Question: Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon through a process known as "automatic writing?"

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Question: Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon through a process known as "automatic writing?"

Without a logical explanation of its source, some critics have turned to supernatural explanations that do not involve the divine as Joseph testified

At least one critic of the Book of Mormon attempts to explain the complexity of the book by suggesting that Joseph Smith wrote it using a process called "automatic writing" or "spirit writing." The critic, Scott C. Dunn, gives us the following definition of automatic writing:

“The ability to dictate or write material in a relatively rapid, seemingly effortless and fluent manner. Moreover, the practitioner of automatic writing does not consciously compose the material. Indeed, except for sometimes knowing a word or two moments in advance of writing or speaking, the individual is typically unaware of what the content of the writing will be.”

Dunn gives multiple examples of documented automatic writing experiences and correlates them with various facts surrounding the origins of the Book of Mormon. Some people write with just a pencil while others use objects such as stones or crystals to receive the text that is to be written. This information could lead one to draw the conclusion that the Book of Mormon’s origins are something other than divine.

Much research has been done to complicate Dunn's thesis. Papers can be found in the citation found to the right of this sentence. Rather than reproduce these scholars' points, we invite readers to review this scholarship for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Critics have come up empty handed after many attempts to refute the divinity of the Book of Mormon. The historical documentation and modern-day evaluations disprove the possibility that Joseph Smith wrote the book himself. Mr. Dunn explains this in his own paper: “Virtually all available historical evidence militates against the possibility of calculated fraud.” Without a logical explanation of its source, some critics have turned to supernatural explanations that do not involve the divine as Joseph testified. As people have tried to attribute the writing/translation of the Book of Mormon to something other than divine the accusations have been proven incorrect. This has lead to an increase in the complexity of the claims. Similarly, more complex research has been conducted to thwart the negative claims. Such can be found, for instance, in recent scholarship conducted on automatic writing that complicate this thesis. The only claims left are those of supernatural origin, either the book is of God or the devil.

If one believes that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon by way of divinely inspired automatic writing, Dunn gives us the following explanation:

“It may be, for example, that automatic writing is God's true means of giving revelations and translations (in the case of Joseph Smith) which has been counterfeited by Satan (in the cases of Jane Roberts, Pearl Curran, and others).”

One may ask why these other cases exist. In general, there are many examples of the adversary mimicking the ways of the Lord to deceive mankind. He knew that the Book of Mormon would be a great work in the hands of the Lord to bring about the salvation of many souls and to be the foundation for His restored church. It is not hard to believe that Satan would try to create similar stories to that of Joseph’s in an effort to discredit the work of the Lord.

Two Reasons Why the 'Automatic Writing' Explanation is Not More Widely Adopted

The two biggest reasons that automatic writing is not more popular as an explanation for the Book of Mormon are these:

1. Hypnosis does not transform a person into someone with greater creativity, memory, or cognitive function. In fact, it can do the opposite. Psychologist John F. Kihlstrom wrote, “Hypnosis appears to be incapable of enhancing memory [but] hypnotic procedures can impair memory.” John A. Bargh and Ezequiel Morsella of Yale said, “Although concept activation and primitive associative learning could occur unconsciously, anything complex requiring flexible responding, integration of stimuli, or higher mental processes could not.”
2. As Brian Hales has said, "explaining an alleged supernatural activity with another alleged supernatural activity does not result in a naturalistic explanation. And we see critics will sometimes refer to The Sorry Tale and Pearl Curran and say, see, I’ve explained how Joseph did it. Well, not really. What they need is a naturalistic explanation for one of the processes and then maybe they could apply it to both."

You can get a full transcript including slides from Brian Hales' presentation on this subject here or watch the video of that presentation below.

Notes