Priced to Sell

Review of Robert M. Price. “Prophecy and Palimpsest.” Dialogue
35/3 (2002): 67–82.

Priced to Sell

Reviewed by William J. Hamblin

In “Prophecy and Palimpsest,” an article appearing in a recent issue of Dialogue,
Robert M. Price offers his perspective on the origin of the Book of Mormon and
a recommendation for how Latter-day Saints should understand the meaning and
origin of that book. Dr. Price’s position is straightforward and none too innovative;
while providing no evidence, he insists that “virtually all critical scholars
. . . agree that Joseph Smith did not discover the Book of Mormon
but rather created it” (p. 67).1 He further maintains that the claims Joseph
Smith made surrounding the origin of the Book of Mormon are “manifestly false”
(p. 76). But all hope for Mormons is not lost. If we recognize that fiction
can be called inspired, then the Book of Mormon, as fiction, can also be called
inspired. Price asserts that this insight will provide “a quantum leap in interpretative
possibilities” that will “only enhance Smith’s prophetic dignity, not debunk
it” (p. 82).2 In reality, this is simply more of the same type of assertions
we have been hearing for years from cultural Mormons in venues such as Sunstone,
Dialogue, and Signature Books. Price’s entire case rests largely on
argument from analogy. Unfortunately, none of the analogies he proposes are

Inspired Fiction?

Price believes that the insistence of most Latter-day Saints that the Book of
Mormon is historical derives from our stubborn inability to

understand the difference between fiction and lying. The problem [is] one of
“bifurcation,” the reduction of a complex choice to an over-simple
one. One’s alternatives are not either “fact or deception,”
“hoax or history.” For example, were the parables of Jesus either
factual or deceptive? Did he intend anyone to think he was talking about a real
prodigal son . . . ? Of course not; he knew that his audience knew
he was making it up as he went. (pp. 68—69)

I admit to being baffled by such statements. Is Price so uninformed about
the controversy over the origin of the Book of Mormon that he thinks this is
a significant analogy? While it is true that Jesus never claimed his parables
were intended to describe actual historical events (and no one ever understood
them as such), does Price not realize that Joseph Smith consistently claimed
the Book of Mormon was authentic ancient history and that all of his
early followers accepted it as such?3 It is obscure how the two examples are
even vaguely analogous.

On the other hand, no one who accepts the Book of Mormon as authentic ancient
history and scripture rejects the idea that fiction can be revealed and inspired
by God. Indeed, acceptance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon necessarily
entails the existence of inspired fiction since the Book of Mormon itself contains
examples of inspired fiction: Jacob’s allegory of the olive tree (Jacob
5) and Alma’s allegory of the seed and the tree of life (Alma 32) are
the two most obvious examples. The problem is not that believing Latter-day
Saints are so simpleminded that we don’t understand the difference between
lying and fiction or the possibility of inspired fiction such as Jesus’s
parables. The problem is that cultural Mormons who reject the history of the
Book of Mormon don’t seem to grasp the fact that the debate surrounding
the origin of the Book of Mormon is not framed by believers as a question of
history versus fiction.4 I have elsewhere outlined a simple logical argument
related to the historicity of the Book of Mormon:

  1. Joseph Smith claimed to have had possession of golden plates written by the
    Nephites, and to have been visited by Moroni, a resurrected Nephite.
  2. If the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, there were no Nephites.
  3. If there were no Nephites, there were no golden plates written by Nephites;
    and there was no Nephite named Moroni.
  4. If there was no Moroni and no golden plates, then Joseph did not tell the
    truth when he claimed to possess and translate these nonexistent plates, and
    to have been visited by a resurrected man.
  5. Hence, Joseph was either lying (he knew there were no plates or angelic visitations,
    but was trying to convince others that there were), or he was insane or deluded
    (he believed there were golden plates and angelic visitations which in fact
    did not exist).

