More Proof Of The Book Of Mormon?

[Not quite me]

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

Heavens, no. I said simply that given the absence of physical evidence, the text does quite nicely as evidence. Throwing in piles of physical evidence wouldn't remove the textual problems.

[Sentinus]

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.

Joesph claimed to have translated the plates using the Urim and Thummim. This is described as a tool having the appearance of a Breastplate with Spectacles. Why then were "peep" stones or "seer" stones used? If God provided an instrument for the use of translating, why is it ok to use a stone in a hat? If stones were ok then don't you think God would have told Moroni to leave a couple stones in box with the plates?

My other problem is this. The church shows its Primary kids, and all other classes the same gospel pictures. We all have seen the ones of Joseph translating, while sitting in front of gold plates. I have never seen one of him using stones, or burying his face in a hat. I have addressed this overall problem I have with the LDS church in other posts. In all my days as a youth in my ward and for that matter as a young adult, I was taught and informed that these were the facts, on how the book was brought forth by the gift and power of God, in these the latter days.

1. Joseph actually had the plates in front of him as the picture shows.

2. He used the Urim and Thummim.

3. By the gift and power of God Joseph used the Urim and Thummim...ONLY, to translate.

4. Like the Liahonna Josephs gift was premised on his righteousness. I was told by many that also like the Liahonna the Urim and Thummin would not work unless Joseph had the correct Faith and was righteous.

Regardless of how accurate the above facts are, or are not, this is how the gospel was taught to me, and how it is being taught by Elders to most new investigators. They even use the same picture. It is my belief that like others on this site, the basic membership should be taught the truth.... ALL OF IT!. It is not fair for people and families to change their whole life, and committ to something that is not what they thought they were getting. I Agree that All of Christianity is guilty in some way or another in this "sanitizing" of their own faith. I left mainstream christainity because of these inconsistencies, I was told that other churches were "apostate" because of these withholdings of the "truth". When in reality the Lds faith in my opinion is far more guilty of witholding doctrine from its membership. Or at least if withholding is too aggressive or negative "leaving out". I understand that each member has their own personal responsibilty, but really MOST including some of my closest friends and family members will not even look here on this blog, or @ Farms/Fair. They would rather know nothing than to confirm that some of my concerns are valid. They will continue to believe that Joseph married his Polygamous wives only after death. There was no gun @Carthage, There were no stones used in translating, and definatly there was no hat involved either, The temple ordinances are restored and very similar to those practiced in Soloman's temple, these ordinaces have not changed since revealed. If they are happy I can accept that. I for one need better answers.

I have been told that the church has no responsibilty to tell the whole story, that it is ok to tell whatever story they want as it is their church and their story. (Pahoran had this opinion in another thread). There are so many members here on this site that are very knowledgeable, I ask you. Do you tell people that Jospeh translated from plates using the Urim and Thummim or do you say that he translated from plates using the Urim and Thummim when it was convenient, and if it was not, stones in a hat would do? If you do not, are you not misleading those you teach? As it is clear from reading here that you know better. Have you ever done anything like this? How did/do you justify this? I am not judging just haven't received an answer that makes logical sense to me.. Sincerely Sentinus.

[consiglieri]

Dear Sentinus,

I share some of your feelings regarding the depiction of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon.

The irony, I think, is that while the LDS Church has eschewed the correct depiction of the translation process, it is the correct depiction of the translation process that makes it even more difficult to support by a 19th century naturalistic explanation.

In other words, when you have the witnesses to the translation process agree that Joseph Smith stuck his face in a hat and dictated the entire Book of Mormon, it gets harder to plausibly allege that somebody other than Joseph Smith was behind the text.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncle Dale]

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

Would you also extend that conclusion to the production of the Koran?

I mean, just because different investigators and different writers have come up with different

explanations for the origin of its text, does that "favor" the divine origin of the Koran?

I might also go into a freshman college class, where a learned professor was giving lectures

on past theories for the origin of the Koran, and from the people in that class receive different

views on where the text of the book originated. Can I say that all those giving their opinions

are of equal value? Does the opinion of a professor who has carefully studied the subject for

many years carry no more weight than that of students who are learning about the Koran and

its early history for the first time?

I have frequently asked Totally Believing Mormons exactly what evidence they would have to see,

in order to admit the possibility that the book had a 19th century origin. Their uniform answer

(expressed in differing ways, but amounting to the same thing) is no such evidence is acceptable.

