User:InProgress/Website reviews/JSW

FAIR Answers—back to home page

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon?"

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that the MormonThink article "Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon?" appears to take are the following:

• That Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery, or some combination thereof, used the work of Solomon Spalding, or Ethan Smith, or some combination thereof, to create the Book of Mormon without any assistance from God.
• That the Book of Mormon was written in Joseph's own 19th Century vernacular, 17th Century English and modern English.
• That non-LDS authors are not impressed with the Book of Mormon enough to believe that it could "not have been written by a man."
• That the Book of Mormon is not as impressive and complex as novels such as the Lord of the Rings or A Tale of Two Cities and yet these novels were written without requiring divine intervention.
• That the title page of the 1830 Book of Mormon listed Joseph Smith as "author and proprietor" in accordance with the copyright requirements that would allow the book to be published, yet does not mention that the Preface on the following page, written by Joseph himself, clearly states that he translated the book.
• That Joseph was able to exercise considerable "verbal skills and influence over those much older than he" when he was seven years old, and whatever that is supposed to imply.
• That Joseph was indeed educated because he was "home schooled," despite Joseph's own words stating that he was not well educated.
• That Joseph used a curtain to shield the process of translation from those around him so that he could consult all of his notes, and that Joseph openly translated in the presence of others using a stone and a hat without the use of notes.

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The first edition of the BOM was riddled with grammatical errors. This alone questions whether the text was written by man or translated divinely....Overall there have been some 3,913 changes to the first edition of Book of Mormon. This is the book Joseph called 'the most correct book on earth'.

FairMormon commentary

• The text was dictated by Joseph and was written down by a man: Oliver Cowdery.
• Mormon states that any mistakes that the book has are the "mistakes of men."

Additional information

• As the most correct book—Critics claim that since Joseph stated that it was "the most correct book," that the Book of Mormon should not have contained any errors. Yet, Mormon himself states in the preface that any mistakes contained therein are the mistakes of men. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There were also several more significant errors in the early editions of the BOM such as changing the name of King Benjamin to King Mosiah (King Benjamin was already dead at this point)

FairMormon commentary

• It may, in fact, be the case that "Benjamin" was actually correct.
• Note that this is the only example of "several more significant errors" given. We suspect this is one of the few that MormonThink could find.

Additional information

• "Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah" in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1—In the text currently found in Mosiah 21:28 of the Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition reads "Benjamin", while all subsequent editions read "Mosiah." Likewise, a reference to Benjamin in what is now Ether 4:1 was changed to "Mosiah" in 1849. Critics claim that "either God made a mistake when He inspired the record or Joseph made a mistake when he translated it." (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Most non-LDS authors are not all that impressed with the Book of Mormon - certainly no non-LDS authors are so impressed as to even entertain the idea that the book could not have been written by a man. Mark Twain thought the BOM was extremely boring and referred to it as 'chloroform in print'.

FairMormon commentary

• Well, Mark Twain was entitled to his opinion. "Most non-LDS authors" are entitled to theirs as well.
• Mark Twain was also a humorist--and thus inclined to go for the laugh. This is not a deep analysis, but MormonThink seems ready to settle for that.
• There are also a lot of people who find Bach, Shakespeare, or Monet boring too. That says nothing about the quality of such works.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Very few objective people would disagree that the Book of Mormon pales in comparison to such literary masterpieces as A Tale of Two Cities, War and Peace or any the works of William Shakespeare. Many books are far more complex and difficult to write than the BOM. In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings fiction series, not only are multiple interacting civilizations created, but also their own languages. If William Shakespeare had said that an angel gave him a set of gold plates in which he translated the Book of Mormon, no one would have believed him because everyone knows that Mr. Shakespeare was certainly capable of writing a book like the BOM based on the other impressive works he wrote. So we think it's pretty certain that the Book of Mormon is not so spectacular of a book that no one on the planet could have possibly written it without divine intervention.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  MormonThink elsewhere still supports the Spalding theory. By doing so, they're stating that Joseph Smith couldn't have written the Book of Mormon either. They need to make up their minds. It can't be both.
• The vast majority of early readers of the Book of Mormon rejected the idea that Joseph Smith could have written it. They knew him better than we do.
• There are no other examples of similar works being written by similar 19th century authors.
• Whether Shakespeare could have written the Book of Mormon is irrelevant—the question is whether Joseph Smith could have.

Quotes to consider

• Some very early works believed that Joseph was the author.
• But, as people had time to study the Book of Mormon beyond superficial dismissal, this argument lost its force. Most then began claiming that it was impossible for Joseph to have written it: they needed to blame Spalding (there are at least 40 examples in FAIR's records) and/or Sidney Rigdon (at least 25 examples).
• Critics became so desperate that they concocted the Spalding theory to explain the Book of Mormon, since they didn't think Joseph could have written it. You can almost smell the relief in the critics:

The Mormon Bible.—The origin of this work which it has puzzled many to account for, evidently the production of a cultivated mind, yet found in the hands of exceedingly ignorant and illiterate persons is at length explained.

— “The Mormon Bible,” Trumpet and Universalist Magazine (Boston) 11, no. 48 (18 May 1839), n.p.. off-site

Additional information

• Critics found it difficult to explain Book of Mormon before Spalding theory—Initial critics of the Book of Mormon tended to take one of two stances—either: 1) The Book of Mormon was a clumsy, obvious forgery upon which no intelligent person would waste time; and/or 2) Joseph Smith was the Book of Mormon's obvious author. Ironically, with the appearance of the Spalding theory, critics quickly began to claim that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon, and attributed the Book of Mormon's writing to Spalding and (usually) Sidney Rigdon. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Also, it should be noted that when the BOM was first published, he tried to sell the copyright to the BOM to a publishing company just like a regular book. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto for this purpose, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money. (Comprehensive History of the Church Vol. 1 pp. 162-66).

