Daniel Peterson's Article on Book of Mormon in Deseret News

[_Doctor Scratch]

I thought this was the best part of the article:

Some critics, understandably challenged by the book's consistency within complexity, have sought to dismiss it, pointing out that, for example, J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth, too, is both complicated and consistent.

This is, in its way, a very high, though entirely unintended, compliment. I'm a devoted admirer of Tolkien's writing and have been one for many years; I regard it as perhaps the greatest sustained achievement in 20th-century English letters.

[_Themis]

Don't tell Emma. She didn't see any manuscript. Neither did the other people present during the process.

I think she also said a Bible wasn't present, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

[_Equality]

It has some unique things to say about God's relationship to law, God's nature, the atonement, free will, and faith.

Please identify one unique thing the Book of Mormon has to say about God's relationship to law, God's nature, the atonement, free will, and faith.

Of course, the feat isn't merely that somebody made up new names. It's that somebody made up new names, groups, subgroups, and small factions and then told a long story using those names and categories and was sufficiently consistent in their use throughout the story.

That's true of many fictional books, is it not?

I think as evidence for this is supposed to speak to the breadth of the story, which, when mixed with the other variables, is supposed to speak to the complexity of the book.

I suppose, but why is it assumed that "complexity" = "true and miraculous in origin." It doesn't.

This is an important thread that binds all the other variables together. The idea, I think, is that the book contains impressive complexity independent of how long it took to produce. If it took a few months to produce, then the complexity is more impressive; sufficiently so such that natural explanations should be called into question.

For this argument to be persuasive, wouldn't the proponents of it have to demonstrate not merely that the Book of Mormon is "complex" but that it is more complex than any book produced by natural means? If skeptics can point to works produced naturally of greater complexity than the Book of Mormon (and they can and do), and if skeptics can point to books produced naturally of similar complexity in a similar amount of time (and they can and do), does this not refute the argument?

The book may be contradictory in small and irrelevant details, details we might presume ancient authors would overlook, but on the whole it's as consistent as we could expect from the sort of historical work that it presumes to be.

The question, though, is whether the Book of Mormon is more consistent than what one could reasonably expect from a human author. If it had no errors whatsoever, then the argument that its consistency and accuracy reflect a superhuman capacity in its production might be reasonably entertained. But the book is, in fact, riddled with inaccuracies about the subjects it claims to expound upon, it has numerous internal inconsistencies, many of which have been corrected in subsequent editions (such as a character appearing in the narrative after he was dead, and not as a ghost, either).

the places mentioned in the book maintain and surprising consistency to one another throughout the story

Why should it be surprising? Does it require an ability that not everyone possesses to keep the geography straight? Perhaps. But, again, the question is whether or not the feat of keeping the places mentioned in the narrative internally consistent is one beyond the realm of human capacity such that a supernatural explanation becomes more likely than a natural one. Even if, for the sake of argument, one concedes the point that the geography is, in fact, internally consistent (which is, of course debatable), to invoke the miraculous as most plausible explanation for such consistency is unreasonable, given the many more plausible explanations available.

Even if Joseph Smith had been more educated, it's doubtful he could have been educated enough to create a work as complex as the Book of Mormon is as short a time period. It's also doubtful that Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and others working together could have produced as work as complex as the Book of Mormon is as short a time period.

Yes, it's doubtful that Joseph Smith and the people who helped him (whatever role we want to assign them) could have produced a religious text that is viewed by millions almost 200 years later as divinely inspired scripture. But they did. The fact that something occurred that was unlikely to occur, or difficult to repeat, or hard to comprehend how it was done, does not mean that it was more likely to have been produced by supernatural rather than natural means. That's really the heart of the argument. The St. Louis Cardinals, to my great pain and chagrin, won the World Series after being down to their last strike--twice. No one had ever done that before. I can't figure out how they did it. It's harder for me to believe that the Rangers could have lost Game 6 after being ahead 7-4 in the 8th inning, 7-5 in the 9th inning, and 9-7 in the 10th inning than it is for me to believe Joseph Smith could have produced the Book of Mormon. Yet I don't ascribe supernatural means to the Cardinals' victory. What they did was rare and far outside of expectations, but it was well within the range of human achievement. What Joseph Smith and his followers did was rare and outside of expectations, but is well within the realm of human achievements, as is amply demonstrated by even a cursory glance at the course of human history. Nothing he did was unique. Unusual, yes. Unique, no.

[_Themis]

It has some unique things to say about God's relationship to law, God's nature, the atonement, free will, and faith. The question, of course, is whether those things count in favor of its being doctrinally rich, and whether doctrinal richness counts in favor of sufficient complexity.

Ideas that were already out there. This is one of the reasons some point to Sydney's involvement.