    If [agnostics and cultural Mormons] wish to maintain that the Book of Mormon
    is not an ancient document, but that Joseph Smith was somehow still a prophet,
    they must present some cogent explanation for Joseph’s wild claims of
    possessing nonexistent golden plates and being visited by nonexistent angels.
    Thus the argument [made by believers in the historicity of the Book of Mormon]
    is not “If the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then it is not scripture,”
    as [agnostics and cultural Mormons] would have us believe, but “If the
    Book of Mormon is not ancient, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet.”5

Throughout his paper Price ignores the real issue; indeed, there is no evidence
that he is aware that such arguments even exist. Instead, Price emphasizes his
claim that the fact that “Joseph Smith [is] the author of the Book of Mormon,
with Moroni and Mormon as its [fictional] narrators” (p. 69) does not imply
that Joseph Smith was “a mischievous or malicious hoaxer” (p. 73) or “charlatan”
(p. 69). Unfortunately, Price never explains why he feels this is the case.
It is mere assertion, not argument. Instead of a serious study of the historical
evidence and arguments, Price again argues by analogy that Herman Melville,
the author of Moby Dick, uses Ishmael as a fictional first-person narrator,
and no one has ever accused Melville of being a charlatan or hoaxer (p. 69).
Unfortunately, this is an extraordinarily weak analogy. As far as I know, Melville
never claimed that the resurrected Ishmael appeared to him and gave him the
manuscript of Moby Dick on golden plates. Nor did he convince eleven
people to publicly testify that they had seen the golden plates of Moby
. He did not proclaim the divine origin of Moby Dick throughout
his life, nor did he go to the grave defending those supernatural claims. I
think we are justified in maintaining that there are some significant differences
between the claimed origins of Moby Dick (which Melville always represented
as fiction) and the claimed origins of the Book of Mormon (which Joseph Smith
always represented as ancient and divinely inspired). Of course, using a first-person
narrator in writing fiction does not make one a charlatan. But writing fiction
and falsely testifying that the fiction is actual ancient history, taken from
an ancient document provided by an angel, and proclaiming oneself a prophet
on the basis of that “fiction” does make one a charlatan. Although not all fiction
writers are charlatans, some fiction writers most certainly are. None of Joseph
Smith’s contemporaries were under any confusion about this issue. They either
accepted the Book of Mormon as authentic ancient scripture or as a fraudulent

I have seen the claim that fiction can be inspired, and therefore that the
Book of Mormon can be fiction and still be inspired, asserted endlessly by cultural
Mormons. I have never once seen a response to the actual arguments
of believers in Book of Mormon historicity regarding the significance of the
question of historicity. The “inspired fiction” model is a red herring and a
straw man. While I can understand why Price, who is apparently a neophyte when
it comes to Book of Mormon studies, might think this argument is a significant
new insight, the editors and peer reviewers of Dialogue have no such
excuse. If they are aware of the actual history of the debate on the topic,
they should have rejected Price’s article for failing to engage and advance
that debate, or at least they should have asked him to rewrite it to include
a serious engagement with the real issues. If they are unaware of the history
of the debate on historicity, they have no business publishing on the topic
at all.


A major claim of Price’s article is that the Book of Mormon is pseudepigraphic—that
it is falsely attributed to an ancient prophetic author. According to Price,
“both the new prophets [authors of pseudepigrapha] and the establishment
[supporters of a closed canon] try to hide behind the names of the ancient,
canonical prophets in order to claim authority” for their new pseudepigraphic
scriptures (p. 72). He believes the Book of Mormon was created in precisely
the same way that Old and New Testament pseudepigrapha were written (pp. 67—74).
Indeed, for Price much of the Bible itself is essentially pseudepigraphic (pp. 78—81).
He believes, for example, that Peter’s vision in Acts 10:9—16 never
really happened; instead, it was a literary pastiche created by cobbling together
random phrases from the Septuagint Old Testament (pp. 79—80). For
Price, “the Book of Mormon must be the product of that same process . . .
the scrambling of motifs and distinctive phrases from previous literary texts
in order to produce a new text of the same basic type” (p. 81). But
Price’s argument in relation to the Book of Mormon is problematic on a
number of levels.