FairMormon commentary

• Joseph Smith had been told there were people in Canada willing to buy the copyrights to useful books. Due to the dire financial position of the Church, he decided this could be an opportunity to relieve some of the financial pressure associated with publishing the Book of Mormon. Four men went to Canada. Before leaving, Joseph Smith received a revelation directing them to go to Kingston, Canada, with some conditions placed upon their success.

Quotes to consider

• The text of the revelation was published in the The Joseph Smith Papers: The Revelations and Translations Series. According to Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian and Recorder,

Another interesting development from work on the Revelations and Translations Series has been the identification of a previously unpublished revelation on securing a copyright for the Book of Mormon in Canada. David Whitmer, after he left the Church, recalled that the revelation promised success in selling the copyright, but upon return of the men charged with the duty, Joseph Smith and others were disappointed by what seemed like failure. Historians have relied upon statements of David Whitmer, Hiram Page, and William McLellin for decades but have not had the actual text of the revelation. Revelation Book 1 will provide that.

Although we still do not know the whole story, particularly Joseph Smith’s own view of the situation, we do know that calling the divine communication a “failed revelation” is not warranted. The Lord’s directive clearly conditions the successful sale of the copyright on the worthiness of those seeking to make the sale as well as on the spiritual receptivity of the potential purchasers. ^[1]

Additional information

• Attempt to sell Book of Mormon copyright in Canada—David Whitmer claimed that Joseph Smith received a revelation and prophesied that Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page should go to Canada where they would find a man willing to buy the copyright to the Book of Mormon. When they failed to sell the copyright, Whitmer states that Joseph admitted that the revelation had not come from God. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Also, the first edition of the BOM has on its title page the author listed as Joseph Smith. Subsequent editions changed the term 'author and proprietor' to 'translator'.

FairMormon commentary

• That's because in order to publish and obtain a copyright, the book had to have an "author."
• Yet, the "Preface" page in the first edition of the Book of Mormon states that Joseph translated it. Why is this not mentioned?

Quotes to consider
From the 1830 Book of Mormon, the following was written by THE AUTHOR Joseph Smith (emphasis added):

To The Reader--

As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by the evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again--and being commanded of the Lord that I should translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words, that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written; and If I should bring forth the same words again, or in other words, if I should translate the same over again, they would publish that which they had stolen, and Satan would stir up their hearts of this generation, that they might not receive this work: but behold, the Lord said unto me, I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing: therefore thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained; and behold ye shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will shew unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the Devil. Wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, I have, through his grace and mercy, accomplished that which he hath commanded me respecting this thing. I would also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken, were found in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New-York.

THE AUTHOR.

Additional information

• Author and proprietor listed as Joseph Smith—Joseph Smith is listed as the "Author and Proprietor" of the first edition of the Book of Mormon. Critics use this to claim that Joseph wrote the book himself, despite that fact that the following page clearly states that he translated the book. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Even from an early age, it is apparent that Joseph was not a typical boy, but possessed some qualities and mannerisms that seemed beyond his years. Some Mormons know about Joseph's terrible operation on his leg at age seven....That manner of speech and control is certainly not typical for a seven-year-old child. Even at that tender age, it appears Joseph had the verbal skills and influence over those much older than he.

FairMormon commentary

• This is absurd. Just because Joseph told his mother to leave the room during the operation, which she did, does not somehow set up the idea that Joseph was capable of exerting some sort of control over those around him...at age seven.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph Smith did have limited formal education and that's often heralded as 'proof' that he could not have written the BOM. However most people do not know that Joseph's father, Joseph Smith, Sr., was a school teacher during the off season. Joseph's brother, Hyrum, worked as a school teacher during the off season also. One of his sisters may have also been a teacher at some point in her life. This wasn't a family of illiterates. Education was important to the Smith family, and although Joseph may have only had limited formal education in a typical classroom, his parents undoubtedly schooled him at home. Also Joseph was going to high school when he was 20 years old in Harmony PA with the Stowell children.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  You mean, the Smith family didn't support themselves exclusively by "treasure hunting?" This is usually the popular critical argument.
• It was Joseph himself who wrote in his 1832 journal that "we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading and writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Even today many people home-school their children. Would anyone say that these home-schooled children are uneducated? It's true that they do not have a formal education but for the most part, home-schooled children have similar, and in some cases superior, education than traditionally-schooled children.

FairMormon commentary

• It was Joseph himself that said in his 1832 journal that he was "deprived of the benefit of an education."

Quotes to consider

• Here's what Joseph wrote in 1832 (original spelling retained):

I was born in the town of Charon [Sharon] in the State of vermont North America on the twenty third day of December AD 1805 of goodly Parents who spared no pains to instructing me in the christian religion at the age of about ten years my Father Joseph Smith Siegnior moved to Palmyra Ontario County in the State of New York and being in indigent circumstances were obliged to labour hard for the support of a large Family having nine chilldren and as it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the support of the Family therefore we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading and writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's comment: If Joseph studied the Bible so well, is it any wonder that the BOM is so similar to the Bible? The LDS Gospel doctrine teachers often say that the BOM was translated from its original language into modern day English. The English used in the 1830s certainly doesn't match the BOM language. The 'thees' and 'thous' were obviously put in to make the book sound more like The Holy Bible. One has to wonder why a document translated in the 19th century uses 17th century English.

