© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Although it appears that formulaic license has permeated the historic presentation of stories, fables and tales throughout different epochs and among many cultures, there just doesn’t really appear to be any evidence for such usage from Joseph Smith. Evidence is a difficult sword, cutting either way: sometimes against the believer and just as easily against the doubter.
Indeed, the phrase almost singularly used by Joseph Smith, “it was translated by the gift and power of God,” does not achieve anything as evidence for disbelievers. “By the gift and power of God” does not excite the imagination, the ready resolve, the confidence or assurance, nor the ability to accept and believe necessary for any of those who doubt and who do not already accept that that method could have been the one actually utilized.
Inasmuch as Joseph’s explanation is unacceptable to those who doubt or disbelieve, then in their minds, there must be a different story, –almost any other version– which would better explain the remarkable physical item now known as the Book of Mormon.
It should come as no surprise to those of us who believe that antagonists cannot accept our version of events. That God should work with a human being as uneducated, frail and inconsequential as Joseph Smith is too implausible for them to accept. Therefore, some other explanation, –any other explanation no matter how inconclusive or lacking of evidence– is more acceptable.
Thank you. A most interesting and thorough analysis. I had heard of all the various attempts to explain away Joseph Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon and found them all lacking in credibility, even without Hugh Nibley’s scholarly insights. Your well written paper adds additional weight to the fact that the “ignorant plough-boy” could not have produced such an amazing book.
Thank you Bro. Hales … I really enjoyed your “no more slam dunks” article … I love reading this type of “push-back” article … once again my appreciation for J.Smith’s prophet gifts have been increased.
With our current Come Follow Me D&C I’ve taken the opportunity to learn more about the history of J.Smith. Just finished Lucy Mack J.Smith Biography … read “The Savior in Kirtland” … just finished Jeff Bradshaw’s article on Zebedee Coltrin … and this morning read C.R. Stephens biography on Z. Coltrin … all this reading and your fine research have once again strengthened my appreciation for J.Smith / his wonderful family / and his faithful associates …. he accomplished so much from 1830-1844 …. we need an Interpreter “reminder” conference on the subject of: JS and his Prophetic Gifts!
thank you, Blair Lucas