Slide 36

ep01Slide36

Mormon leaders argue that the complexity of the Book of Mormon is evidence of its authenticity.

Apostle Dallin Oaks (1993):

“Those who rely exclusively on scholarship reject revelation and fulfill Nephi’s prophecy that in the last days men “shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance” (2 Ne. 28:4). The practitioners of that approach typically focus on a limited number of issues, like geography or ‘horses’ or angelic delivery or nineteenth century language patterns. They ignore or gloss over the incredible complexity of the Book of Mormon record. Our side will settle for a draw, but those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot settle for a draw. They must try to disprove its historicity–or they seem to feel a necessity to do this–and in this they are unsuccessful because even the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that.”

 Provo, Utah, 29 October 1993, entitled, “The Historicity of the Book of Mormon”. Talk for FARMS.

Mormon historian Richard Bushman:

“I don’t think you can make a case based on historical evidence that Joseph Smith could have written the book. It is entirely too complicated and produced with so little experience. In my opinion that does not allow you to jump immediately to the conclusion that the book was divine. I tell people it was either a work of genius or it was inspired. By genius we mean something that exceeds normal human capacities.”

http://www.wheatandtares.org/17915/richard-bushman-on-mormonism/

 

Return

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *