More Proof Of The Book Of Mormon?

[consiglieri]

The most unyielding physical evidence in support of the Book of Mormon is likely the Book of Mormon itself. We start with the proposition that it exists. No amount of wishful thinking will make it disappear. It is also documented to have come forth in upstate New York in 1830.

Believers in the Book of Mormon have long been unified in explaining its existence, which is pretty much exactly what Joseph Smith said, regarding angels, gold plates, and interpreters.

Critics of the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, have been anything but unified in producing a theory that accounts for the existence of the Book of Mormon in its entirety.

One naturalistic theory may account for certain aspects of the Book of Mormon, but fails to account for others. No naturalistic theory produced so far accounts for the Book of Mormon in its entirety in a sufficiently plausible manner as to persuade critics that that one theory is correct. Hence a multiplicity of theories continue to abound.

This I take to be evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

Many extremely bright and well-educated minds have been engaged in the endeavor of finding a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon.

We can all agree that this book was created in some fashion or other in upstate New York in the early 19th century. Why should it be so difficult, after all this time and all this concerted mental effort, to figure out how it was produced, if indeed a naturalistic explanation is correct?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Not quite me]

The most unyielding physical evidence in support of the Book of Mormon is likely the Book of Mormon itself. We start with the proposition that it exists. No amount of wishful thinking will make it disappear. It is also documented to have come forth in upstate New York in 1830.

Believers in the Book of Mormon have long been unified in explaining its existence, which is pretty much exactly what Joseph Smith said, regarding angels, gold plates, and interpreters.

Critics of the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, have been anything but unified in producing a theory that accounts for the existence of the Book of Mormon in its entirety.

One naturalistic theory may account for certain aspects of the Book of Mormon, but fails to account for others. No naturalistic theory produced so far accounts for the Book of Mormon in its entirety in a sufficiently plausible manner as to persuade critics that that one theory is correct. Hence a multiplicity of theories continue to abound.

This I take to be evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

Many extremely bright and well-educated minds have been engaged in the endeavor of finding a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon.

We can all agree that this book was created in some fashion or other in upstate New York in the early 19th century. Why should it be so difficult, after all this time and all this concerted mental effort, to figure out how it was produced, if indeed a naturalistic explanation is correct?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I tend to agree with Dale's proposed method of production: Oliver copying from a manuscript. That's what the evidence suggests, I believe. Either way, just because I'm not 100% sure of the method of production, that doesn't mean that the product is necessarily true. I think the text of the book is enough to show that it most likely is a product of the nineteenth century. The method by which it went from manuscript to print is not all that important to me.

[consiglieri]

Fair enough.

How about if we compare the naturalistic theory of the production of the Book of Mormon to the completion of a criminal act?

If those who hew to a naturalistic theory are correct, then a crime of some sort was perpetrated in upstate New York in the early 19th century. We have the evidence of the crime; i.e., the Book of Mormon.

In order to discover how this crime was committed, and by whom, a number of sleuths have been laboring diligently for over 170-years, poring over the records, and leaving no (seer) stone unturned.

But these sleuths have been unable to come to a unanimous verdict as to how the crime was committed.

If a naturalistic theory is to be preferred, and if some very bright minds have yet to come up with a plausible method of commission of the crime such that all can agree to the one method, what does that indicate about those who committed the crime in the first place?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Not quite me]

Fair enough.

How about if we compare the naturalistic theory of the production of the Book of Mormon to the completion of a criminal act?

If those who hew to a naturalistic theory are correct, then a crime of some sort was perpetrated in upstate New York in the early 19th century. We have the evidence of the crime; i.e., the Book of Mormon.

In order to discover how this crime was committed, and by whom, a number of sleuths have been laboring diligently for over 170-years, poring over the records, and leaving no (seer) stone unturned.

But these sleuths have been unable to come to a unanimous verdict as to how the crime was committed.