First, according to Price, new “inspired” pseudepigraphic authors
wrote their new “revelations” under biblical pseudonyms such as
Enoch, Moses, or Daniel (p. 70).6 This was because new scripture would
not be accepted since the scriptural canon was closed:

The new visionary [author of a pseudepigraphic text] may not dare appear in
public, but neither will the authorities dare to condemn “newly rediscovered”
writings by the old, canonical prophets. In this way, the newer prophets managed
to slip under the fence built around the scriptural canon. (p. 71)

Whatever the merits of this interpretation—and it is surely overly simplistic7—it
is not analogous to Joseph Smith because the Book of Mormon does not claim to
be the work of ancient biblical authors. Rather, it is an entirely new set of
scriptures by nonbiblical prophets. Joseph’s intention was clearly
not to make the Book of Mormon acceptable to contemporary Christians by creating
new prophecy in the mouth of a revered biblical author such as Moses or Isaiah.8
By Price’s own definition, the Book of Mormon is not actually pseudepigraphic.

As a further part of his assertion that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon
as a pseudepigraph in order to make it more acceptable to readers of a closed
biblical canon, Price believes that “after setting forth the Book of Mormon,
Joseph Smith began to prophesy in his own voice” (pp. 74–75).
Unfortunately for Price, the historical reality of Joseph’s prophecies
is quite different from Price’s model. In an example of pure speculation,
Price describes what he believes Joseph was thinking while considering foisting
a fictitious Book of Mormon on the Christians of early nineteenth-century America:
“If writings of old prophets are the only ones taken seriously, then by
all means let’s write one! It’s the only way to gain media access!”
(p. 72).

According to Price, Joseph decided to write a fictional scripture set in ancient
times because the closing of the biblical canon prevented his own personal prophecies
from being acceptable among other Christians. But the Book of Mormon was actually
published in March 1830.9 By that time Joseph Smith had already revealed seventeen
sections of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 2–18) over the course
of twenty-one months in his own “prophetic voice.” If the purpose
of writing the Book of Mormon was to avoid the problems associated with claiming
to be a new prophet with new scripture in a prophetless world with a closed
canon, as Price claims, why was Joseph Smith making independent new prophecies
originating from his own new personal revelations at precisely the time he was
supposedly writing a book to avoid the very problem he was creating for himself?

Whence God?

A final serious concern I have with Price’s article is his confusing use
of religious language. Throughout his article Price talks of God and inspiration
as if they were real objective facts. He describes “reading the prophetic
Word of God” (p. 70); he claims (without providing any evidence)
that “most theologians now accept that God might inspire an authoritative
pseudepigraph as easily as he might inspire a parable” (p. 74).
Joseph obtained an “inspired result” (p. 76) of scripture writing.
Elsewhere Price speaks of the “divinely inspired prophecy of Joseph Smith”
(p. 77). Take, for example, this statement: “If we feel entitled
to decree that God could never sink to inspiring a pseudepigraph (and if we
think we are privy to the literary tastes of the Almighty, we are claiming to
be prophets ourselves!), then we have no option but to dismiss the biblical
pseudepigraphs along with the Book of Mormon” (p. 73). This language
is astonishingly confusing given the fact that Price is an atheist and believes
in neither God nor divine inspiration.

Red flags certainly should go up in one’s mind when reading Price’s brief
biography at the end of this issue of Dialogue; it mentions that he
has published with Prometheus Books and is director of a “Secular Humanist Center”
(p. 249). These organizations are all associated with Paul Kurtz’s secular
humanist movement, which is a strong ally of George D. Smith in his atheistic
attacks on Mormonism.10 Price’s personal atheism is made abundantly clear from
his publications in other venues, of which I will cite only a few.11

For example, in “From Fundamentalist to Humanist,”12 Price documents
his personal odyssey from fundamentalist adolescent through seminary to a liberal
Christian view, and finally to atheism. As such it is a fairly typical “testimonial”
of apostasy—the conversion from belief to disbelief. The result is that
for Price religion is merely a form of literature, poetry, or drama.