FairMormon commentary

• Actually, the Book of Mormon was translated into 'pre-1700 style English, not "modern" English.^[2]
•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  Elsewhere on the same MormonThink page, a B.H. Roberts quote from Lucy Mack Smith's history is given which states that Joseph was "a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study..." Either Joseph had "studied the Bible," or he "never read the Bible through in his life." The position taken by the critic simply depends upon which critical argument they are attempting to prove.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The poor grammar in the 1830 BOM shows the lack of formal education that Joseph had. However, lack of education does not mean lack of intelligence or imagination. The original grammar and the errors in the BOM is what would be expected from someone with limited formal education.

FairMormon commentary

• Yes, we agree that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon in his own, 19th Century language.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We've heard many times that it's impossible for a young boy to have written the BOM. Many people mistakenly confuse the age of Joseph when he translated the BOM with the age Joseph was when he had the First Vision at age 14 or 15. The first edition of the BOM was published in 1830 when Joseph was 24. So Joseph was in his early to mid twenties when the BOM was translated and not a teenager. Many authors have written very impressive works and were younger than when Joseph translated the BOM such as Ernest Hemingway. See below for examples of extraordinary accomplishments by people younger than Joseph was when he translated the BOM.

FairMormon commentary

• We are not aware of any Church source that claims that a 14-year-old produced the Book of Mormon.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critics often say that young Joseph was known for story-telling and often cite the following account from Joseph's mother... However, as we're an organization that promotes total fairness, we must point out that although this is a true quote, it is not the complete quote. LDS apologists contend that the knowledge came from Joseph's encounters with Moroni and not from his imagination. So we will show the entire account as provided by Assistant Church historian, LDS apologist and General Authority B.H. Roberts who suggests that Joseph could not have learned any of these things from Moroni:

FairMormon commentary

• B.H. Roberts wrote the material contained in Studies of the Book of Mormon to illustrate the positions that critics would take. He was playing "devil's advocate" for the purpose of inspiring Church leadership to work on a better defense (as MormonThink points out, Roberts was a "LDS apologist"). Roberts presented the critical conclusion that "These evening recitals could come from no other source than the vivid, constructive imagination of Joseph Smith, a remarkable power which attended him through all his life. It was as strong and varied as Shakespeare's and no more to be accounted for than the English Bard's."

Quotes to consider

• From Lucy Mack Smith's history (quoted on MormonThink):

"From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every night evening, for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same. I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children...

Additional information

• "Amusing recitals" and "Tall Tales?"—Joseph Smith's mother reported that he told "amusing recitals" about the ancient inhabitants of the American continent well before he translated the Book of Mormon. Does this indicate that Joseph was simply a teller of "tall tales?" (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
In his book Studies of the Book of Mormon, Roberts answers the question as to whether or not Joseph Smith could have produced the Book of Mormon. He concluded that Joseph Smith had sufficient imagination and was capable of producing the BOM even though he had little formal education. He was, however, prone to made silly mistakes. It is these telling inconsistencies and problems that Roberts lists: 1) evidence of an undeveloped mind, 2) repetition of the same themes, 3) repetition of the same villains, 4) repetition of same battles and wars, 5) conversions typical of 19th century conversions.

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink neglects to point out that Roberts was deliberately taking the position of critics when he wrote his study. The manuscripts comprising this study were written by B.H. Roberts. Roberts approached the Book of Mormon from the perspective of a critic in order to identify possible approaches that future critics might take against the book. In cataloging the claims made in this book, it should be noted that B.H. Roberts continued to testify of his belief in the Book of Mormon until the end of his life. In addition, a number of claims are now no longer relevant based upon current knowledge.

Quotes to consider

• Roberts was an able scholar, and he was not afraid to play 'devil's advocate' to strengthen the Church's defenses against its enemies. In a presentation on some potential Book of Mormon 'problems' prepared for the General Authorities, Roberts wrote a caution that subsequent critics have seen fit to ignore:

Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.^[3]

Additional information

• Studies of the Book of Mormon by B.H. Roberts—The content of this book is not written by a critic, but its purpose and audience are often misrepresented by critics in an effort to make it appear that Roberts lost his testimony of the Book of Mormon. (Link)

• Index of claims and responses in Studies of the Book of Mormon—Responses to specific critical or unsupported claims made in Studies of the Book of Mormon indexed by page number. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's comment: This is the 'Tree of Life' story as told in the Book of Mormon starting in 1 Nephi 11:25. Joseph's father must have told Joseph about this dream many times when Joseph was growing up. Although faithful LDS try to explain this as evidence that Joseph's father was also inspired, there is another more plausible explanation - Joseph simply incorporated this dream experience, that had such an impact on his father, into the BOM.

FairMormon commentary

• The details of the dream were written long after the Book of Mormon was published. Lucy's account is (at the very least) influenced in its verbiage by the Book of Mormon. Either Joseph Sr. had a remarkably similar dream, or Lucy used the material in the Book of Mormon to either bolster her memory, or it unwittingly influenced her memory.
• Significantly, none of Joseph's family regarded the similarities as evidence that Joseph Jr. was engaging in a forgery.

Additional information

• Joseph Smith, Sr.'s dream—Critics point to similarities between a Lucy Mack Smith's account of a dream Joseph Smith's father had and Lehi's dream of the tree of life as evidence that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon based on his own experiences. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Many parts of the BOM are identical to the Bible. Entire chapters of the Bible are contained within the BOM. Plagiarism is not difficult for anyone to do.

FairMormon commentary

• Are you aware that those plagiarizing try to hide their source and pass the plagiarized text off as their own work? Joseph never claimed that the Biblical passages were his own work.

