From "A Witness for the Book of Mormon" by Holland (1998, I believe).

"What if your literary piece created enemies for you? What if it were left in the public arena, open to the criticism of your most hostile and learned opponents, for more than 150 years? What if it were pulled apart and minutely examined and held up to the light of history, literature, anthropology, and religion with no other purpose than to discredit it and denounce you? Could what you have written be that good? Would you still be willing to say that it was an inspired piece of work, let alone hold to your assertion that it was divinely revealed and that its contents were eternally important—that in a very real sense the whole future of the world was linked to your little volume? By this time would either you or your piece still be standing? Would anyone still be reading it?

"If Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient origin, then I would move heaven and earth to meet the ‘real’ nineteenth-century author. After one hundred and fifty years, no one can come up with a credible alternative candidate, but if the book were false, surely there must be someone willing to step forward—if no one else, at least the descendents of the ‘real’ author—claiming credit for such a remarkable document and all that has transpired in its wake. After all, a writer that can move millions can make millions. Shouldn’t someone have come forth then or now to cashier the whole phenomenon?

"And what of the witnesses, the three and the eight, who forever affixed their signatures to the introductory pages of the Book of Mormon declaring they had, respectively, seen an angel and handled the plates of gold? ...

"No other origin for the Book of Mormon has ever come to light because no other account than the one Joseph Smith and these witnesses gave can truthfully be given. There is no other clandestine ‘author,’ no elusive ghostwriter still waiting in the wings after a century and a half for the chance to stride forward and startle the religious world. Indeed, that any writer—Joseph Smith or anyone else—could create the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth would be an infinitely greater miracle than that young Joseph translated it from an ancient record by ‘the gift and power of God.’ "

This is in essence his conference talk in Oct 2009 where he said that apostates would have to crawl over/under/around the Book of Mormon.

>>What if your literary piece created enemies for you?

You mean, like Truman Capote's "Answered Prayers" made the friends he wrote about turn on him and shun him? So what.

>>What if it were left in the public arena, open to the criticism of your most hostile and learned opponents, for more than 150 years?

You mean, like every other piece of published literature in the entire world, each of which gets its appropriate share of criticism? Again, so what.

>>What if it were pulled apart and minutely examined and held up to the light of history, literature, anthropology, and religion with no other purpose than to discredit it and denounce you?

You mean, like all the other thousands of books that proposed theories that were subsequently proven wrong? So what.

>>Could what you have written be that good?

Who says it had to be "that good" to be treated like that? It could have been terrible!

>>Would you still be willing to say that it was an inspired piece of work,

Which non-Mormon says it is inspired?

>>let alone hold to your assertion that it was divinely revealed and that its contents were eternally important—

Catholic leaders assert that their church is divinely revealed too. Muslim leaders assert that their church is divinely revealed too. The Dalai Lama asserts that his church is divinely revealed too. Big Yawn.

>>that in a very real sense the whole future of the world was linked to your little volume?

Spurious. There was and is no sense or reality whatsoever in this claim.

By this time would either you or your piece still be standing? Would anyone still be reading it?
The only people still reading it are the descendants of the original stooges duped by Joe Smith, and those few others they are able to dupe.

>>After all, a writer that can move millions can make millions. Shouldn’t someone have come forth then or now to cashier the whole phenomenon?

Danielle Steele writes and sells millions of trashy novels too, and makes millions off of them. Is that the criteria for divine inspiration? I should take up her latest novel then - and shall thenceforth consider myself saved!


>>apostates would have to crawl over/under/around the Book of Mormon.

He forgot the fourth option, which I availed myself of: walking away from the BoM, and all it represents.

Still, Holland's one claim that another author has not been found does make most TBMs nod in agreement. We speculate, and Criddle with others has done analysis to show evidence that others could plausibly have written the BoM, but there is not silver bullet of evidence.

For me, just that plausibility answers Holland's statement:
" Indeed, that any writer—Joseph Smith or anyone else—could create the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth would be an infinitely greater miracle than that young Joseph translated it from an ancient record by ‘the gift and power of God.’ "

But it isn't enough for TBMs. The best response they have to all the assaults against the BoM is, how could Joseph have written it himself?

They don't seem to factor in that he probably didn't do it alone, and that there have been numerous, yea thousands of edits on his poor grammar to fix it and make it appear far better than it was when he "writ it".

It is not a great book. It is not great literature. It is not a divinely inspired tome. He can prattle all he wants to along that line but all the rest of the world (at least all those who have stooped to bother) completely disagrees with Holland. Who, then, is right: a pack of slathering greedy corporate hounds in the wilds of Utar, or the highly educated literary, historical, archaeological, anthropological, and biological research dons of the world's greatest universities?