Of course, the feat isn't merely that somebody made up new names. It's that somebody made up new names, groups, subgroups, and small factions and then told a long story using those names and categories and was sufficiently consistent in their use throughout the story.

Not seeing this as that hard, which is not if one has the time to make the story. I don't see it as impossible for the more talented to do it in a short time keeping while maintaining some consistency. Again apologists tend to over blow it here. Now doing it in a short time is impressive, but I see no reason to think Joseph couldn't do it. He was supposed to be a very good story teller, giving many details. Their problem is that the evidence they present is to vague and subjective. Someone brought up Mozart. How could a child create such complex music?

Of course, the feat isn't merely that somebody made up new names. It's that somebody made up new names, groups, subgroups, and small factions and then told a long story using those names and categories and was sufficiently consistent in their use throughout the story.

Not seeing it. I have read the book many times, and it is not that complex. In fact I think the story is quite simple and looks to be written by someone not experienced in writing. The story come across as to simple of a story of good and evil with evil characters being really evil, and good characters really good.

I think as evidence for this is supposed to speak to the breadth of the story, which, when mixed with the other variables, is supposed to speak to the complexity of the book.

Still not seeing how three migrations makes for much breadth. The story really is very simple with bad plots, and not much if anything going on other then the main plot.

This is an important thread that binds all the other variables together. The idea, I think, is that the book contains impressive complexity independent of how long it took to produce. If it took a few months to produce, then the complexity is more impressive; sufficiently so such that natural explanations should be called into question.

This point though was about it being done in a couple of months. The word dictate was being used, so it would not be impressive, since just about anyone could dictate 9-11 pages a day or more. If he was made it up as he goes, then yes I think it would be impressive, just not impossible, especially since the story is not all that complex, dose contain inconsistency which have been discussed in many threads over the years,

The book may be contradictory in small and irrelevant details, details we might presume ancient authors would overlook, but on the whole it's as consistent as we could expect from the sort of historical work that it presumes to be.

Actually there are many big ones that tell us it is not ancient. I gave one example already, which even Joseph and Oliver realized they made a mistake and fixed in later editions.

This is an internal consistency claim. So the response to what you've said is that even if we cannot locate places from their descriptions in the book, the places mentioned in the book maintain and surprising consistency to one another throughout the story (given the short period of time the book was produced).

But it is not good enough to find an appropriate location, even though many have been looking. It's details are not really that complex to maintain consistency, and why would the author, who has the geography in his mind not be able to do this, especially since it is fairly vague?

I'm not sure what to say in response to this one. An actual apologist might want to chime in here...

Someone might remember which apologists I am talking about, but I do remember him saying it was not evidence for some very good reasons regarding any possible translation process.

Is there good evidence to suggest that they were using an already created story? Given the short production period for the book the internal consistency here counts in favor of its complexity.

There is evidence that they were using the Bible contrary to eyewitness testimony, so Joseph dictating out of his hat was not done all the time. Reality is that no one today knows what was being done before or for most of the time during the supposed translation process. We look at the text for the best available evidnece to see if it is an anciwe3nt document or not. It unfortunately fails this test.

What of the revisions are significant?

Most were grammatical mess. Other changes were to things like Christ to messiah since that name had not been revealed at that time it was being used. King Benjamin was changed to Mosiah since Joseph and Oliver realized that the time line was a bit off. They changed Mary from being the mother of God to the mother of the son of God later as new doctrine conflicted with these passages.

Even if Joseph Smith had been more educated, it's doubtful he could have been educated enough to create a work as complex as the Book of Mormon is as short a time period. It's also doubtful that Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and others working together could have produced as work as complex as the Book of Mormon is as short a time period.

I thought we already cover this that it was not that complex.

Stem, I've changed my mind about what I said in response to your response to the argument I posted. I do think I should revise the premises to explicitly say something about the supposed production time of the Book of Mormon. Thanks for pointing that out.

I am not sure what you guys discussed, but I have argued that if you are going to look at it from the perspective that Joseph did make it up, you cannot realistically keep with the time line of production.

[_Themis]

The time line seems to be a bit of an issue here. Apologists want to argue that he couldn't do it in the time allotted(~2 months), but forget that he did some creation many months earlier with the lost 116 pages. He didn't start up again for many months, so how is this not more time for Joseph to prepare for when he starts up again. It's also interested to note that when he did, he started from where he left off.

[_brade]

Themis and Equality, thanks for your responses. As you may be aware, I don't believe that the Book of Mormon is historical (in the relevant sense to this discussion). I'd simply like to get clear on the strongest argument in favor of its divine production and historicity.

[_why me]

Ideas that were already out there. This is one of the reasons some point to Sydney's involvement.

