's ark is an obviously fantastical story, but the details of size are at least good storytelling. They don't strike me as points that are only included to try to convince us that it all really happened, yep, for sure. They're there to make me visualise the giant ark; that's an honest purpose, in a sense at least, even if the storyteller knows it's a story.

The inconsistent bursts of pedantic detail in the Book of Mormon just don't have that effect at all, for me. Instead they just have the ring of somebody trying to sound realistic, but quickly falling back on vague miracles whenever he realises that he's out of his depth of technical knowledge.

I am sure others would agree with me in thanking you for posting here. Your comments, especially because they come from an outsider, really aid in showing how Mormonism's historical claims just don't add up.

You’ve been given the evidence over and over and over again. You just refuse to believe what the evidence shows, which is the Book of Mormon is historical.



- Doc

[Physics Guy]

Calvin’s Wager.