The only response to "how could Joseph have written it himself?" is to ask that back to the questioner. As far as I'm concerned there are four "givens" based on known facts:

A) he didn't "translate" it - that is so patent a lie as to be laughable and is proved by common sense (there is no such thing as "Reformed Egyptian," and why would Hebrews have used such a written form anyway when they already had their own written language?), Champollion's Rosetta Stone findings, and Smith's BoA fraud,

B) he probably didn't compose it all himself - that is proven by the large number of stark similarities between his stories and Solomon Spauldings' stories, meaning that he didn't translate it from "ancient records" anyway,

C) even if he did compose it all himself, his own mother admits that from an early age he would sit around in the evenings and amuse his family by making up stories about ancient America, so he STILL didn't translate it from "ancient records" anyway, and

D) whoever else was involved was part of the conspiracy of production - therefore silent.

Of course then along came Craig Criddle with significant evidence in favor of several other writers. Without discounting Criddle's admirable work in any way, I must admit that until it has been backed up by the work of another it is as easy as any other alternative explanation for a Mormon to dismiss. Multiple independently confirmed "like" results would be harder to dismiss, even for a Mormon.

In the end I refuse to be baited by Q12 shysters. Let the Mormons prove their own claims, if they can. So far all of them have fallen flat and at this point I am 100% certain they will continue to, because their book is simply a bad 19th c. fantasy.

I have read a little about Criddle's word-print studies, but can't remember this: do they use the first edition manuscript when trying to figure out Joseph's word print?

I suppose they'd have to, otherwise it wouldn't show much of anything.

Anyone else know for sure?

We did use the 1830 version.

As of June 2011, the Harry Potter book series has sold about 450 million copies, making it the best-selling books series in history and has been translated into 67 languages (making JK Rowling among the most translated authors in history) and the last four books consecutively set records as the fastest-selling books in history.

The books have sold more than 450 million copies worldwide and have also given rise to the popular film adaptations produced by Warner Bros., all of which have been highly successful in their own right. The films have in turn spawned eight video games and have led to the licensing of more than 400 additional Harry Potter products (including an iPod). The Harry Potter brand has been estimated to be worth as much as $15 billion.

Suck on that Jeff!

J.K. ROwling is a TRUE PROPHETESS OF THE LARD!

I know this with every fiber of my bean!

"Shouldn't someone come forward to cashier the whole phenomenon?"

Someone did, Joseph Smith sent Oliver Cowdry and another man to Canada to sell the copyright for the BOM. So he did try to cashier the whole phenomenon.

The whole B of M doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny because of its content, not its author.

Is he effing kidding?

What anthropological standard, praytell, does the BoM withstand?

Actually the BoM is entirely UNsupported by anthropology. Anthropology utterly contradicts the claim that a civilization of anything other than Asiatic colonizers of the Americas no more recent than 15,000 years ago existed.
The millions of non-Asiatic peoples depicted in the BoM simply did not exist. And it's not for a lack of looking. Consider, for example, that ample evidence of a MUCH smaller and SHORTER presence of Vikings in Canada has been dug up. Otherwise, every Native American tested from Greenland to Tierra Del Fuego is of Asiatic origin no more recent then 15,000 years ago

* "What if your literary piece created enemies for you?"

Does the presence of enemies suddenly legitimize a book? By Holland's logic, every religious book is therefore legitimate: Koran, Book of the Law of the Lord, STAN-ic Verses, JW's version of the Biblia, RFM.....

* "What if it were left in the public arena, open to the criticism of your most hostile and learned opponents, for more than 150 years?"

Charles Darwin's "(On )(T/t)he Origin of Species (by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)" has been in the public arena and criticized by its most hostile and learned opponents (usually Creationist Morons including the Extremist Moronic Creationist Mormon subset) for 153 years. The best minds on the planet have done do it what every book claiming a falsifiable position *should* have done to it. Holland somehow thinks that because the Book of Mormon still exists it has somehow vanquished the criticism. That of course is ridiculous. The Book of Mormon exists as a stage-prop of the Restoration and doesn't really contain unique Mormon doctrine. It's not really criticized by believers. And believers have a lot to lose by criticizing it because a Mormon's value to Mormonism is directly related to how well they are perceived as faithful Mormons: don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't swear, wear the correct underwear, conform to Mormon culture, never criticize what the leaders say or do, never allow the "so-called wisdom of men" to corrupt the wonderful knowledge contained in the Book of Mormon, pay tithing, pray and obey. To openly start criticizing anything is an invitation to be labelled 'in-valid' and kicked down a level in the Mormon Caste.

