We've all heard that refrain that the Book of Mormon is just
too much of a literary masterpiece to have been written by
someone with Joseph Smith's background. Holland chants
"Semitic complexity" as if it really existed. The same
"Semitic complexity" has been found in "The Late War," by the
way.

But writing a book is not easy. And if the Book of Mormon was
written by Joseph Smith then he accomplished something that
MOST people don't do. However Millions of people have done it
so it, in and of itself, is no great shakes.

But, we are told, its complexity couldn't have been devised by
someone of Joseph Smith's background. Only a university
educated person could do something like that.

I think this is a red herring. I think COMPLEXITY has nothing
to do with education. Children's games can become monumentally
complex, as any parent can attest. I once corresponded with a
crazy (by my evaluation) person who had worked out a complex,
consistent theory of personality and of society by finding deep
meaning in "Jack and the Beanstalk." We had many phone calls
and, although I never asked his educational background, I
gathered, from his knowledge base, vocabulary, and grammar that
he had not attended a university. But he was VERY creative in
explaining and defending his theory.

Einstein's theory of relativity was in its conceptions
extremely simple. The mathematical application of it, however,
required an advanced background. Complexity is not the
indication of a strong education. Sometimes it can be the
result of a poor education.

So with that in mind let's do a short statistical comparison of
the Book of Mormon with a recognized 19th-century literary
masterpiece: Walt Whitman's "The Leaves of Grass" (LOG).

Book of Mormon 1830
Leaves of Grass 1855

Total number of words:

BOM: 269,551
LOG: 126,543

Total DIFFERENT words:

BOM: 5,638
LOG: 12,399

Question: Which of the two books, on the basis of this
analysis, appears to have been written by a well read, educated
person? Which appears to have been written by a less
well-read, less educated person but one with a reputation for story telling?

I maintain that not only was the Book of Mormon written by
someone who did not have extensive FORMAL education, but that
it could only have been written by such a person. A truly
educated person would have belied his knowledge--would not have
been able to had his education appear so limited.


By the way, Walt Whitman's FORMAL education ended at age
eleven. He had no more formal education than Joseph Smith had.

And both Joseph Smith and Walt Whitman had WAY more FORMAL
education than one of their contemporaries whose FORMAL
education was limited to 9 months: Abraham Lincoln



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2015 06:35PM by baura.

Not to mention that Joe had the help of a stolen manuscript and 3 other writers.

I write books. I also teach writing. You are right: the "uneducated farmer could not have possibly have produced the BofM because it is so complex" argument is flawed -- and wrong.

Anybody with an imagination can make up complex fantasy worlds inhabited by characters who do fabulous things. Ever watched little kids play make-believe? They do this exact thing all the time.

Book-writing does not require talent; it requires enough persistence, ink, and paper to string together a very long story. It also does not require extensive education.

Getting in print also does not make a book a literary masterpiece, either, as anyone who has read the Twilight Saga can attest.

Yes, Leaves of Grass is far more complex.
So are hundreds of thousands of other published works of fiction.

And let's not forget that arguments from incredulity ("I can't believe a farmboy could write something like this!") are fallacious on their face anyway...:)

My answer to this argument comes out of my own life experience:

Born in the deeply rural South to parents who eloped as teenagers, nevertheless I wrote my first symphony at the age of fifteen, and another two by the age JS was when he 'brought forth' the BOM.

Don't tell me us uneducated bumpkins can't do whatever. It's called SELF-educated, or autodidact.

JAR

I love the Different Words comparison. But what I want to know baura, is how many nights did you stay up counting them. :)

Plus, if there are prodigies for piano, and math and you name it, why not a prodigy for scamming?

I don't see anyone here claiming that Joe wrote the BoM...


anyone?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see anyone here claiming that Joe wrote
> the BoM...
>
>
> anyone?

The claim made by the apologists is that he would have been
unable to write the Book of Mormon. I still consider "JS wrote
it" to be my leading theory.

in this instance... Just Because the apols say it doesn't necessarily mean it's False.

writing the BoM must have taken a lot of time, and I'm not sure that Joe (in an agrarian society) would have been able to do that undetected.
Despite the plagiarism from the Bible, there's a lot of material there, whether or not one thinks it's 'complex' or not.

baura Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The claim made by the apologists is that he would
> have been
> unable to write the Book of Mormon. I still
> consider "JS wrote
> it" to be my leading theory.

I'd go so far as to say "JS wrote it" is essentially factual.
The only question is, what sources (including other living people) did he access, and how much of them did he use while writing it?

As I wrote in another post, if the BoM is the record of the Nephites, then just how did Nephi and all the subsequent writers/prophets/whatever learn how to write with "Semitic complexity", especially if they were using Reformed Egyptian? Did God/Holy Spirit give them the gift of gab? And if space was so precious on the plates, and it was so tedious to make reformed Egyptian marks on the metal, complexity would be the last thing on my mind.

However, cribbing the writing style from the guys who did all the hard work when they put together the King James bible seems plausible.