[Religion] was really a kind of esthetic experience. Worship was something akin
to the awe we feel at great art or at beholding the starry sky. Poetry could
offer essentially the same, genuinely spiritual experience. Religion came to
seem to me basically a matter of drama and theater. That is not to denigrate
it. Rather, to see it as theatrical is to explain why it is so powerful, like
an engrossing film or play that leaves the viewer changed.13

For Price, God is simply a character in fiction: “I had come to view religion
simply as a matter of spiritual experience. ‘God’ was mainly part of the language
of worship, not necessarily anything more.”14 “To get something out of a Shakespeare
play, you by no means need actually believe in Hamlet or Polonius. Only a fool
would think you do. And, I suggest, no Christian need believe in a historical
Jesus or his resurrection to have a powerful Easter.”15 On the other hand, to
my knowledge Shakespeare never said that the resurrected Hamlet appeared to
him in a dream and gave him a prewritten play Hamlet on golden plates.
Shakespeare also never claimed to have been resurrected and ascended into heaven.
Frankly, the two examples are not even slightly analogous.

If there is no God, there is naturally no inspiration. Prophecy and revelation
are merely forms of literature.

But this meant that religion is nothing more than a creation of human imagination.
. . . I realized I do not esteem Jesus as any greater a teacher than
Aristotle or Epicurus. I guess I agree more with Nietzsche than with Jesus.
. . . Religion now seems to me a kind of nursery school version of
philosophy. . . . The Bible continues to fascinate me . . .
though now it seems as bizarre to “believe” the Bible as it would
be to “believe” the Iliad or Hamlet!16

In fact, religion is nothing more than brain chemistry:

One of the most intriguing areas of recent research in brain science,
and one that bears directly on our question, is that of the physical, organo-chemical
character of religious experiences. As discussed in books like Matthew Alper’s
The God Part of the Brain, studies indicate that the mystical experience
of God . . . [is a function] of the temporal parietal lobe of the
brain. . . . I suspect that this is the final reduction, the ultimate
demystification of religion’s metaphysical claims.17

Far from believing that Joseph Smith’s writings are truly inspired in
the sense that Latter-day Saints understand the term, when Price writes that
Smith’s writings are “the same sort of thing as the Bible . . .
[and] no more a hoax than Deuteronomy” (p. 82), he is simply saying
they are both equally bogus, but bogus in an interesting and pleasantly aesthetic,
fictional sort of way, though necessarily nursery-schoolish. When he talks of
the God of Mormonism, Price is referring to electrochemical activity in the
temporal parietal lobe of Joseph Smith’s brain—nothing more.

I could go on, but I think the point is obvious. Price is an atheist. Religion
can be called inspired in precisely the same way that literature or art can
be called inspired. Spirituality is simply an interior human emotion with its
origins in brain chemistry. Let me emphasize that I am not revealing a dark
hidden secret here. In his publications outside of Dialogue, Price
makes no attempt to mask his true beliefs or lack thereof. On the contrary,
he openly evangelizes for atheism. Nor am I claiming that Price is a bad person
because he is an atheist; he may well be a wonderful father and ethical human
being. I am not even claiming that his position is wrong because he is an atheist.
But the masking of his atheism in his Dialogue article does make a
monumental difference in trying to understand what he is really saying. And
his talk of God, prophecy, and inspiration is confusing at best, and perhaps
disingenuous when given to a Latter-day Saint audience who understand those
terms in a very specific, real, and concrete sense. What Price is really saying
is that if we cease to believe in the reality of God and revelation, then the
Book of Mormon is scripture in precisely the same sense that the Bible or Qur’an
or Bhagavad Gita are scripture—they are all equally “inspiring” fiction.

While I can’t speak to Price’s motives for writing this article, I find it
very difficult to believe that the editors and peer reviewers of Dialogue
are not aware of the real implication of Price’s position. The peer reviewers
and editors of Dialogue have not done Latter-day Saints a service publishing
this type of equivocation—and this is by no means the first time they have
done so. For me this is an issue of truth in advertising. Does it not make a
difference if God exists? Does it not make a difference if Jesus is the Son
of God? Does it not make a difference if Christ really rose from the dead? Does
it not make a difference if Joseph Smith really saw God? Does it not make a
difference if the resurrected Christ really appeared to real Nephites? Does
it not make a difference if there really is the possibility of eternal life?
Does it not make a difference if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
is the restored church that has the keys to eternal life? The answer, I think,
is obvious: it makes a difference; it makes all the difference in the world
and in the world to come. For those truly seeking the way, the truth, and the
life, Price’s view is lentil pottage he is trying to trade us for our true birthright.