If you have a God-given testimony of the Book of Mormon, or of the Koran, or of some other

religious book, it remains "true" to you, no matter if the stack of opposing evidence is a mile high.

Thus, I have continually encountered Mormons who say, "show me your contra evidence," but, as

they compare each piece of that contra evidence to their LDS testimony, they throw it out as

useless. And so, when they get to the bottom of the stack, they say there was no evidence at all.

The non-LDS, however, can mentally assign each piece of evidence a certain degree of probability,

and then look at the stack of accumulated evidence and seek out patterns of correspondence and

patterns that might predict where and how to search out new, but relevant evidence.

The Mormons, having discarded every piece so presented to them, because of their testimonies,

are unable to see any such patterns of correspondence in the evidence, and are thus left with no

need nor desire to use that material as a guide in seeking additional contra evidence.

Uncle "forest? what forest? -- there's no forest here! -- just a bunch of freshly cut stumps!" Dale

[Zakuska]

Personally, I do beleive the Koran was mostly inspired by God. Theres even a lot of archelogical evidence to back it up as well. George Potter has used it in finding some of the locations hes found in his Arabian River explorations. Perhaps the BOM is another witness of the Koran too. Of course the whole depiction of Isaac as the bad guy is quite intresting.

[consiglieri]

Personally, I do beleive the Koran was mostly inspired by God. Theres even a lot of archelogical evidence to back it up as well. George Potter has used it in finding some of the locations hes found in his Arabian River explorations. Perhaps the BOM is another witness of the Koran too. Of course the whole depiction of Isaac as the bad guy is quite intresting.

As is the Bible's depiction of Paul as the good guy.

[Zakuska]

Doesn't all this Bad guy vs Good guy (us vs them) menatilty just drive you nut!.

[Uncle Dale]

Personally, I do beleive the Koran was mostly inspired by God. Theres even a lot of archelogical evidence to back it up as well. George Potter has used it in finding some of the locations hes found in his Arabian River explorations. Of course the whole depiction of Isaac as the bad guy is quite intresting.

If that is your belief, then you must reject those explanations which credit the compilation of the

book to Mohammed himself, with the assistance of a Christian monk, or his uncle, or whatever

other evidence past writers have presented.

I would also think that you must also accept the doctrines of that book, including its rejection of

Jesus Christ as being anything more than a minor prophet.

I can also say that I believe that certain parts of the BoM are "inspired." Does that mean I have to

also believe in the Nephite breastplate, the giant stone spectacles, and the sword of Laban?

I would say, "No, it does not" ---- just because I see certain passages in the BoM as being "inspired,"

I do not have to accept the JS account as being perfectly true --- and the same can be said for

the Koran and Mohammed.

UD

.

[Zakuska]

Exactly correct.

"Truth is reason, Truth eternal"

How can you find the truth without studying both side of any debate?

[cinepro]

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.

--Consiglieri

Given multiple theories about anything, the one that invokes supernatural elements will always be the most coherent and complete, since "God did it" will fill any gap in the theory.

The problem arises in the details. You have only offered a general overview of the "unified theory" for believers. But is there unified agreement over whether the Urim and Thummim or Seer Stone was used for the translation of the current text? Is there unified agreement over whether the translation was "loose" or "tight"? Is there unified agreement over where in the world the book even takes place? No, once you get past "God did it", there are a variety of contradictory theories among even the believers, each invoking their own version of supernatural circumstances to support their own flavor of belief.

I agree there isn't a unified theory among critics or doubters, but the wonderful fact of the matter is that there doesn't have to be. As I've said in the past, it should be noted that people aren't required to explain the origin of the Book of Mormon.

There is no law saying that you will be put to death if you don't subscribe to a theory of how the Book of Mormon was written.

The universe will not end if you can't prove how Joseph did it.

Some may feel that eternal salvation rests on your approach to the subject, and therefore you must chose a "side", but they are mistaken. That belief is only held because they feel like they can be the beneficiaries of a black or white thought process on the subject. But that doesn't truly make it a black or white process, not matter how hard they insist. It only means you don't know something, and ignorance is the start of the process of gaining knowledge, not the end. The fact that I don't know how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear doesn't mean that I must adopt someone's supernatural explanation. Or another magician's explanation. It only means I don't know how he did it.