* "What if it were pulled apart and minutely examined and held up to the light of history, literature, anthropology, and religion with no other purpose than to discredit it and denounce you?

Every publication that claims something falsifiable is by nature asking for people to try to discredit it. Nobody should be surprised by this. Carl Sagan's and Stephen Hawking's books are always being discussed in physicists' circles and someone is always trying to figure out where they're wrong. And that's the natural order of things in the marketplace of ideas. The problem with Holland is that he wants the marketplace closed except for his brand. If it were his choice city libraries would be Deseret Book and only pro-Mormon propaganda would be allowed. There's nothing wrong with trying to discredit fraudsters and criminals, especially ones who profit off of the ignorance, superstition and gullibility of others. A society that doesn't at least try to sound the alarms on evil people doesn't deserve salvation.

* "Could what you have written be that good? Would you still be willing to say that it was an inspired piece of work, let alone hold to your assertion that it was divinely revealed and that its contents were eternally important—that in a very real sense the whole future of the world was linked to your little volume?"

Liars tend to stick to the stories that empowered them and self-important narcissists would say anything to get what they want. By their fruits ye shall know them -- Joseph's little scheme damaged the lives of millions. He ruined the financial well-being of everyone involved in his illegal bank. His justifications for polygamy scarred generations. The gospel-ized racism from the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham has hurt countless people.

* "By this time would either you or your piece still be standing? Would anyone still be reading it?"

This begs the question: is The Book of Mormon "still standing"? I think there are multiple answers:
1. it is still standing(!!!), but only in the minds of people with a childish understanding of the world and of Mormonism. There will be no reference to "multiple accounts of the First Vision" or "head-in-hat translation method" found in the brain of someone on this level.
2. it's there, but it ain't standing. The proverbial shelf it was sitting on came down and it's now buried under all the problems the leaders said were just anti-Mormon lies.
3. it's there in the garbage container on the curb, voluntarily removed from the abode along with all the clutter from the fall. Lucky ones have rebuilt their shelves and have much better material in its place.

The question might be more meaningful if the 150,000,000 Books of Mormon thus far printed were purchased willingly instead of introduced to the world in its pan-spermia method, handed out to unsuspecting passers-by without invitation. How good is something that required someone else to pay for it and a pair of twenty-somethings had to convince you to take? And it would be a more apt question if it was the original text including the 4000+ spelling changes, character re-labellings, doctrinal changes, etc. Would anyone's opinion then change on how "good" it is? How about when we ladle in the anachronisms? How about when we salt our knowledge with the wisdom of men that so far does not show anything but an East Asian origin for American peoples? How about when we *allow* open dialogue in our LDS classrooms that delves into detail for why 31 entire chapters of the Old and New Testaments appear in the Book of Mormon? How about when we open the discussion for the possible motives for why a known fraudster and liar could possibly have for creating the Book of Mormon -- did Joseph ever benefit from the growth of Mormonism personally, financially/economically, socially, politically, romantically, etc. (the answer is "yes", btw)? How about when we open the discussion to explore possible contemporary inspirations for almost all of the things we were told were restored to the Earth (temple ceremonies closely resembling Masonic rites, and 'restored' 6 weeks after Joseph became a 32nd degree Mason). The more a person looks at Mormonism the more it starts looking like a money-making machine wrapped inside of a post-Protestant-post-Masonic religious sheath.


* "If Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient origin, then I would move heaven and earth to meet the ‘real’ nineteenth-century author. After one hundred and fifty years, no one can come up with a credible alternative candidate, but if the book were false, surely there must be someone willing to step forward—if no one else, at least the descendents of the ‘real’ author—claiming credit for such a remarkable document and all that has transpired in its wake. After all, a writer that can move millions can make millions. Shouldn’t someone have come forth then or now to cashier the whole phenomenon?"

MANY credible theories have come forth. Many LDS people have encountered those theories on the internet, coupled with the barrage of evidence that has resulted in a mass hemorrhaging of members. His little bit about writers making millions and 'cashier'ing the phenomenon rudely misplaces interest in Mormonism. The real cashiering doesn't come from writing a book about how Mormonism is an invented religion that drags people to hell or somesuch nonsense. The Book of Mormon writer himself nailed it -- you can make huge profit from selling empty promises in the name of Jesus. There's no comparison in interest between a book promising you everything and one practically promising to remove all those promises, leaving you lonely and shamed. Gees, which one do you think would sell better?


* "And what of the witnesses, the three and the eight, who forever affixed their signatures to the introductory pages of the Book of Mormon declaring they had, respectively, seen an angel and handled the plates of gold? ..."

