DiscussMormonism.com

It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.

My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.

Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? Complexity might be how subsequent events depend upon perhaps multiple past threads of events.

Are there patterns of events an author such as Joseph might be would have trouble tracking without getting confused?

Personally I find it to be a pretty simple and repetitive text. I think the complexity is only relative, as in it's kind of complex for a dictated/oral composition. Here complex means "a lot of characters and plots to keep track of." But of course there are some continuity errors. The stories and the theology are very simple, though.

Complexity is kind of a red herring. It could be 10 times as complex as it currently is, that still wouldn't make it an ancient document.

PseudoPaul wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 4:28 pm

Personally I find it to be a pretty simple and repetitive text. I think the complexity is only relative, as in it's kind of complex for a dictated/aural composition. Here complex means "a lot of characters and plots to keep track of." But of course there are some continuity errors. The stories and the theology are very simple, though.

Complexity is kind of a red herring. It could be 10 times as complex as it currently is, that still wouldn't make it an ancient document.

Pseudopaul, I think you are correct that amount of complexity does not say a lot about whether it is an ancient text. It did cross my mind that a lot of plot complexity might suggest it's a novel. An ancient text such as I ÌI Kings is pretty simple leaving one to wonder what all is the story being left out.

Perhaps "plots to keep track of " was something I was wondering about. Are there some plots complicated enough to ask special care to lay out?

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 4:14 pm

It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.

My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.

Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? Complexity might be how subsequent events depend upon perhaps multiple past threads of events.

Are there patterns of events an author such as Joseph might be would have trouble tracking without getting confused?

The tide coming in, then out, then back in, etc. reminded me of Thomas Hardy's style in Jude the Obscure. When Jude was feeling self-pity and victimized, things only spiraled worse and worse for him. But when he'd be optimistic, then his life would improve. Hardy's point was easy to see, just as the Book of Mormon's loss of faith/sinning would lead to pride and wars, but when faithful/obedient, then peace and prosperity reigned.

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 4:14 pm

It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.

My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.

Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? Complexity might be how subsequent events depend upon perhaps multiple past threads of events.

Are there patterns of events an author such as Joseph might be would have trouble tracking without getting confused?

For information purposes only I plugged in your post into Perplexity and came up with this:

<link snipped>

Is this Kosher to post this link? If not, I will only ask why Analytics is apparently being given permission to do the same sort of thing?

Hi, MG - Shades has asked that there be no links posted to any contents of the Artificial Intelligence Megathread. His comment is here:
viewtopic.php?p=2895692#p2895692
Thanks! -c-

The link only addresses the content of huckelberry's post without any additional comment or skewing of original information or intent.

Regards,
MG

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 9:59 pm

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 4:14 pm

It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.

My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.

Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? Complexity might be how subsequent events depend upon perhaps multiple past threads of events.

Are there patterns of events an author such as Joseph might be would have trouble tracking without getting confused?

For information purposes only I plugged in your post into Perplexity and came up with this:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159903&start=160

Is this Kosher to post this link? If not, I will only ask why Analytics is apparently being given permission to do the same sort of thing?

The link only addresses the content of huckelberry's post without any additional comment or skewing of original information or intent.

Regards,
MG

Link and run. Which you know is against the rules. I’ve reported your post. Again. Yet again.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 10:11 pm

Link and run. Which you know is against the rules. I’ve reported your post. Again. Yet again.

Even worse, it's a link to the A.I. thread. Then he asks if this is allowed, even after Dr Shades posted this, specifically in response to him:

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Sat May 31, 2025 2:53 am

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Fri May 30, 2025 11:11 pm

Another moderator said:

So it sounds like there is a compromise that is possible. If there is explanatory description of what the link is leading to then that would be acceptable, as long as it is not done each and every post (which by the way, I don't do).

Regards,
MG

NO.