Additional information

• The King James Bible—Critics of the Book of Mormon claim that major portions of it are copied, without attribution, from the Bible. They present this as evidence that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon by plagiarizing the Authorized ("King James") Version of the Bible. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The King James version of The Holy Bible has some translation problems with it as stated in the Articles of Faith. These translation errors occurred when the original Greek and Hebrew Bibles were translated into English. Obviously if the BOM used the Old Testament records that the Nephites brought with them from Jerusalem in 600 BC, then they would not have English translation errors made in the Middle Ages. However the BOM has these same errors.

FairMormon commentary

• The 21 chapters of Isaiah which are quoted (Chapters 2-14, 29, and 48-54) either partially or completely, represent about one-third of the book of Isaiah, but less than two and one-half percent of the total Book of Mormon. We also find that more than half of all verses quoted from Isaiah (234 of 433) differ from the King James version available to Joseph Smith.^[4] The Book of Mormon apparently follows the King James (Masoretic) text when it conveys the original meaning.
• We often find differences in Book of Mormon Isaiah texts where modern texts disagree.^[5] One verse (2 Nephi 12꞉16), is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which had not been translated into English in Joseph Smith's day.^[6]
• It is also significant that the chapters of Isaiah actually quoted in the Book of Mormon (chapters 2-14 and 48-54) are those which modern scholars widely agree correspond closely to the original Isaiah collection and therefore would have been the most likely to have existed in Lehi's day.^[7] Could Joseph Smith have known this? If Joseph or anyone else actually tried to plagiarize the Book of Mormon, critics have failed to show the source of the remaining 93% (when all similar texts are removed). A 100% non-biblical book of scripture wouldn't have been much more difficult to produce.

Additional information

• Book of Mormon "translation errors" from KJV?—Critics wonder why many of the quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon are identical to the King James version. The Book of Mormon incorporates text which seems to be taken from the King James Version, including passages which are now considered to be mistranslations in the King James Version. If the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation, critics claim that it shouldn't contain these translational errors. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Some LDS apologists admit that Joseph must have used the King James Bible when bringing forth the Book of Mormon. They explain that translating was hard on Joseph, and when he recognized that parts of the golden plates were identical to the Bible, he used the Bible instead so Joseph would not have to go through the more laborious method of translating the BOM using the seer stones. This apologetic answer really sounds like they are grasping for straws to provide some sort of answer to this problem.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author claims that believers "admitted" something  —Critics claim that apologists only "admit" facts, while critics "disclose the truth."
  
  
•   Believers are characterized to be in a state of "desperation" or "despair" or "grasping at straws"  —Critics wish to make it appear that believers are never on solid ground based upon facts and that any attempt to support their belief is an act of desperation or despair.
  Note the term "grasping for straws".
•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  Although some apologists may believe that Joseph used a Bible during translation, how did he hide it as he was dictating using the stone and the hat? Did he completely and accurately memorize extensive passages from Isaiah?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Christ's Sermon on the Mount in the BOM and the Bible are identical. Yet later on, in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, Joseph corrected many of the parts of the Sermon on the Mount. So the question is, if the sermon on the mount was not translated correctly in the Bible, why then, is it the same incorrect translation in the BOM? Why is it not corrected like Joseph later did with his Bible translation?

FairMormon commentary

• The purposes of the Book of Mormon and JST translations were not identical. The LDS do not believe in one fixed, inviolate, "perfect" rendering of a scripture or doctrinal concept. The Book of Mormon likely reflects differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the commonly known Biblical manuscripts. The JST is a harmonization, expansion, commentary, and clarification of doctrinally important points. Neither is intended as "the final word" on a given concept or passage—continuing revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which members of the Church find themselves, precludes such an intent.
• Critics impose their own inerrantist assumptions on LDS scriptures, but such assumptions simply do not apply to LDS doctrine or scripture.

Additional information

• Relationship of the JST to the Book of Mormon—Some passages from the Bible (parts of Isaiah, for example) were included in the Book of Mormon text. However, the same passages were later revised for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Holy Bible. In some cases these passages are not rendered identically. Critics claim that if the JST was an accurate translation, it would match the supposedly more 'pure' Isaiah text possessed by the Nephites. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
View of the Hebrews was a very popular book published in New England in 1823 which said that the American Indians are really descended from Hebrews and that they came over here to America and separated into two factions, one civilized and one wild and bloodthirsty, and that there were lots of wars between them, and finally the wild faction wiped out the civilized faction. The book begins with the destruction of Jerusalem, quotes a lot from Isaiah and also mentions a prophet standing on a wall saying "wo" unto the people, and the people shoot arrows at him (pg 26).

FairMormon commentary

• Well, the superficial explanation given above sounds convincing...until you actually read A View of the Hebrews. In fact, because the book was so difficult to locate, BYU republished it in the 90's so that you could read it.

Additional information

• View of the Hebrews—Critics claim that a 19th century work by Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews, provided source material for Joseph Smith's construction of the Book of Mormon. Critics also postulate a link between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, since both men lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended at the time that View of the Hebrews was being written. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There was a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasonson June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon: "If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America..."

FairMormon commentary

• OK, if you're going to lift text from the FAIR Wiki without attribution, at least address FAIR's final comment on the item as well: "It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?"

Quotes to consider

• From the FAIR Wiki article Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/View of the Hebrews:

There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon: If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.][3] It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Early American Influences in the Book of Mormon stands in direct contradiction to the testimonies of witnesses to Joseph Smith's translation process. Translation is a generous term considering the word for word dictation method as observed by those closest to Smith. The multiple accounts of Smith's glowing stone in his hat delivering each word in order leaves little room for Smith interpreting or translating what he saw. Yet, when compared to available contemporary writing, the Book of Mormon is shown repeatedly to borrow verbiage and phrases from its time.