A version of this review appeared under the title “There Really Is a God, and
He Dwells in the Temporal Parietal Lobe of Joseph Smith’s Brain” in Dialogue
36/4 (2003): 79–87.

  1. Price seems to be completely unaware of, or at least unwilling to engage,
    a large body of scholarship on the issues he raises. For the most recent popularizing
    summary (with detailed notes to numerous studies), see Donald W. Parry, Daniel
    C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences of the Book
    of Mormon
    (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002); see also Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book
    of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins
    UT: FARMS, 1997); and Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American
    Scripture That Launched a New World Religion
    (New York: Oxford University
    Press, 2002).
  2. Price makes these types of assertions throughout his article without once
    ever attempting to actually argue for his position. Why an inventive fiction
    writer—Stephen King, for example—should be said to have greater
    “prophetic dignity” than a man who actually saw God and spoke with
    him still remains obscure to me, even after reading Price’s article.
  3. Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,”
    in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson
    (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 123–40.
  4. For a general introduction to a number of issues surrounding this question,
    see Hoskisson, Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures.
  5. William J. Hamblin, “An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe’s
    Assumptions and Methodologies,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon
    6/1 (1994): 453. In actuality, Price tacitly accepts this argument. As I will
    note below, since Price is an atheist, for him Joseph Smith cannot be a true
    prophet in any meaningful sense of the word.
  6. Price’s overall explanation for pseudepigraphic writings is simplistic
    on a number of levels. There is no scholarly consensus as to the definition
    of pseudepigrapha; ideas about pseudepigraphy changed through time; the writing
    of pseudepigraphic texts began centuries before the closing of the canon—thus
    the existence of a closed canon cannot be the core cause for pseudepigraphy;
    many different Christian and Jewish communities understood canon and scripture
    differently; some had an open canon rendering pseudepigraphy pointless; different
    pseudepigraphic texts are accepted and rejected in different canons; etc. Furthermore,
    in Price’s view, many biblical texts are pseudepigraphic (pp. 78–81),
    making the distinction between pseudepigrapha and canon rather arbitrary.
  7. Price provides no bibliographic references to scholarly discussions of the
    pseudepigrapha that outline the evidence for his theory.
  8. This statement applies to the Book of Mormon as a whole, even though it does
    contain quotations from biblical figures: for example, Isaiah (2 Nephi
    12–24 = Isaiah 2–14) and Christ (3 Nephi 12–14 = Matthew
    5–7). On the other hand, Joseph does restore revelations from Moses (Moses
    1–6), Enoch (Moses 7), and Abraham (Abraham 1–5); Price does not
    mention these texts in his argument.
  9. Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism
    (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984), 110.
  10. See Louis Midgley, “The Signature Books Saga,” in this number of the FARMS
    , pages 361–406; Midgley, “Atheists and Cultural Mormons Promote
    a Naturalistic Humanism,” review of Religion, Feminism, and Freedom of Conscience:
    A Mormon/Humanist Dialogue, ed. George D. Smith, Review of Books on the
    Book of Mormon
    7/1 (1995): 229–38; Midgley, “George Dempster Smith, Jr.,
    on the Book of Mormon,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 4 (1992):
  11. Price is a member of the Atheist Alliance and an editor for their journal,
    Secular Nation; see
    (accessed 9 January 2004).
  12. “From Fundamentalist to Humanist (1997)”; see
    (accessed 9 January 2004).
  13. Ibid.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Robert M. Price, “Religious and Secular Humanism: What’s the Difference?”
    at (accessed 9 January 2004),
    a reprint from Robert M. Price, “Religious and Secular Humanism,” Free
    22/3 (2002).
  16. Price, “From Fundamentalist to Humanist.”
  17. Price, “Religious and Secular Humanism.” What studies like Alper’s
    actually deal with is brain activity during “mystical” experiences,
    which Price reductionistically assumes are normative for all types of religious
    experience. But even if the temporal parietal lobe of the brain is stimulated
    during all religious experiences, it no more proves that there is no objective
    divine reality outside the brain than the fact that certain regions of the brain
    are stimulated by light or sound proves that there is no such thing as light
    or sound outside the brain.