SeN: Bible & Qur’an Don’t Measure up to Book of Mormon Because of “Sheer Size”

[Gadianton]

Something tells me the cost of writing a 600 page book was less in the 1800s than in 2000 BC, let alone the cost of copying and preserving it over thousands of years.

And then there's the contrived math. If you take the whole Bible together, it's much longer than the Book of Mormon. He's adding books together post hoc, justifying his segmentation to make sure the segments are shorter than the Book of Mormon. Huh. Samuel Delaney's book Hogg is 67,000 words, according to A.I.. Does he think that means its almost as impressive as the Koran? Or at least better than Genesis and Exodus?

There's so many angles to tackle the Afore's reasoning. Putting costs aside, in the time of Moses, there wasn't that much history yet. As time goes on, you'd expect books in the "Abrahamic tradition" to get longer and longer, since more prophets have lived, which ultimately yields longer collections with more and more years to cover.

The real intent of Smith producing the Book of Mormon is an interesting question. The Aforementioned blog author is probably way off in his assumptions. Smith's intent would be a good topic for CwK. Would probably be the most authoritative podcast to date on that issue.

[Physics Guy]

I don’t think Peterson is just repeating the silly old argument that the Book of Mormon must be miraculous because it’s so long.

Instead Peterson’s argument here seems to be just the narrow point that the Book of Mormon would not have had to be as long as it is to qualify as a Scripture-length revelation. So If Smith was just making it up, why didn’t he stop as soon as he had enough length to match the Qu’ran, say, and save himself the extra trouble of the extra length?

It’s a different argument from Hales’s, “Joseph could never have written such a long book.” It still fails to impress non-Mormons for the same reason: the Book of Mormon isn’t the kind of book that’s hard to make longer. The mere habit of spending the day dictating would be quite enough to explain a few more days of the kind of off-the-cuff rambling that is all it took to produce the Book of Mormon, pace apologetic eisegesis. Even a bit of suspicion on Smith’s part that he wasn’t exactly dictating a new Qu’ran would motivate him to keep piling stuff on, either in hope of striking gold in the next scene that came to him or just in hope of compensating with quantity.

Although I don’t think Peterson is trying to present the length of the Book of Mormon as an impressive merit this time, I think he is missing the point that the length of the Book of Mormon is a bad thing for Mormon apologists to bring up in any construction.

Most non-Mormon readers find the Book bloated. It’s too long for its content. If you want to argue for the Book’s inspiration, you shouldn’t bring up its length, no matter how you want to argue about it.

[IWMP]

I don’t think Peterson is just repeating the silly old argument that the Book of Mormon must be miraculous because it’s so long.

Instead Peterson’s argument here seems to be just the narrow point that the Book of Mormon would not have had to be as long as it is to qualify as a Scripture-length revelation. So If Smith was just making it up, why didn’t he stop as soon as he had enough length to match the Qu’ran, say, and save himself the extra trouble of the extra length?

It’s a different argument from Hales’s, “Joseph could never have written such a long book.” It still fails to impress non-Mormons for the same reason: the Book of Mormon isn’t the kind of book that’s hard to make longer. The mere habit of spending the day dictating would be quite enough to explain a few more days of the kind of off-the-cuff rambling that is all it took to produce the Book of Mormon, pace apologetic eisegesis. Even a bit of suspicion on Smith’s part that he wasn’t exactly dictating a new Qu’ran would motivate him to keep piling stuff on, either in hope of striking gold in the next scene that came to him or just in hope of compensating with quantity.

Although I don’t think Peterson is trying to present the length of the Book of Mormon as an impressive merit this time, I think he is missing the point that the length of the Book of Mormon is a bad thing for Mormon apologists to bring up in any construction.

Most non-Mormon readers find the Book bloated. It’s too long for its content. If you want to argue for the Book’s inspiration, you shouldn’t bring up its length, no matter how you want to argue about it.

Isn't there supposed to be another part to be revealed later on? Or was that just the door being left open? Or I may have imagined that.

[I Have Questions]

If you removed all the examples of “and it came to pass”, the content lifted from a KJV Bible, and all the repetitive phrases, just how long would the Book of Mormon actually be?