FairMormon commentary

• So, so far we have learned on this page that the Book of Mormon was translated into 17th Century English, 19th Century English and modern English.
• Why wouldn't the Book of Mormon incorporate verbiage and phrases from "its time" (presumably the 19th century)? It was a translation into 19th Century English. "Translation" is defined as "The act or process of translating, especially from one language into another." Just exactly what target language would MormonThink find acceptable?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph Smith may simply have had help from someone else to write the Book of Mormon. Someone else may have written the BOM (or most of it) and Joseph was merely the one to deliver it to the world. There are many theories regarding this idea. They generally involve some combination of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and perhaps an author by the name of Solomon Spalding.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  So, now that we have spent considerable time to show how Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon himself, we are now going to spend time considering that he may not have written it at all?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The Spalding theory often does not get much attention because two of the biggest critics of the LDS Church dismissed it years ago - The Tanners and Fawn Brodie. LDS apologists dismiss it similarly saying that it was refuted long ago. We think that the Tanners and Fawn Brodie did a disservice to the theory as there is some significant information that supports the theory that is worthy of further study.

FairMormon commentary

• The Spalding Theory was dismissed because in order to have validity it must assume the existence of a second Spalding manuscript, despite the fact that the existing Spalding manuscript was unfinished.
• It also must assume that Joseph met Sidney Rigdon well before the Book of Mormon was published, rather than afterward as has been documented.
• It also must assume that Joseph and Sidney kept their collusion on the production of the Book of Mormon secret, even after Joseph and Sidney had a falling out and parted ways.
• That is why most critics have rejected it. There is, however, a small group of people that continue to push it, with the cited source Craig Criddle among them.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Dale Broadhurst has amassed a collection of various 1800s newspaper articles that report many accounts of those that support the Spalding Theory and witnesses that claimed Sidney Rigdon admitted his involvement in producing the Book of Mormon.

FairMormon commentary

• Yet, Broadhurst can never find the alleged "second manuscript," nor can he find that elusive "missing link" that Joseph and Rigdon colluded to produce the Book of Mormon.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
A lost Spalding manuscript was found in Hawaii and LDS believers have said that puts the nail in the Spalding Theory coffin. The manuscript that was discovered was Manuscript Story, not Manuscript Found, even though it was given that name later on, perhaps as wishful thinking so the Spalding theory would die. Yet discussions have included both names over the years. So then if there was only one manuscript, then it was/is Manuscript Story, and Manuscript Found doesn't exist, unless it is indeed the second manuscript, the one which Solomon Spalding did indeed submit to a print shop in Pittsburgh. The point of contention then becomes whether that manuscript later became the basis for the Book of Mormon.

FairMormon commentary

• OK, let's try and parse this...
  • A lost Spalding manuscript was found in Hawaii. It is the very Spalding manuscript that Eber D. Howe had in his possession when he published his anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. The story in the manuscript is unfinished and was never ready for publication. It disappeared after Mormonism Unvailed was published, since Howe did not find it useful as it did not support the Hurlbut Spalding affidavits.
  • This extant manuscript titled "Manuscript Story" bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon, but was also called "Manuscript Found" "perhaps as wishful thinking so the Spalding theory would die?"
  • Because "discussions have included both names over the years," this means that there may be a second, finished manuscript?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
1. Ethan Smith - the author of A View of the Hebrews was Oliver Cowdery's minister from 1823-1828 - they both are from Poultney, VT. This is also where the book was published. 2.Solomon Spalding was also a classmate of Ethan Smith and both were graduates of the same religious college. Some people believe that both Ethan and Solomon's works are plagiarized in the Book of Mormon.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using the "spaghetti defense"  —Critics cannot figure out how something happened, so they will throw every possible explanation at it that they can in the hope that one of them will "stick to the wall."
  
• OK, this gets even better...
  • Ethan Smith, author of A View of the Hebrews (an entirely different Book of Mormon authorship theory) was Oliver Cowdery's minister, and Solomon Spalding was a classmate of Ethan Smith.
  • So, are you implying that Spalding gave Ethan Smith ideas, and that these were transferred to Cowdery?
  • Are you implying that Ethan Smith gave Solomon Spalding ideas?
  • Are you implying that it was Oliver Cowdery that actually wrote the Book of Mormon based upon ideas that he got from Spalding and/or Smith?
  • Wait, what happened to Sidney Rigdon in all of this?
• Are you beginning to understand why intelligent critics tend to reject the Spalding Theory?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We don't necessarily support the Spalding theory; however there is more evidence to support the theory than we initially thought. If this theory is true then it neatly answers many of the concerns that faithful members have who question the church based on other problematic issues such as the temple ceremony and Book of Abraham translation issues but still don't think that Joseph could have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own. Many people currently support the theory. It may or may not be true, but it's certainly worthy of further study. More ongoing work is currently being performed in order to try to find a link between Rigdon and Smith before the BOM was published.

FairMormon commentary

• Yes, finding a link between Rigdon and Smith before the Book of Mormon is a daunting task, considering that Rigdon joined the Church after reading the Book of Mormon.
• A "theory," by definition, "may or may not be true."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It should also take into consideration the fact that Joseph Smith had years to come up with text and plot. There are tons of books, far superior in writing style and story line, that didn't take nearly as long as the Book of Mormon did to complete. It may have been dictated in 90 days but he had been working on it, if only in his head, for years. Of course if the Spalding theory has any validity to it, the translating speed is not an issue at all as he would have basically been dictating a book already written.

Author's source(s)

• An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, Grant Palmer, pp 66-67.