The fact that someone doesn't know how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon doesn't mean they must accept the supernatural explanation, or Vogel's naturalistic one, or the Spaulding theory, or come up with their own. It only means they (I) don't know. It isn't a forced multiple choice test.

As with billions of other situations we encounter in this life, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. There are countless situations in life where we don't have enough data to support any theory regarding something. This does not mean that we are compelled chose between the poor theories. The obvious point of course is to withhold judgment until further data presents itself.

If you do venture into allegiance with poor theory that stretches beyond the data, you will probably find yourself defending your theory in the best way you know how: by pointing out the holes in the other peoples' theories, and insisting that since someone must chose, they should ignore the holes in your theory, and choose it anyway. If they do so, they can then join you in backslapping support for your mutual wisdom in choosing the right theory (after all, look at all the holes in the other theories!).

But to someone who sees the holes in all the theories for what they are, are has decided to withhold judgment, the backslapping and hole-pointing on both sides looks silly and unconvincing (well, it's convincing to the point of not pledging allegiance to either theory, but not in support of the other).

So please stop insisting that someone has to come up with a better theory than yours if they choose not to accept yours. It is quite possible that there will never be an acceptable theory for some people, because the data in support of any theory might be insufficient. And, absent the invention of a time machine or the otherwise discovery of new data, that may be the case for quite some time.

[why me]

In other words, when you have the witnesses to the translation process agree that Joseph Smith stuck his face in a hat and dictated the entire Book of Mormon, it gets harder to plausibly allege that somebody other than Joseph Smith was behind the text.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And actually, JS sticking his head in his hat is actually more faith promoting. For after all, here we have sidney writing the book of mormon...taking weeks and weeks if not years to do so. He seeks out JS for some reason, goes through the elaborate ruse, gets the imagination churning with witnesses, visions, gold plates, restoration of the priesthood, only to have JS use a hat . Go figure.

Actually, if I were sidney I would suggest the official version of the lds church now has. But never, and I mean never, would I risk my dream on a hat story. Yep, the book must be true...I like the hat. It is very faith promoting. And I am serious about this.

[Paul Ray]

I think the bottom line statement for those who don't believe the Book of Mormon is true, or what the book itself claims to be, is pretty much something like this:

I really don't know what the Book of Mormon truly is.

Some think Joseph Smith wrote it.

Some think Joseph had help.

Some think Joseph copied the text from another book.

And you know what? In a sense, what they're saying is true.

The Book of Mormon was copied into English from another set of documents by Joseph Smith and some people who helped him.

But they still do not know what the Book of Mormon truly is.

For them that is still a mystery.

[why me]

Uncle Dale!

Why would sidney incorporate the hat story for the book of mormon translation. I am a little confused. Can you help me?

[Zakuska]

Uncle Dale!

Why would sidney incorporate the hat story for the book of mormon translation. I am a little confused. Can you help me?

Rocky = Sidney

Bullwinkle = Joseph Smith

[Analytics]

...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....

Your reasoning isnâ??t sound. One could just as easily say, â??People who donâ??t believe that Sidney Rigdon wrote it canâ??t even persuade each other that a single theory is correct. Some believe that Joseph Smith wrote it, others think that Spalding wrote it, and some believe itâ??s actually an accurate translation of an authentic ancient record! That the disbelievers in the Rigdon theory canâ??t get their story straight is evidence that Rigdon wrote it!â?

[cksalmon]

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.

Hey Zak--

I certainly don't mind complimenting you.

But I think you may have misunderstood my point a little bit. I'm all for faith over sight, I was just commenting that the lack of a scholarly, naturalistic consensus on BoM origins is not evidence for its divine provenance--whatever other evidence (or lack thereof) may exist.

Best to you.

CKS

[cdowis]

>Would you also extend that conclusion to the production of the Koran?

There are at least eleven eyewitnesses to the divine nature of the production of the BOM text.

Now tell us about the eyewitnesses to the Koran.

[Zakuska]

I just think that anyone who is propping up the Historicity/archeology of the Bible or lack there of up against the Historicity/archeology of the BOM or lack thereof is walking on very thin egg shells.

Here we have a non-existant river in Arabia, Just as JS explained it in every detail. Complete with Ancient camp site (idependantly dated to Lehi's time) next to the river complete with built in BBQ and stone treasure box. What are the odds? That a kid in first Grade arithmetic, pulled that off?

[structurecop]

Now tell us about the eyewitnesses to the Koran.