I've thought the Same Things for a long time, Thanks for posting your words on this here!

The "Hebraisims" in the Book of Mormon are laughable because
they happen to be typical frontier "bad English" which happens
to be an acceptable syntax in Hebrew (and probably a lot of
other languages). Kinda like when Clem says, "I didn't do
nothin'," and someone replies, "you know that's perfectly good
syntax in Spanish." People say "I didn't do nothin'" all the
time without any connection to Spanish. Same with the
"Hebraisms" in the BOM.

Now I have a question for the proponents of the "Hebraisms."
Did Joseph Smith traslate the plates (which were in a
different location) verbatim, or were the idea just impressed
on his mind and he put them into his own words.

If it's a verbatim translation then you've got a real problem
with the fact that King James Version translation errors show
up in the Book of Mormon.

If it's Joseph Smith putting ideas and concepts into his own
words (including passages from the KJV that JS was familiar
with and so used in the process) then what's all this silly
talk about "Hebraisms?"

Mormons want to have it both ways. On the one hand they want
"Hebraisms" to be evidence in their favor but they balk at
treating the KJV translation errors as a problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2015 09:48PM by baura.

"If it's a verbatim translation then you've got a real problem
with the fact that King James Version translation errors show
up in the Book of Mormon."

Besides that, multiple witnesses to the process said that Joe stuck his face in a hat, read the words off his stone, and couldn't continue until the word was written correctly by the scribe.

I believe B.H. Roberts recognized this as a huge problem. To accept these accounts you have to pin the thousands of errors on God. Was Roberts the first to suggest that Joe must have just gotten ideas that he put into his own words?

Now, what about these witnesses? I can only think of two possibilities:

1) They were lying.
2) Joe duped these witnesses, probably with the assistance of his scribe, into believing that his magic rock even knew if a word was misspelled on the scribe's manuscript.

Is there an honest possibility that I'm just not thinking of?

Yes, I was wondering how much formal education the supposed ancient writers of the BoM had --- I mean, "Nephi and the subsequent writers/prophets" ---

I don't recall any talk of any of them getting into high school....

All this "impressive" complexity doesn't look so complex when you compare the sermons and religious texts of the day. The writer(s) of the BoM seems no more impressive than the religious tracts and sermons floating around in that day.

One could copy n paste one of these early 19th century sermons over King Benjamin's sermons and Mormons wouldn't know the difference.

I've never understood the whole "uneducated" thing anyway. Joe got plenty of home schooling, and aren't the Mormons the ones who support that idea anyway?

But really, how much education do you need to stick your head in your hat and spout off a bunch of stories you've been working on for years?

We home schooled for a few years in Alaska, but I don't know other Mormons that have. Most Mormons I know believe the government knows best how to educate us, and fully support socialized education.

My wife, a 5th grade teacher, just quit this last year as she couldn't take public school anymore. Countless dollars wasted on useless curriculum, endless hours wasted not teaching, kids out of control, parents who expect the school to do everything for their kids, etc, etc.

In other words, it is much easier to get educated learning on your own, than wasting most of your time at public school. Very little learning going on there.

Free Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In other words, it is much easier to get educated
> learning on your own, than wasting most of your
> time at public school. Very little learning
> going on there.

Hence my closing statement on the relative FORMAL education of
JS, Walt Whitman, and Abraham Lincoln. In that day and age,
self learning was the norm. Mormons dishonestly point out
that JS had the equivalent FORMAL education equivalent to
sixth grade then they say stuff like (and this is a direct
quote from apostle Mark E. Petersen), "could a sixth-grader
have written this book?"

8th Grade Examination from late 1800's

http://thinklab.typepad.com/think_lab/2006/03/8th_grade_exami.html

LOL @ "farmer"


Joseph Smith, Jr's profession was "treasure finder"


brb ~ plowing farmer's daughter

ziller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brb ~ plowing farmer's daughter

^^^I love it!!! Lol!

William Shakespeare had formal education only until he we 14. How could he possibly write what he did?

Muhammad had almost no education. How could he write the Quran?

Due to Muhammad being an illiterate others wrote the Quran(spoken word) into scripture for him. It reminds me of a story of farmer with a magic stone in his hat.

Great point about the poverty of the BOM's vocabulary, Baura. Pretty unrefutable, to my mind.

My niece was recently given a BOM by a missionary in MA ccelsfield, England, which she promptly gave to me when I passed through in August because she knew of my unhealthy interest ;-) (I'm a nevermo).

I am trying to read it, but it's so bad that I usually burst out laughing and can't go on after about half a page. I'll be writing about my efforts later, when I've got somewhere.

I also have Leaves of Grass, a book that I treasure and reread every year and which I consider a marvellous work and a wonder ;-).

Not sure I'll ever get through the BOM, though.

