Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Gadianton]

Remarkable, extraordinary, improbable works of genius exist. They are not impossible. They do not belong only to the realm of the gods. But normally we would not expect "obvious impostures" and "clumsy frauds" to rise to that level—though I suppose it's possible that some do.

I think Equality is really on to something here. I highly recommend the documentary available on Netflix called "Who the *&^k is Jackson Pollock?"

Also, for a strange set of reasons, I've been reading a bit about controversies regarding Mozart's music, fraud by his family after his death and imposters. It hadn't occurred to me until I read Equality's post that there is a real connection to apologetics. The question that invariably gets raised is how to evaluate the real thing, the genius, from the imposters? How much does popularity and expert consensus weigh into evaluating the greatness of something, and how are our views reshaped when it becomes evident that certain false suggestions played into the consensus view?

[Guest]

Yes it can. My failure of imagination also extends to Shakespeare :)

Remarkable, extraordinary, improbable works of genius exist. They are not impossible. They do not belong only to the realm of the gods. But normally we would not expect "obvious impostures" and "clumsy frauds" to rise to that level—though I suppose it's possible that some do.

I think that's important: On rare occasions, a clumsy fraud is also extraordinary.

I don't think Joseph was just a country bumpkin that apologists want to make him look like, and I do agree with you. I suspect nevo won't be giving any examples.

[_Nevo]

This story has long stuck with me for two reasons. First, whenever I see complicated and remote explanations for unusual phenomena and potential hoaxes, I'm always reminded that the reality can be devastatingly more simple. Second, while everyone was right to reject those complicated theories for how the photographs were produced, it's always fascinated me that people lost sight of that even though they were unlikely, the explanation that entailed the photos were of actual fairies was vastly, vastly more unlikely than that. You can't prove extraordinary supernatural claims simply by attacking somewhat unlikely natural explanations.

Those are good observations, EAllusion, and I agree with them.

However, if there is a devastatingly simple natural explanation for the provenance of the Book of Mormon then I confess it eludes me.

[_Gadianton]

Then something marvelous happened. In the 1980's, the girls who produced the photos admitted it was a hoax. They also described how they did it. It turns out they cut out pictures of fairies from a book, stuck them to hatpins, and took pictures of them. That's it. That's what they did. So much for acid etched engravings and complicated exposures.

As you pointed out earlier, we never disagree too much my friend. A little explanation seems to work it all out. See that my last post was two minutes after yours, and I swear on The Origin of Species that had not read yours. Equality's post made me think of the problems in these debates where intelligent design, or "signal to noise" is the linchpin. It's amazing how much run-of-the-mill evidential reason matters in contrast to arguments resting on some kind of "intelligent design" argument. One of the things I was thinking about above was a note by Mozart in a journal declaring a certain piece the greatest he'd written, and then there came suggestions that the journal entry was a forgery by his wife after he died to promote sale of the piece. So here's what's interesting. I haven't yet researched it far enough yet to form an opinion on whether the journal entry was forged. But what's fascinating is how much the mundane research that questioned the legitimacy of the journal entry seems to matter in contrast to the brainy expositions by musicologists who distill the value of compositions by principles of music theory.

[_Fence Sitter]

Those are good observations, EAllusion, and I agree with them.

However, if there is a devastatingly simple natural explanation for the provenance of the Book of Mormon then I confess it eludes me.

Not being able to provide a simple explanation for its provenance does not mean all other explanations are of equal value.

I am always a bit mystified why the failure to completely explain every detail of how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon detracts at all from the overwhelming evidence of its 19th century origins.

[_Kishkumen]

Yes it can. My failure of imagination also extends to Shakespeare :)

Remarkable, extraordinary, improbable works of genius exist. They are not impossible. They do not belong only to the realm of the gods. But normally we would not expect "obvious impostures" and "clumsy frauds" to rise to that level—though I suppose it's possible that some do.

The angel taking the plates, the missing 116 pages--these are evidences of imposture. I don't see why the book cannot be remarkable at the same time. What prevents both being true?

[_Kishkumen]

However, if there is a devastatingly simple natural explanation for the provenance of the Book of Mormon then I confess it eludes me.

Here's my devastatingly simple natural explanation: Joseph Smith, a man with some remarkable mental faculties, wrote the Book of Mormon.

I see no reason to doubt this devastatingly simple natural explanation.

[_Kishkumen]

To put it another way: There are two questions that are conflated in the phrase "clumsy imposture." One addresses the quality of the work, the other the authenticity. It was Nibley who conflated the two. In his mind, if it were an imposture, its clumsy execution would give it away. Of course, he started with the assumption, an unwarranted one, that the book is ancient, and he almost exclusively looked for evidence to support that assumption. Yet the overwhelmingly obvious truth is that the book belongs in the 19th century. And yet there is nothing about its modernity that necessitates dismissing it as an object of study or LDS scripture. Yes, rejoice in how wonderful the Book of Mormon is. I too find it to be a remarkable and ingenious work. But do not try to foist on us the unsupportable case for its antiquity. Do not betray human advances in the hard and soft sciences by taking for granted the truth of a mere assertion. Demand evidence to support the assertion. We teach histories of Greeks and Mayans but not of the peoples of Atlantis and Mu for very good reasons. It takes evidence to verify what we accept as fact. If you don't have the evidence, I will not take your claim seriously. You do not have the luxury of arguing in favor of the x, y, z, when you never established the a, b, and c. First things first.

[_Quasimodo]

However, if there is a devastatingly simple natural explanation for the provenance of the Book of Mormon then I confess it eludes me.

Here's my devastatingly simple natural explanation: Joseph Smith, a man with some remarkable mental faculties, wrote the Book of Mormon.

I see no reason to doubt this devastatingly simple natural explanation.

+1

It is the simplest and most likely explanation. There are no great philosophical truths in the Book of Mormon that had not been discussed many times before it existed.

The historical claims of the Book of Mormon (it's only unique claim) have been discounted by multiple sources in multiple fields of science and absolutely no evidence has ever been put forth that supports those claims.

It is not wise or historic or well written. To an outsider, it reads like the phone book.

[_Always Changing]

There are two questions that are conflated in the phrase "clumsy imposture." One addresses the quality of the work, the other the authenticity. It was Nibley who conflated the two.

Right now I am reading Nibley's ideas on the Jaredite/Nephite interaction. If anything was clumsy, it is how that interaction was neglected, when, if done right, it could have been an excellent teaching-story. Fascinating subject.