Wishful thinking. Poor Joe would have had to memorize the manucript and stick his head in a hat to recite it. Plus, experiencing persecution from almost the beginning would have made Joe the fall guy. And for what? At that time, it looked that all will be a failure. And yet he continued knowing that he was a fall guy. And of course he died for sidney's book.

[_why me]

The time line seems to be a bit of an issue here. Apologists want to argue that he couldn't do it in the time allotted(~2 months), but forget that he did some creation many months earlier with the lost 116 pages. He didn't start up again for many months, so how is this not more time for Joseph to prepare for when he starts up again. It's also interested to note that when he did, he started from where he left off.

Where did he write it? And where did he get the pens and paper? And where did he get the ink? Plus the secrecy of it all. Not easy to write such a book with a feathered pen without being seen. Plus, where would he hide the manuscript? Plus, he would have been missed from his family duties.

[_DrW]

With regard to DCP's article, one need only select the best among the following two hypotheses:

H1: The archeology, history, language, culture, genetics, and technology of Mesoamerica from approximately 2500 BCE to approximately 600 ACE is best described by the qualified historians, archeologists, linguists, geneticists, ethnologists, geologists and other professionals who have spend hundreds of thousands of hours working onsite in Mesoamerica and who have published their findings in hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers published over the last century.

H2: The archeology, history, language, culture, genetics, and technology of Mesoamerica from approximately 2500 BCE to approximately 600 ACE is best described by writings of an uneducated glass looker and treasure hunter who lived in New England in the early 19th century, never set foot in Mesoamerica, claimed that he magically received golden plates that contained this history and published this history (which showed remarkable similarity to popular fiction of time) in the Book of Mormon, said history of the Mesoamerican inhabitants having been first ascribed to native North American peoples by his followers until it became abundantly clear that no evidence for the North American version of the story could be found.

According to the article, DCP would select the second hypothesis (H2), and would encourage others to select this as the best hypothesis as well.

DrW, what's your take on the following argument?

P1: If the Book of Mormon appears to be too complex to have been written by Joseph or any of his contemporaries in the early nineteenth century under any conceivable set of circumstances than the one Joseph describes, then the Book of Mormon is probably an authentic ancient document translated into English by miraculous means.

P2: The Book of Mormon appears to be too complex to have been written by Joseph or any of his contemporaries in the early nineteenth century under any conceivable set of circumstances than the one Joseph describes.

C: Therefore, the Book of Mormon is probably an authentic ancient document translated into English by miraculous means.

Dr. Peterson would, I think, support P2 with the following evidence:

1. It's doctrinally rich

2. Its vitally important as a second witness for the Savior Jesus Christ

3. It features hundreds of individual characters, many of them bearing quite uncommon names,
who belong to a multitude of groups, subgroups and small factions.

4. It describes three migrations from the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere.

5. It employs at least three distinct dating systems.

6. It was dictated within a remarkably short time, at high speed (roughly nine to 11 pages of
the English printed edition per day)

7. It's internally consistent.

8. It doesn't contradict itself.

9. It both presupposes and reflects a complicated geographical backdrop to its stories, involving scores of place names and topographical indicators.

10. Places maintain their proper relationships to each other even when they're mentioned only a few times over hundreds of pages.

11. Many important sections of the book are prefaced by statements that give readers a forecast of what's coming — and are then followed by summaries of what has just been read.

12. There are extended chiasms throughout the book.

13. The purported ancient authors sometimes quote from each other (e.g. in 1 Nephi 1:8 and Alma 36:22, passages dictated orally many days apart).

14. It was published without significant revision.

15. The person who published the book was a semiliterate young farmer with only a few weeks of formal education.

Do you believe all those things taken together don't suggest sufficient complexity?

Sorry, Brade. I somehow missed your question earlier.

However, my response to DCP's claims would be pretty much like the earlier answer from Themis.

DCP is so far down into the apologetic weeds that he has not adequately considered the implications to science of Mormonism's claims regarding the provenance and historicity of the Book of Mormon. These Mormon claims are no more believeable or defensible than claims of a global flood in the time of Noah or an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old.

(Either that or DCP is simply being disingenuous.)

[_sock puppet]

Sylvester Stallone wrote the screenplay for Rocky in just three days time (by one account, 20 straight hours by another account--sort of like changes to the accounts of the first vision). It resulted in an Oscar nomination for Stallone for best screenplay, and a movie winning the 1976 best picture and best director Academy Awards. (Stallone lost out only to Paddy Chayefsky for the brilliant screenplay written for Network.)

Does this prove that god had to be involved in writing of the Rocky screenplay and that it is true? (by the way, I have it on good authority that there has been as much archaeological evidence found to support the historicity of Rocky storyline as the storyline of the Book of Mormon. In both instances, the quantum of that evidence is bupkis.)