FairMormon commentary

• And your evidence supporting this is.....what? Oh, but if that doesn't work out, there's always the Spalding Theory.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Comment: If Joseph was indeed committing a fraud, but wanted to convince his wife that he was really translating an ancient document, then that is exactly the kind of stunt that Joseph would do. He simply acted like he didn't know that Jerusalem had walls so she would think he was translating from another document and not merely making it up. OR if the BOM came from another source such as Sidney Rigdon, then he may have been genuinely surprised to read that and simply stated as such.

FairMormon commentary

• So, the point here is that Joseph had to keep up the appearance that he didn't really know what he was dictating, so he threw out the question about whether or not Jerusalem had walls....or if Rigdon really wrote it, then Joseph really was surprised. OK...

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Comment: According to Oliver Cowdery, Oliver scribed the entire Book of Mormon 'save a few pages'. Emma may have only done a few pages here and there. Joseph likely memorized the pages well enough to continue where he left off or he may very well have peaked at the last page before he started again - it's not like Emma kept the pages. Joseph would have kept the pages already done, and he simply looked at them before he gave them to Emma to begin translating again. It's not that remarkable when you think about it. And if there was a curtain between them, as was commonly taught when we were growing up in the Church, then Joseph could have obviously had notes or any material he wanted to look at.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using the "spaghetti defense"  —Critics cannot figure out how something happened, so they will throw every possible explanation at it that they can in the hope that one of them will "stick to the wall."
  
• Except, don't critics believe that Joseph dictated openly using a stone and a hat? Is the curtain simply a convenient explanation this time around?
• The critics are just making this up as they go, right?
• If you were to examine that actual historical sources, you would discover that the curtain was likely used while Martin Harris and Emma were scribes while Joseph used the Nephite interpreters, and that after the loss of the 116 pages, the curtain was gone and Joseph dictated openly using the stone and the hat.
• This means that any material dictated when the curtain was in place was likely part of the lost 116 pages. The entire Book of Mormon text dictated to Oliver appears to have been produced using the stone and the hat. So, where are all these notes and things that Joseph "likely memorized." Not one single note or page has ever turned up to support this.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Growing up in the church we were clearly taught that there was a curtain between Joseph and Oliver Cowdery, the principle scribe for the BOM. This was done presumably so that the scribe could not see the plates. If that's the case, then the dictation isn't even an issue as Joseph could have simply read from notes or even whole papers that were already developed by him or someone else.

FairMormon commentary

• Actually, the curtain was between Joseph and Martin Harris.
• With Oliver, there was no curtain. Even the critics (although apparently not this one) make a big deal about Joseph sitting on the stairs or in some other location with his head in his hat dictating to Oliver right out in the open. Unless, of course, the notes were in the bottom of the hat. But, Joseph had his face in the hat, so how did he read the notes?
• Sometimes its simply easier to believe in the "gift and power of God"...

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
However more recently LDS historians are supporting the idea that there was often not a curtain between Joseph and the scribe. If a curtain was used at all, it was to separate Joseph and Oliver from others in the house. LDS faithful such as Daniel Peterson are now endorsing the idea that Joseph put his face in a hat with a seer stone and dictated the BOM to a scribe when the plates were either covered or not even in the room.

FairMormon commentary

• This isn't "recent" at all—the historical data has been around for a long time. It has been written about for a long time. Apparently this critic didn't pick up on that until he saw Daniel Peterson on the PBS special "The Mormons."
• This goes to show you that you should learn about everything the apologist do by simply watching television.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
When LDS faithful quote the above two questions and answers by Emma they never quote the rest of the interview by Emma. That's because Emma blatantly lies in the following questions seriously damaging her credibility. Here are other questions and her answers from that same letter:

FairMormon commentary

• So, Emma claimed that Joseph sat in the open dictating using the stone and the hat, but she lied about Joseph's polygamy. Is the critic asking us to disbelieve Emma's claim about the stone in the hat?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Comment: Emma's answers are blatant lies, as the historical record shows. Her intentions are fairly clear - she is lying in order to protect Joseph Smith's legacy. What she said in the same letter about Smith's involvement in creating the Book of Mormon is equally suspect. Emma said this to her (and Joseph's) son, Joseph Smith III, who was president of the Reorganized Church. She had ample motive to defend the Book of Mormon to her own son who was president of a Church that she was a member of, and which also considered the Book of Mormon to be scripture.

FairMormon commentary

• Historical data shows that Emma knew about Joseph's polygamy, so we know that what she said to her son during this interview is incorrect. Her reasons for doing this are not known.
• However, dismissing Emma's entire interview as "blatant lies" is a very odd position for critics to take, since she clearly supports the Book of Mormon translation method of using the stone in a hat with the plates covered on a table. This translation method is corroborated by a number of other witnesses, so there is no reason to dismiss what Emma said in this case.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Comments on Emma Although Emma likely believed Joseph, even if she didn't, she would still have supported her husband. If she suspected that Joseph was indeed making this stuff up and she stated that to the public, Joseph's enemies surely would have taken it out on him. Emma obviously wouldn't want any harm to come to her husband, and the father of her children, regardless of the reason. Also Emma lied when she felt it was necessary. In addition to her false claim that Smith couldn't "write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter", she also lied to her son about polygamy. She lied repeatedly to her children when asked if their father practiced polygamy. She denied it so strongly so her children would not have a tainted view of their father. Emma's lies are one of the reasons that the RLDS (Community of Christ) church was formed. In view of the documentary record, together with the fact that Emma also testified that Joseph had no wife but her, it can be surmised that her "memory" was probably more concerned with how she wanted things to be remembered more than how they had actually happened. And of course she didn't want to be portrayed as the woman whose husband made a fool of by claiming divine right to have relations with dozens of other women while he was married to Emma.

FairMormon commentary

• We will let Emma speak for herself on this one.

Quotes to consider
Here's what Emma said in 1879:

Question. What of the truth of Mormonism?

Answer. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

Question. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?

Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.

Question. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?

Answer. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.

Question. Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book?

Answer. Joseph Smith [and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, "your father" or "my husband"] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to anyone else.

Question. I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?

Answer. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so;

Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

Answer. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.

Question. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?

Answer. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible. ^[8]

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Many Latter-day Saints proclaim that the Book of Mormon is true because Joseph Smith didn't have the education and knowledge to produce such a work. They cite that no one else of Joseph's Smith comparable background ever produced anything well-beyond their apparent capabilities as Joseph did. If there are others that produced works that far exceeded their capabilities, then this would show that Joseph's experience was not unique and perhaps there are more earthly explanations for the Book of Mormon's origins.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Both Mohammed and Pearl Curran were of like mental ability to Joseph Smith. Mrs. Curran had a slightly better education than Smith, although it was still not outstanding by any means. Mohammed's formal education, on the other hand, was virtually nil. He was illiterate, unlike Smith, who could read and write. (It should be noted that the claim that Mohammed was unlettered has been disputed by a number of professional historians, including some Muslim scholars). Their lack of ability, in each case, did not seem to deter them from producing works which equal, or easily surpass, the Book of Mormon in literary style and quality. We find then that the LDS claim that Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon is without foundation. Not only has a similar feat been performed before, it has been performed better. If the Book of Mormon is held up as proof of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling on the basis that he could not have written it, then we must grant the same status to Pearl Curran and Mohammed, on the same grounds. Anything less would amount to intellectual dishonesty.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
A righteous man who was deluded could have written the Book of Mormon, not aware that he was lying. There are hundreds of examples of well-meaning (righteous) people who have produced "scriptures" which we (as LDS members) would not accept such as Mohammed, Zoroaster, Lao Tze, to mention only a few. Even well-meaning believers in Joseph Smith have produced nice-sounding scriptures. Here are a few examples:

FairMormon commentary

• Doesn't this throw the entire critical argument of Joseph being a con-man out the window?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Some people believe that Joseph Smith's hand was moving by some strange force like the channelers do. Now the channeling hypotheses cannot be dismissed out of hand. Joseph was trained by his father in the hermitic arts. His use of the seer stone is consistent with a long tradition stretching back to Europe. Our Thoughts: We don't give credence to any particular theory of channeling, but just state that those who "believe" (or who say that they do) are capable of complex and lengthy documents that seem to greatly exceed the normal capabilities demonstrated by the 'mediums' when not in a trance.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
True believers often ask critics how Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon at such a young age without divine assistance? There have been many, many people that have demonstrated unusual talents that seem to defy rational explanation. Here is a small sample of real people with extraordinary, unusual abilities who were younger than Joseph was when he finished the BOM at age 24:....Critic's Comment: What makes these people different than Joseph Smith was that they didn't claim divine origins for their abilities. What would have happened if any of these people had said that God gave them their abilities as proof of divine intervention, and that they were to be prophets speaking for God?

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There's no shortage of theories as to why Joseph would tell a false story. People do it all the time. A few of the more popular theories: Financial Gain....Pious Fraud....Delusions

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using the "spaghetti defense"  —Critics cannot figure out how something happened, so they will throw every possible explanation at it that they can in the hope that one of them will "stick to the wall."
  
• If you don't believe in the "gift and power of God," than any one of these explanations will do.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's response. Nibley's challenge is moot, because there is no physical evidence to show that the BOM is an authentic history. In fact, the Book of Mormon's story is utterly demolished by what scholarly research tells us about ancient America. Thus, the question of whether Joseph Smith, either by himself or with co-authors, could have produced the BOM without divine aid is answered by the fact that the book is a demonstrable fiction. If the book was authentic, it wouldn't be chock-full of historical, anthropological, and archaeological inconsistencies and anomalies. The fact that we don't know exactly who wrote which parts, or that there are some unanswered questions about its production, doesn't force us to conclude that the book is authentic. That kind of thinking is "Mormonlogic," which Nibley used on a regular basis.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
LDS historian and apologist Hugh Nibley, in an effort to show how impossible it would be for someone to write the BOM, issued the following challenge:.....Critic's Conclusion As we have seen, a number of these points are completely irrelevant to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, others are easily duplicated by other works of fiction, and still other points do not apply to the Book of Mormon, such as archeological accuracy. We therefore find no compelling reason to suspect that the Book of Mormon has to have a supernatural origin; instead we find that it fits very well with the more mundane theory - that the Book originated solely in the mind of Joseph Smith - or perhaps even a collaberation with Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery as other critics have theorized above. The only reason why more critics haven't bothered to take up the "challenge" is that it has already been done. Thousands, nay millions of times. Every day. All the time. It's called "writing fiction".

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Ending summary by critics. The book is clearly of purely human origin, penned by an author with a vivid imagination ....Together with the duplicity of Smith's associates Cowdery, Harris and Whitmer, their affirmation of the Book of Mormon as a part of "God's restoration of the true Church" helped attract the hundreds, than thousands who would travel with them across the Midwest to create their own religious utopia, Zion, which would evolve into the LDS Church of today.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Ending summary by critics. No one is claiming that the average farmer of 1830 with limited education could be expected to produce something like the BOM. But the BOM did happen once. So to explain it we have only to ask is it possible that ONE of the millions of farmers with limited formal education could produce such a volume.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Ending summary by critics. It's just not a remarkable book. Mormons are brainwashed (in Emperor's New Clothes fashion) to think that it is. But it isn't. And really, a religious education to go along with his vivid imagination is all Smith needed to produce the Book of Mormon--that's where all of the book's impressiveness lies: in the sermons and the long doctrinal asides. Whereas the 'historical' side of the book is, well, far-fetched and ignorantly composed.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Ending summary by critics. He didn't write it, he told the story and others wrote it down. Since he was so secretive, we don't know for sure how he did it, but there are lots of possibilities. He could have told an original story while borrowing heavily from other sources. He could have plagiarized directly from Spalding's manuscript. Or he could have done a combination of the two, or perhaps it was completely original and he somehow coincidentally used exact verses from the Bible and borrowed identical ideas fromView of the Hebrews. Any of these possibilities is infinitely more likely than a ghost led him to a set of buried plates with strange engravings which he translated into English using a magic rock, and the plates miraculously disappeared before any third party could examine them.