If a naturalistic theory is to be preferred, and if some very bright minds have yet to come up with a plausible method of commission of the crime such that all can agree to the one method, what does that indicate about those who committed the crime in the first place?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If we have the dead body of someone who was shot but no clues as to who committed the crime, is that proof that no crime was committed?

[The Dude]

This I take to be evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

Much like a creationist who takes disagreement over some aspects of evolution to be evidence in favor of special creation. It's not logical or intellectually honest to take this as evidence. Get over it.

BTW, I note that BoM-believers can't agree on "tight" versus "loose" translation of the BoM. What should I conclude from this? Anything?

[Sethbag]

Aside from that, if the BoM is not true, then it is in the nature of a fraud, and by definition efforts were made to conceal its true origins. If it is a fraud, and we cannot tell with exactness exactly how it is produced, then it is because it was successful as a fraud, and all of the people who might have revealed the exact nature of its production have long since died, taking the secret with them. And the physical evidence is just not there, such as the plates themselves, or whatever Joseph may or may not have shown the witnesses, in a box, under a cloth, or whatever. So there's nothing physical to examine, except for the seerstones, and I'm quite sure a thorough examination would reveal them to be nothing more than minerals.

[consiglieri]

If we have the dead body of someone who was shot but no clues as to who committed the crime, is that proof that no crime was committed?

Let the Book of Mormon be the dead body. If the critics are correct, somebody in the 19th century shot him. My question is, after so long and after so much effort, why can't the critics agree on who the culprit is? I mean, these guys in upstate New York weren't the brightest bulbs in the box. How hard could it be?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Not quite me]

Let the Book of Mormon be the dead body. If the critics are correct, somebody in the 19th century shot him. My question is, after so long and after so much effort, why can't the critics agree on who the culprit is? I mean, these guys in upstate New York weren't the brightest bulbs in the box. How hard could it be?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Why haven't they figured out who Jack the Ripper was? Why has any unsolved crime remained unsolved? How hard could it be?

And who says these weren't bright bulbs?

[consiglieri]

Aside from that, if the BoM is not true, then it is in the nature of a fraud, and by definition efforts were made to conceal its true origins. If it is a fraud, and we cannot tell with exactness exactly how it is produced, then it is because it was successful as a fraud, and all of the people who might have revealed the exact nature of its production have long since died, taking the secret with them. And the physical evidence is just not there, such as the plates themselves, or whatever Joseph may or may not have shown the witnesses, in a box, under a cloth, or whatever. So there's nothing physical to examine, except for the seerstones, and I'm quite sure a thorough examination would reveal them to be nothing more than minerals.

Hi, Sethbag!

If, as you say, "efforts were made to conceal its true origins," why is it that these efforts were so successful? Are you saying you believe a conspiracy was in effect, and that contrary to the very nature of conspiracies, which tend to fall apart over time, this one conspiracy was successful?

If the Book of Mormon "was successful as a fraud," and if it is because "we cannot tell with exactness exactly how it is produced," then is not that very state of things itself suggestive?

Likewise, if the "physical evidence is just not there" to demonstrate one naturalistic explanation of the Book of Mormon, is it not permissible to look to non-naturalistic explanations?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Why haven't they figured out who Jack the Ripper was? Why has any unsolved crime remained unsolved? How hard could it be?

And who says these weren't bright bulbs?

I think the mystery that shrouds Jack the Ripper is generally understood to have much to do with a cover-up at high levels of the English government. I think that even the most ardent Book of Mormon critic would not bring the governor of New York into the picture. Or the president of the United States. Or am I wrong?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Not quite me]

Hi, Sethbag!

If, as you say, "efforts were made to conceal its true origins," why is it that these efforts were so successful? Are you saying you believe a conspiracy was in effect, and that contrary to the very nature of conspiracies, which tend to fall apart over time, this one conspiracy was successful?

I don't know. It has taken 7000 years or so to figure out how they made the Shroud of Turin. Why was that hoax successful?