[Chap]

If you removed all the examples of “and it came to pass”, the content lifted from a KJV Bible, and all the repetitive phrases, just how long would the Book of Mormon actually be?

Don't forget "or, in other words", which Smith presumably put in whenever he realised one of his made-up sentences was not working, and he needed to press 'restart'. Of course, he could not say "No, scratch that", and just start over, since the magic seer stones Never Make Mistakes."

[Fence Sitter]

It is amazing how when you copy something from another source the copy ends up being the same length as the original? Dr. Peterson's argument isn't a point in favor of divine origin so much as it is an argument for an extant 19th century text.

[Dr Exiled]

I don’t think Peterson is just repeating the silly old argument that the Book of Mormon must be miraculous because it’s so long.

Instead Peterson’s argument here seems to be just the narrow point that the Book of Mormon would not have had to be as long as it is to qualify as a Scripture-length revelation. So If Smith was just making it up, why didn’t he stop as soon as he had enough length to match the Qu’ran, say, and save himself the extra trouble of the extra length?

It’s a different argument from Hales’s, “Joseph could never have written such a long book.” It still fails to impress non-Mormons for the same reason: the Book of Mormon isn’t the kind of book that’s hard to make longer. The mere habit of spending the day dictating would be quite enough to explain a few more days of the kind of off-the-cuff rambling that is all it took to produce the Book of Mormon, pace apologetic eisegesis. Even a bit of suspicion on Smith’s part that he wasn’t exactly dictating a new Qu’ran would motivate him to keep piling stuff on, either in hope of striking gold in the next scene that came to him or just in hope of compensating with quantity.

Although I don’t think Peterson is trying to present the length of the Book of Mormon as an impressive merit this time, I think he is missing the point that the length of the Book of Mormon is a bad thing for Mormon apologists to bring up in any construction.

Most non-Mormon readers find the Book bloated. It’s too long for its content. If you want to argue for the Book’s inspiration, you shouldn’t bring up its length, no matter how you want to argue about it.

Isn't there supposed to be another part to be revealed later on? Or was that just the door being left open? Or I may have imagined that.

Yes. I believe Joseph Smith was the originator of the "wait until the next episode kids ....." It got me when I was young waiting for the exciting conclusion of Happy Days or Gilligan's Island or especially Wonder Woman. There was something about Lynda Carter and her acting abilities that really moved me.

"Stay tuned people," says Joseph Smith, "the sealed portion will come forth when righteousness reigns supreme."

[IWMP]

Isn't there supposed to be another part to be revealed later on? Or was that just the door being left open? Or I may have imagined that.

Yes. I believe Joseph Smith was the originator of the "wait until the next episode kids ....." It got me when I was young waiting for the exciting conclusion of Happy Days or Gilligan's Island or especially Wonder Woman. There was something about Lynda Carter and her acting abilities that really moved me.

"Stay tuned people," says Joseph Smith, "the sealed portion will come forth when righteousness reigns supreme."

I wonder if the prophets think it's ever going to come forth. I also wonder if it did what it would say.

[drumdude]

Yes. I believe Joseph Smith was the originator of the "wait until the next episode kids ....." It got me when I was young waiting for the exciting conclusion of Happy Days or Gilligan's Island or especially Wonder Woman. There was something about Lynda Carter and her acting abilities that really moved me.

"Stay tuned people," says Joseph Smith, "the sealed portion will come forth when righteousness reigns supreme."

I wonder if the prophets think it's ever going to come forth. I also wonder if it did what it would say.

Check out their rhetoric in the 80s. Those general conferences were wildly different than today. They were so much more authoritative, so much more sure that the end was soon. “I’m going to communicate the will of the Lord to you now” “the work is hastening” etc etc.

They’re so much more timid and muted now.

[malkie]

If you removed all the examples of “and it came to pass”, the content lifted from a KJV Bible, and all the repetitive phrases, just how long would the Book of Mormon actually be?

Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,” “and it came to pass,” etc., and made things satisfactory again. “And it came to pass” was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.

https://www.mrm.org/twain-Book of Mormon