Here is the compromise: If you want to have a.i. post a response to someone on your behalf, send that person a link VIA PRIVATE MESSAGE to the a.i.-generated post that resides within the artificial intelligence megathread. Do not post a link to that thread within any other thread, regardless of how descriptive of a, uh, description you attach to the link.

To emphasize, NO LINKS TO ANYTHING THAT RESIDES WITHIN THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEGATHREAD.

And to avoid confusion, NO LINKS TO ANYTHING THAT RESIDES WITHIN THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEGATHREAD.

And because I most likely wasn’t clear enough, NO LINKS TO ANYTHING THAT RESIDES WITHIN THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEGATHREAD.

And in conclusion, NO LINKS TO ANYTHING THAT RESIDES WITHIN THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEGATHREAD.

TL;DR: NO LINKS TO ANYTHING THAT RESIDES WITHIN THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEGATHREAD.]

How more disingenuous can a troll be?

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 4:14 pm

It is sometimes claimed that complexity of the Book of Mormon shows Joseph did not invent it. My familiarity with the book has faded over the years so I am hoping some with lots of familiarity like Shulem could reflect on whether there is much complexity.

My faded impression is there is not much theological development, there are cycles of loss and gain of faith. With these cycles there are also lots of wars for vague reasons.

Perhaps one can say the book is complex because a lot of actions are described. Am I wrong to think this is mostly add on repetition of a few themes? ...

Bolding added by me. I think you hit the nail on the head there, Huckleberry.

I am guilty of reading MG 's A.I. response. It is just the sort of canned response I was hoping to get past. Yes events are related to religious themes, it has many people over a long period of time. The book was not a throw away joke. It was not authored by a 12 year old. Serious thought and planning went into it.

Are there examples of surprising complexity instead of scholars say...

In terms of complexity, I think it is fair to say that the Book of Mormon is relatively complex. Lots of people. Lots of plates. Lots of time.

But as a comparison, consider the writings of Brandon Sanderson. Sanderson pumps out novels year after year at roughly the same pace that the Book of Mormon was transcribed, and each of his books are more complex than the Book of Mormon--each book has multiple people with multiple plots that are all interwoven in a setting that covers continents with various geographies, cultures, and languages, and are all built in societies with deep, complex, mysterious histories that are slowly revealed. Sanderson happens to be Mormon, and his books have a clear Mormon inspiration--multiple layers of Gods who rule over multiple planets, and the various books that take place in different parts of his universe are all subtly woven together to form a mega-story. Any one of Sanderson’s books is more complex than the Book of Mormon, and when you tie them all together, their combined complexity is orders of magnitude more complex than the Book of Mormon.

Consider: Each of the 5 books of The Stormlight Archive are 380,000 to 450,000 words long, and Sanderson can write one of these in about 6 months. Compare to the Book of Mormon at only 270,000 words, many of which were blatantly plagiarized.

Stormlight has 500+ distinctly named characters. Book of Mormon only has 200.

Stormlight has 10-12 points of view per novel, plus dozens of one-off interludes. The Book of Mormon only has the words of Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni.

Stormlight has 10+ named languages. Book of Mormon only has reformed Egyptian.

Stormlight covers 4,500 years including its detailed backstory. Book of Mormon is only 2,200.

Stormlight has a full planet map, 10 provinces, detailed city plans, and an entire “Shadesmar” parallel (spirit) universe. Book of Mormon has a relatively simplistic geography of the new world and a little bit of plot in the old world, but very little actual geography.

Stormlight has hundreds of made-up words and original idoms like “stormlight” and “shadesmar” while the Book of Mormon has about two ("cureloms" and “cumons”)

And just to emphasize, the 10 books of “The Stormlight Archives” (only 4 or 5 of which are published so far) is only one piece of his “Cosmere” universe, where stories that take place on other planets are all subtly related and woven together.

So I’d be interested in what apologists think about this. Is the complexity of Brandon Sanderson’s writing evidence that Roshar is an actual planet and that these books are translations of actual ancient texts?