If the Book of Mormon "was successful as a fraud," and if it is because "we cannot tell with exactness exactly how it is produced," then is not that very state of things itself suggestive?

Yes, it tells us it was a successful fraud.

Likewise, if the "physical evidence is just not there" to demonstrate one naturalistic explanation of the Book of Mormon, is it not permissible to look to non-naturalistic explanations?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't know. There seems to be physical evidence that the original manuscript was copied rather than dictated. Why look to non-naturalistic explanations when the naturalistic one suffices?

I think the mystery that shrouds Jack the Ripper is generally understood to have much to do with a cover-up at high levels of the English government. I think that even the most ardent Book of Mormon critic would not bring the governor of New York into the picture. Or the president of the United States. Or am I wrong?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You seem to be suggesting that every unsolved crime must be the work of some mastermind, or it must be explained through supernatural means. Do you not see the problem in this?

[consiglieri]

Much like a creationist who takes disagreement over some aspects of evolution to be evidence in favor of special creation. It's not logical or intellectually honest to take this as evidence. Get over it.

BTW, I note that BoM-believers can't agree on "tight" versus "loose" translation of the BoM. What should I conclude from this? Anything?

I hear what you are saying, Duderino!

But here is where I see the distinction.

In your example, we have scientists trying to figure out how the whole world got here, and all the creatures that live on it.

That would seem to be on a higher order of complexity than accounting for just a book.

I would think that, the higher the order of complexity of a thing, the greater the likelihood that intelligent minds could differ on the manner of its production. Does that make sense to you?

And if this is true, then what does it say for the order of complexity of the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Not quite me]

I hear what you are saying, Duderino!

But here is where I see the distinction.

In your example, we have scientists trying to figure out how the whole world got here, and all the creatures that live on it.

That would seem to be on a higher order of complexity than accounting for just a book.

I would think that, the higher the order of complexity of a thing, the greater the likelihood that intelligent minds could differ on the manner of its production. Does that make sense to you?

And if this is true, then what does it say for the order of complexity of the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'll repeat what I said before: the text alone is enough to suggest a high likelihood that the Book of Mormon was a nineteenth-century production, not an ancient record. That I don't know exactly how it got from its original form to the printed version is not relevant.

[Merry]

Given the complexity of the Book of Mormon, it is not the disagreement over the manner of its production that is important, but the multiplicity of hands, both nineteenth century and before, that wrote the original texts that is important.

[consiglieri]

Given the complexity of the Book of Mormon, it is not the disagreement over the manner of its production that is important, but the multiplicity of hands, both nineteenth century and before, that wrote the original texts that is important.

I am not sure I understand the full import of your post, Merry, but would agree that the multiplicity of hands involved in its production accounts for much of the complexity.

The question before the court is: Whose multiplicitous hand were involved in the crime?

I am not sure where you come down on the production of the Book of Mormon, Merry, but I believe that a number of those who suggest naturalistic theories agree that there was a "multiplicity of hands." This alone is suggestive. Why is it necessary to propose the existence of so many hands in its production? Why not just say it came out of Joseph Smith's imagination and be done with it?

The virtue of the Joseph Smith alone (single gunman) naturalistic theory for the production of the Book of Mormon is that it accounts for all the other witness statements. Once you start proposing more and more (19th century) hands in its production, the conspiracy becomes wider and wider, while at the same time becoming, from my view, less and less likely.

The problem, though, is that the Joseph Smith alone naturalistic theory has its own problems, mainly along the lines of how this young ploughboy could have produced so complex a book.

These, I think, are the horns of the dilemma for those who propose a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Merry]

The problem, though, is that the Joseph Smith alone naturalistic theory has its own problems, mainly along the lines of how this young ploughboy could have produced so complex a book.

Yes, that has serious problems, doesn't it??

Once you start proposing more and more (19th century) hands in its production, the conspiracy becomes wider and wider, while at the same time becoming, from my view, less and less likely.