If one is willing to accept a more liberal interpretation of the method of compilation for the text, there are several of Muhammad's companions who were eyewitnesses just as much if not more than the authors of the Gospels.

[Paul Ray]

You know... the more I think about it, the more I can see... the fact that all people do not agree on an issue doesn't prove that the issue is true. It simply shows there's no agreement among the people who don't agree, even though some people do agree on that issue.

And the fact that (LDS) agree on all the issues we agree on doesn't prove that what we agree on is true.

And none of that adds, or takes away from the issue. There is a truth regarding that issue, regardless.

We can agree on a truth, or we can agree on a lie, and either way we won't affect what the truth is.

[Daniel Peterson]

I tend to agree with Dale's proposed method of production: Oliver copying from a manuscript. That's what the evidence suggests, I believe.

That's not what the evidence suggests. Instead, the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

I treat this subject in my essay "Editor's Introductionâ??Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account," in FARMS Review 17/2 (2005), which is accessible via

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...17&number=2

[Daniel Peterson]

If one is willing to accept a more liberal interpretation of the method of compilation for the text, there are several of Muhammad's companions who were eyewitnesses just as much if not more than the authors of the Gospels.

There are no eyewitnesses to the revelation of the Qurâ??an who are even remotely comparable to the eyewitnesses to the Book of Mormon. Moreover, very many of Joseph Smith's revelation are shared with others (including, but not limited to, the vision of the three degrees of glory that is shared with Sidney Rigdon as well as the visions in the Kirtland Temple and the restoration of the two priesthoods that are shared with Oliver Cowdery). Nothing of the kind exists in the case of Muhammad.

[Uncle Dale]

I tend to agree with Dale's proposed method of production: Oliver copying from a manuscript. That's what the evidence suggests, I believe.

That's not what the evidence suggests. Instead, the evidence points in precisely the

opposite direction.

I treat this subject in my essay "Editor's Introductionâ??Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for

Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account," in FARMS Review

17/2 (2005), which is accessible via

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...17&number=2

Yes, I have read your remarks on that topic.

I do not see anything there that would convince me that the entire BoM "Dictated MS" was the product

of an oral dictation -- we have only the Printer's MS in its entirety, and we know that second generation

document was produced by the transcription of an earlier text (the Dictated MS).

How we go backwards one step in time and can come to the firm conclusion that the Dicatated MS was

itself prepared in any way other than the Printer's MS was created, is beyond my comprehension.

On the other hand, I do not think that all of the eye-witnesses were telling fibs when they recalled seeing

the BoM manuscripts in the process of being written down. I certainly have no trouble with the reports

saying that parts of the Dictated MS were just that -- dictated.

But the eye-witnesses are not perfectly consistent in their testimony -- did JS don an ancient Nephite

breastplate, attach stone spectacles to it, and gaze through those diamond lenses, voicing the English

translation for each Nephite character, as it magically appeared beneath his gaze? Probably not.

Did JS and/or Oliver have an open KJV Bible when the "translation" and transcription was in process?

Probably so.

If you wish, I can go through all of your published points and write up a response for FARMS Review.

I would not go to the trouble, however, if you say here and now that my chances of having such a

response published there are slender.

UDale

[Tarski]

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

This is the nature of fraud (or slight of hand if you like). Think about a magician or fake spiritu8alist like Uri Geller.

The believers think the magician is using real magic. They all agree that things are as the magician has arranged for them to appear. Those who know better often cannot agree on what really happened because it was, after all, an act of misdirection and deception. We are not privy to what went on behind the scenes so to speak.

The problem is that there could be many ways that the trick was accomplished so there is no surprise that we cannot say which one.

Go see the movie "The Illusionist" to see how people reacted to magicians in the 19 century. There was a movement of "spiritualism" and people wanted to believe in magical powers, crystal balls, spirits and angels. Fraud abounded and money was made. The existence of the Book of Mormon only seems amazing becuase we can't see what really happened. If we could, amazement would give way to the same sense of "of course!" that one feels when the trick behind the magic is revealed.

For example, where is the proof that JS produced the BoM in the time period he said? How do we know that the book as not already mostly written and that the whole translation process wasn't a show only performed when someone was around?

[Not quite me]

That's not what the evidence suggests. Instead, the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

I treat this subject in my essay "Editor's Introductionâ??Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account," in FARMS Review 17/2 (2005), which is accessible via

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...17&number=2

Yeah, I've seen that. I've also seen compelling evidence to the contrary.