The witnesses were all family and friends who were in positions to be in on the scam. Good witnesses don't even know each other and have nothing to gain.

* "No other origin for the Book of Mormon has ever come to light because no other account than the one Joseph Smith and these witnesses gave can truthfully be given. There is no other clandestine ‘author,’ no elusive ghostwriter still waiting in the wings after a century and a half for the chance to stride forward and startle the religious world. Indeed, that any writer—Joseph Smith or anyone else—could create the Book of Mormon out
of whole cloth would be an infinitely greater miracle than that young Joseph translated it from an ancient record by ‘the gift and power of God.’ "

Whatever.

What Holland doesn't seem to realise is that the BoM is a rotten book.

It's dull, the language is tortuous and repetitive, it lacks drama and decent, well-rounded characters. There are no memorable stories like Noah's Ark, Daniel in the Lions' Den, David and Goliath. There are no women characters, there is no subtext - by which I mean such incidents as there are are only stories, they carry no subtext.

The theology of the BoM was in the first instance, merely standard 19th C, Burnt-Over-District fare.

What the BoM had was a genius promoting it - as PR man and master manipulater.

No one would read the BoM for pleasure or interest if it wasn't important to mormonism. Unlike other holy books, there is nothing in it to hold the interest and a lot to put people off.

And why was it written in fake King James-ese? I've never seen a decent answer to that one

It's obviously not what it claims to be, so I don't believe in it. That's all there is to it. There's no need to crawl over, under or around the Book of Mormon -- just walk away from it.

We had left mentally a year prior to this. We were forwarded the youtube link and saw Jeff's spittle at the mouth as he lied about us having to crawl around the BoM to leave. Sorry Jeff, we walked right through the smoke and mirrors. After this we no longer wanted to be formally associated with this organization. Thanks for the inspiration we needed for formal resignation.

"What if your literary piece created enemies for you?"

Talk to Salman Rushdie and then tell me just how rough Joe had it.

"What if it were left in the public arena, open to the criticism of your most hostile and learned opponents, for more than 150 years? What if it were pulled apart and minutely examined and held up to the light of history, literature, anthropology, and religion with no other purpose than to discredit it and denounce you?"

It would probably be proven to be as laughable as is the case currently.

"Could what you have written be that good? Would you still be willing to say that it was an inspired piece of work, let alone hold to your assertion that it was divinely revealed and that its contents were eternally important—that in a very real sense the whole future of the world was linked to your little volume? By this time would either you or your piece still be standing? Would anyone still be reading it?

J.D. Salinger and Mark Twain go through that in thousands of school boards across the entire US of A by crackpots who try to get them banned every day. That should occur to you that this isn't such unique criticism, Mr. "I-have-a-Ph.D.-in-literature-from-Yale."

"If Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient origin, then I would move heaven and earth to meet the ‘real’ nineteenth-century author. After one hundred and fifty years, no one can come up with a credible alternative candidate..."

I've heard theories but I have no problem believing Joseph Smith wrote it. There are so many factual errors, anachronisms, etc. that it's conceivable that he authored the entire thing. It's also excruciating prose and reads poorly. Give me a couple of months and I'll bet you I could write a better one, Elder Holland. I could even have a couple of my gullible friends--errrr--credible witnesses certify my translation skills. Give me a couple of months and $100K, and I will deliver it on your desk in SLC.

"Shouldn’t someone have come forth then or now to cashier the whole phenomenon?"

Um. 30+ wives. Now 30+ billion dollars. I'd say you and your brethren have "cashiered" quite well, Elder Holland.

"And what of the witnesses, the three and the eight, who forever affixed their signatures to the introductory pages of the Book of Mormon declaring they had, respectively, seen an angel and handled the plates of gold? ..."

Yeah. Why did it seem like none of them believed longer than a few years? Sheeeeeeet... if you can't when you actually get to see the angel and the plates yourself, why on earth should we be expected to?

"Indeed, that any writer—Joseph Smith or anyone else—could create the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth would be an infinitely greater miracle than that young Joseph translated it from an ancient record by ‘the gift and power of God.’"

It really wouldn't have been that hard, dude. I wish I had something more cutting or biting to say, but I guess that's as bad as I can come up with. Writing the Book of Mormon really wouldn't have been that hard. Especially with 150 years of people who WERE pretty brilliant and well-educated making change after change, correction after correction, and hordes of linguists, historians, and scientists spending their entire lives dedicated to finding any scrap of incidental knowledge to hint that possibly--POSSIBLY--there's some connection between that book and early American life.