How have Book of Mormon origin theories changed over time? Ep. 116

How have Book of Mormon origin theories changed over time? Ep. 116

Turn Off Light
Auto Next
Author Avatar

saintsunscripted

Joined: Aug 2024

Descriptions:

Joseph Smith claims the Book of Mormon was translated “by the gift and power of God.” Critics would argue otherwise. But what exactly DO the critics say about the book’s origins, and how have they changed their tune over time? Let’s talk about it.

Transcript and additional notes: https://bit.ly/3alEAIQ

“Naturalistic Explanations of the Origin of the Book of Mormon: A Longitudinal Study,” by Brian Hales (BYU Studies): https://bit.ly/3cxusP0 / https://bit.ly/3u2FJwa
“Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?: The Critics and Their Theories,” by Louis C. Midgley: https://bit.ly/3rBAEJw
“A New Witness For Christ,” by Francis Kirkham (both Vol. 1 & 2).
“Curiously Unique: Joseph Smith as Author of the Book of Mormon,” by Brian Hales (Interpreter Journal): https://bit.ly/3fsP10m
“‘Proving to the World’: The Unique Declaration in Doctrine and Covenants Section 20,” by Brian Hales: https://bit.ly/3lZg8l2
“Theories and Assumptions: A Review of William L. Davis’s ‘Visions in a Seer Stone,’” by Brian Hales (Interpreter Journal): https://bit.ly/2PzxkkV
“Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins,” Noel B. Reynolds (editor).

Notes:

-In “The Prophetic Book of Mormon,” Hugh Nibley noted the irony in the evolution of these theories about the authorship of the Book of Mormon. He wrote,

“…the critics have no choice today but to go back to the old original theory of Campbell. But if that theory was so readily discredited (please note: it was not supplanted by the Spaulding theory but broke down on its own accord, and the Spaulding substitute was only found after a desperate interval of frantic searching), if it could not stand up for a year on its own merits, why should it work now?” (pg. 148).

Nibley continued,

“…lots of things are forgotten in 125 years! The theory that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon raises questions and involves corollaries which a hundred years ago were readily seen to present an insuperable obstacle to its acceptance. But the modern world can very easily overlook those questions and corollaries, and present-day critics are trying hard to do so” (pg 151).

-When it comes to topics like those treated in this episode, some people like to bring up the “God of the gaps” argument. It goes sort of like this: “Gaps in science and history do not prove that God is real, or that the supernatural exists.” Or, in our case: “History at this time cannot explain how Joseph created the Book of Mormon, but that doesn’t prove that God is responsible.” True. The points in this video don’t prove that God is responsible. The problem with this argument is that you could apply it as a way to justify a non-supernatural basis of anything and everything.

You could apply it to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the transformation of water into wine, the healing of the blind. In all of these scenarios, one could claim, “Just because we don’t have a scientific or historical explanation for it doesn’t mean that it was the result of something supernatural.” The way I see it, when there are gaps in the historic or scientific record, you’ve got to do the best you can to fill it with whatever makes the most sense to you, even if whatever you fill the gap with is ultimately (and necessarily) founded in faith. You could say,

“I don’t know how to explain this, but I have faith that it can be explained by science/history.” Or you can say,

“I don’t know how to explain this, but I have faith that it can be explained by what Joseph claimed about the events — that God was involved.” Or I suppose you can also say,

“I don’t know how to explain this, and I don’t feel the need to attempt to explain it.” And that’s fine too, I suppose. But it doesn’t work for me, personally. That said, imagine with me two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Joseph claimed the Book of Mormon came from God, but we found papers under the floorboards of his family’s home containing draft upon draft of the Book of Mormon. We also found various history and religion books stashed inside his mattress, and his parents confessed that he made the whole thing up.

Scenario 2: Joseph claimed the Book of Mormon came from God, and 200 years later critics are still quite baffled as to how this book came to be.

Of the two scenarios, which one is more faith-affirming? I vote for Scenario 2, and that’s pretty much the reality we live in. So I think it’s a topic worth exploring. And it seems to me, based on what we know about God, that in order to preserve and foster faith He often does operate in that space where history and science cannot venture. Again, the existence of a gap does not prove that it’s filled by God, but it certainly leaves room for it, and that’s what faith is all about.

Follow Us:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SaintsUnscripted/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/saintsunscripted/
Website: https://saintsunscripted.com/

Follow David: https://www.instagram.com/davidesnell/