FairMormon commentary
  The author is using the "spaghetti defense"  —Critics cannot figure out how something happened, so they will throw every possible explanation at it that they can in the hope that one of them will "stick to the wall."

• Any port in a storm, right? If you don't believe in God or in His power, then any of these explanations will do. The critics should simply choose whichever of these worldly explanations their intellect can accept, despite the problems with each one.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Ending summary by critics. The only thing remarkable about the Book of Mormon is how remarkably bad it is. How much genius does it take to write about god telling Nephi to hack off Laban's head and then put on Laban's clothing to fool Laban's servants into thinking that Nephi was Laban? (A slightly intelligent writer would almost instantly see that there was a problem with this scenario, unless Laban was in the habit of coming home with blood-drenched clothing and dripping blood and gore all over the place.)

FairMormon commentary

•   Trivialization  —Critics take a complex idea and attempt to trivialize it down to a few simple sound bites in order to prove their position.
  Never mind the data, the Book of Mormon is simply "remarkably bad" and it doesn't take a "genius" to talk about someone cutting off someone's head. Even a "slightly intelligent" writer could see the problems.
• Didn't we earlier learn that Joseph was apparently more than "slightly intelligent?" Or was that Cowdery? Or Rigdon? Or Spalding?

Additional information

• Amount of blood loss?—Since Nephi beheaded Laban, wouldn't there be a large amount of blood afterward? How could Nephi use Laban's clothes and armor to disguise himself? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Thoughts: Joseph's "angels" perhaps were no more supernatural than David Copperfield's assistants....We don't know exactly how illusionist David Copperfield can make the Statue of Liberty seem to disappear or how magician Chris Angel can 'float' between buildings but us not knowing exactly how these gifted magicians perform their illusions doesn't change the fact that they are merely tricks and nothing supernatural. Similarly we don't know exactly how Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon but to merely assume it must have been by using seer stones and gold plates is a bit premature.

FairMormon commentary

• Follow the logic:
  • MormonThink doesn't know how magic tricks are performed, but they know that magic doesn't really exist, so another explanation is necessary.
  • MormonThink doesn't know how the Book of Mormon was produced, but they know that the "gift and power of God" doesn't really exist, so another explanation is necessary.
• Let's try some new logic:
  • Definition of "apologist": one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.
  • LDS apologists defend the idea that the Book of Mormon could have been produced by supernatural means. LDS apologists begin by assuming belief in such things.
  • MormonThink defends the idea that the Book of Mormon could not have been produced by supernatural means. MormonThink apologists begin by assuming disbelief in such things.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There are millions of books in libraries all over the world. The average person couldn't write any of those books yet millions of people write those books every day. Some of us can't fathom how extremely complex stories like Lord of the Rings, War and Peace or even Star Wars were written by one person yet no one questions that a single, modern author wrote each of those works.

FairMormon commentary

• Let's parse this one...
  • "There are millions of books in libraries all over the world." OK, we agree.
  • "The average person couldn't write any of those books yet millions of people write those books every day." Uh...OK. So the "average person couldn't write any of those book," but "millions" write them every day. Whatever...
  • "Some of us can't fathom how extremely complex stories like Lord of the Rings, War and Peace or even Star Wars were written by one person yet no one questions that a single, modern author wrote each of those works." They're very intelligent authors. They write novels. It's what they do. Some people have that kind of talent to create entire fictional worlds.
• Oh....so this is supposed to imply that Joseph Smith had the talent to write a "less complicated" fictional work...or Solomon Spalding...or Oliver Cowdery....or Sidney Rigdon....or someone.
• Now, tell us which ones can do it in 90 days while simultaneously working on the farm, or treasure hunting, or dictating it from memory in full view of everyone while looking into a hat....and retain total consistency of cross references not only within the book itself, but with the Bible?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The Nephites and Lamanites were primitive peoples. Joseph Smith would have been considered a scholar compared to any Indians that lived 2,000 years ago. Yet we don't question that the ancient Indians wrote the original Book of Mormon, but we totally reject the idea that a 19th century man couldn't have done the same thing. That makes reason stare.

FairMormon commentary

•   Caricature believers' arguments  —Rather than accurately report and respond to a statement offered by a believer, the critic misrepresents it and then criticizes their own straw man version.
  
• It is one thing to write a history of one's own time and place that one experiences with such matters as angelic visitations, theophanies, revelations, and the appearance of the resurrected Christ. It is quite another to concoct a fictional account of such things, complete with the complex and internally consistent geography, theology, cultural behaviors, and other matters that are counter-intuitive for the modern author/translator.

== Notes ==

1. [note] Marlin K. Jensen, “The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books,” Ensign
2. [note]  Royal Skousen, "Conjectural Emendation in the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 187–231. off-site wiki
3. [note]  B. H. Roberts to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, March 1923. (See Studies of the Book of Mormon (1992), p. 58. On page 33, note 65, the editor of this work states that the date on this letter should be 1922 rather than 1923.)