Obviously, you haven't read my article. I recommend it. I have come to the conclusion that it was not exclusively 19th century, but not as ancient as LDS claim.

[why me]

If we have the dead body of someone who was shot but no clues as to who committed the crime, is that proof that no crime was committed?

Actually, a dead body that shows a gunshot wound, does imply that a crime as been commited. However, the book of mormon does not have a gunshot wound...right?

[cksalmon]

Much like a creationist who takes disagreement over some aspects of evolution to be evidence in favor of special creation. It's not logical or intellectually honest to take this as evidence. Get over it.

BTW, I note that BoM-believers can't agree on "tight" versus "loose" translation of the BoM. What should I conclude from this? Anything?

Dang, TD. You beat me to the punch.

Consig--

How can the lack of a naturalistic consensus be positive evidence of anything in excess of the bare fact of the lack of naturalistic consensus?

To be blunt (and hopefully not offensive) I think the willingness some LDS demonstrate in taking even such irrelevant observations as evidence of BoM's divine provenance goes to show why faith in BoM is so darn strong among them.

Best to you.

CKS

[why me]

I'll repeat what I said before: the text alone is enough to suggest a high likelihood that the Book of Mormon was a nineteenth-century production, not an ancient record. That I don't know exactly how it got from its original form to the printed version is not relevant.

And neither do you know that it is a 19th century production..right? Do you have proof that it is? I don't think so...but thank your for your opinion without documented facts to back it up.

[Zakuska]

To be blunt (and hopefully not offensive) I think the willingness some LDS demonstrate in taking even such irrelevant observations as evidence of BoM's divine provenance goes to show why faith in BoM is so darn strong among them.

2 Cor. 5: 7

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

I'll take that as a complement! Thanks CK.

Hab. 2: 4

4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Apparently... those who need scientific proof of things wont be considered just.

[why me]

You need to provide proof seth for your claims....please don't prove just what the original poster's claims.

[Not quite me]

You need to provide proof seth for your claims....please don't prove just what the original poster's claims.

That's where the text comes in. I think Sethbag would agree with me that, in the absence of physical evidence, the text does quite nicely as evidence of fraud.

[why me]

Aside from that, if the BoM is not true, then it is in the nature of a fraud, and by definition efforts were made to conceal its true origins. If it is a fraud, and we cannot tell with exactness exactly how it is produced, then it is because it was successful as a fraud, and all of the people who might have revealed the exact nature of its production have long since died, taking the secret with them. And the physical evidence is just not there, such as the plates themselves, or whatever Joseph may or may not have shown the witnesses, in a box, under a cloth, or whatever. So there's nothing physical to examine, except for the seerstones, and I'm quite sure a thorough examination would reveal them to be nothing more than minerals.

For example, in this post, you are using the diplomatic 'if' but in the text, you assume that it was a fraud...do you get my drift?

That's where the text comes in. I think Sethbag would agree with me that, in the absence of physical evidence, the text does quite nicely as evidence of fraud.

And how so, may I ask? Of course you fulfill biblical prophecy by your statement. Remember, the sign prophecy? If only we had the plates(the sign), the book would be true....

[Not quite me]

For example, in this post, you are using the diplomatic 'if' but in the text, you assume that it was a fraud...do you get my drift?

And how so, may I ask? Of course you fulfill biblical prophecy by your statement. Remember, the sign prophecy? If only we had the plates(the sign), the book would be true....

How is saying that the text is problematic (at the least) asking for a sign?

Now we're getting off into the bizarre, frankly.

I don't think I need to recite the anachronisms and other textual problems, which you are well aware of, as they've been discussed ad nauseam here. That I happen to conclude that they add up to demonstrable falseness, and you don't, says nothing, really.

[why me]

That's where the text comes in. I think Sethbag would agree with me that, in the absence of physical evidence, the text does quite nicely as evidence of fraud.

In this quotation you seem to be seeking after signs...searching for physical evidence, is searching for a sign...in my opinion.