But why?

(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

I’ve occasionally wondered how a skeptic might explain why Joseph Smith, if he really just made it all up, opted to create something like the Book of Mormon?  It seems to involve a lot more bother, a lot more complexity and effort — e.g., recruiting exceptionally credulous (and likely hallucinatory) bumpkins (or cunning and inexplicably dedicated co-conspirators) as “witnesses”; possibly fabricating fake “gold plates” and other bogus metallic artifacts; running around while pretending to hide the plates and the other objects; writing a complex book containing approximately 270,000 words and the made-up narrative history of multiple fictional civilizations with detailed geographical references, and the like; and going through the difficult process of finding a printer for a large book, funding the book’s printing, and supervising the printing.

Why not just claim to have received a short revelation or two?  Much easier to write, and no complex back story to create.  “The Lord told me thus and such.”  Simple.  No muss, no fuss.  After all, roughly the first twenty of the revelations canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants were received before the Book of Mormon was published in March 1830.  And Joseph already had followers by then.  Heck, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was formally established already on 6 April 1830, which means that the newly-published Book of Mormon could not have been the sole factor, or even the principal factor, in attracting those who made up the absolutely initial membership of the Church.

So, wouldn’t purported revelations in the style of Doctrine and Covenants 1-20 have been sufficient to have established a viable “prophetic” career?  And where was the model for such a thing as the Book of Mormon?  Why would Joseph have felt the need to manufacture such a thing?  (I’m just musing aloud.)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2024/01/but-why.html