Tom in Paris

Complexity:

There was a war between the Nephites and the lamanites. A bunch of people were killed and some cities were destroyed, and then everything was peaceful again for about 8 weeks (two years... pick a number) until it came to pass that someone did something evil and led the faithful astray. At which time another war broke out and a bunch of people were killed and a number (pick one) of cities were destroyed using some pathetic, hokey, military strategies worthy of an army with a 15 year old farmer for a commanding general. And then everything was peaceful once again as the people returned to "rigtheousness." And then it came to pass that someone lifted up his heel against the Lord's anointed and led some people astray, thus creating dissension and war..... And it came to pass.... peace... iniquity... and it came to pass... rebellion against the lord's annointed... war... and it came to pass... Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Is that what counts as complexity the world of mopology?

Oh yes, and don't forget the difference between Nephi and Nephihah. This book is nothing without the hah, hah, hahs.


(edited once)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2015 06:52AM by lovechild.

I've never seen the smallest bit of complexity. It's a simple piece of fiction that contradicts itself throughout and has whole parts tweaked and re-written since it's original publication. In fact, Smith--long since dead--is still getting this help today, as the LDS church continues to tweak and correct the book. The giddiest of Mormons just don't care about this, but the book is crap. It is also shallow, vapid, conceived in jiggery-pokery, and full of meaningless humbuggery and gibble-gabble.

You took the words right out of my mouth....

Exactly. It's not a long, complex story. It's lots of poorly written short stories. It was complex enough for Joe to forget that King Benjamin had died, that the Jaredites sealed up interpreters with their record, etc..., but it is not all that complex. I know elementary school kids that have written far better short stories than those in the BoM.

Myron Donnerbalken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never seen the smallest bit of complexity.
> It's a simple piece of fiction that contradicts
> itself throughout and has whole parts tweaked and
> re-written since it's original publication. In
> fact, Smith--long since dead--is still getting
> this help today, as the LDS church continues to
> tweak and correct the book. The giddiest of
> Mormons just don't care about this, but the book
> is crap. It is also shallow, vapid, conceived in
> jiggery-pokery, and full of meaningless humbuggery
> and gibble-gabble.



humbuggery.



clearly i need to get glasses. yep, i think it's ""time"". Y'all who've reach that phase of life will know what I'm talkin' about.

The "h" blurred into a "b" and well, marmunz have got enough on their plate with the facts without me adding a little more fiction to their fiction.

Thankfully I didn't believe they were involved in meaningless bumbuggery for a minute and re-read it instantly to correct that piece of misinformation.

I understand Joe's father was a Part-Time school teacher. And, be default Joe's education wasn't as dismal as TBM's would like to think.

He did have some education, more so than many home-schooled types of that time. He had a good ability for reading, but less of an ability to write. This is obvious and apparent in his abject plagiarized texts.

zombre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> He did have some education, more so than many
> home-schooled types of that time. He had a good
> ability for reading, but less of an ability to
> write. This is obvious and apparent in his abject
> plagiarized texts.


aaah, but he made up for it in the charismatic spoken word combined with an intense belief system delivery.

Plus, Oliver Cowdery was a school teacher who was involved with J.S. during the writing and original tweaking of the BoM.

the Book of Mormon is a JOKE, LDS don't live it.

Why does it get so much play here? IDK!

It get lots of play here because it's still what GS's, bishops, and mishies tell people to read, carefully study, pray about, and all that other crap about it being the cornerstone of the religion. What they don't mention (or sadly, don't realize) is that it's a steaming pile.

Ick.

Here's something our generation is either not aware of or doesn't consider into this scenario..... which is that prior to the radio and t.v. storytelling was taken to an art form. I'm not sure if city folk commonly entertained each other with stories, but it wasn't uncommon among farm folk; especially younger folks. It would have been fitting for a young J.Smith to tell stories. Perhaps that's why many of the people of that era didn't think it as odd as we would today. Most of the folks clearly didn't believe him and it's my guess that they just thought he was spinning yarns, as many did to entertain in those days.

It wasn't uncustomary for people to sit around and tell stories to entertain themselves and others. ....yep, Even moreso among younger folks.
There were games of all kinds, and a number of games involved storytelling.

My great grandfather lived prior to radio and t.v. and he was well known for memorizing poems. (which incidentally is why I wasn't surprised that J.S. potentially memorized or made-up large volumes to recite during his alleged dictational ceremonies.)

Not only could my grandpa memorize volumes of poems and recite them start to finish, but he could compose some pretty good poems out of thin air.

Prior to radio and t.v. a number of my relatives would compose very good songs and sing them during their social gatherings. After t.v. and internet my family doesn't do any of that any more. :(


It's not a stretch to see how a person could compose a story.

I think that J.S.'s talent wasn't writing, but in the delivery and execution of the story. His enigmatic personality seemed to convince people no matter what he told them. The almost hypnotic induction that fell upon people has been passed down along with the strict beliefs of consequences to keep the story in place.
But the story in and of itself isn't very good in comparison to story-telling quality of that era.
It's all the rest of the fear tactics that made/makes the members overlook that it's a very poorly written story that changed frequently over the years.