More Proof Of The Book Of Mormon?

[Daniel Peterson]

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

I haven't. (I have, however, seen one claim to refute Royal Skousen that I found singularly uncompelling.) Can you give me a reference?

[Paul Ray]

... where is the proof that JS produced the BoM in the time period he said?

What we know is that it was written before it was published and sold. At that point Joseph was about 25 years old, and he probably learned to write at about, maybe, say 5. That gave him about 20 years to write it... max.

How do we know that the book was not already mostly written...

... hey, guess what, it was.

...and that the whole translation process wasn't a show only performed when someone was around?

... hey, guess what, it was. Someone had to be around to write it, and it was written from other records.

You seem to be another person who doesn't know where the book came from.

Try thinking he pulled it out of his hat.

[Not quite me]

I haven't. (I have, however, seen one claim to refute Royal Skousen that I found singularly uncompelling.) Can you give me a reference?

I'll have to look it up when I have a minute.

Here it is: http://www.mormonstudies.com/scribe.htm

It shouldn't surprise anyone that you and I differ as to the compelling nature of the 'refutation.' No, it's not proof of anything, but it's interesting stuff.

[Tchild2]

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.

So, if critics can't produce a "theory" that satisfies believers - who already have reached a predetermined conclusion based on the bedrock foundations... of faith no less, then that somehow validates the BoM's claims of historicity?

We know how the book was created. It was made the way every book that fills our library was created; it was penned by human hand. The genius of the book as presented by believers is a subjective criteria and the book may not be so ingenious, clever or anything except a story written in biblical sounding verse. What special theory is needed to explain Joseph Smith dictating to Oliver Cowdery?

I would like to see a believer explain why God hides some evidence (the golden plates) but doesn't care if other potential evidence is found in archealogy, linguistics, DNA, or any of the scientific disciplines believers utilize in their attempt to validate the book's literal claims?

God is either malicious, or someone has pulled a fast one.

[Paul Ray]

I would like to see a believer explain why God hides some evidence (the golden plates) but doesn't care if other potential evidence is found in archealogy, linguistics, DNA, or any of the scientific disciplines believers utilize in their attempt to validate the book's literal claims?

Have you noticed that we don't have the original records from the Holy Bible either?

I have noticed we also don't have the ark of the covenant with the original ten commandments written on stone.

It seems, to me, that some evidence is too holy to keep on Earth, but I think we will see it all someday.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'll have to look it up when I have a minute.

Here it is:

Yes, that's the one I expected.

I've tried to lure Professor Skousen into responding to it, but he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that it's too stupid and incompetent to bother with. Perhaps I'll use you as another prod to provoke a reply from him.

So, if critics can't produce a "theory" that satisfies believers - who already have reached a predetermined conclusion based on the bedrock foundations... of faith no less, then that somehow validates the BoM's claims of historicity?

Personally, I'd be delighted simply to see a unified, comprehensive countertheory that accounted for all the data, rather than an assemblage of often mutually contradictory ad hoc improvisations.

My editor's introduction to FARMS Review 16/2 (2004), entitled "'In the Hope That Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon," suggests something of the difficulty that critics have had over most of the past two centuries coming up with such a theory. It is accessible at

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...16&number=2

I would like to see a believer explain why God hides some evidence (the golden plates) but doesn't care if other potential evidence is found in archealogy, linguistics, DNA, or any of the scientific disciplines believers utilize in their attempt to validate the book's literal claims?

God is either malicious, or someone has pulled a fast one.

I see no reason to invoke a malicious trickster deity or an earthly conman to account for the quite unsurprising fact that archaeological data disappears, that genetic traces of small groups fail to survive, and that it's difficult to get a clear and exhaustive view of ancient history.

[Zakuska]

TChild2,

Your exactly right...

1 Thes 2

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

The name of the Game is whos lieing?

The Apostasy and the Antichrist were nipping at their heels. But something had to be taken out of the way for it to happen.

[Not quite me]

Yes, that's the one I expected.

I've tried to lure Professor Skousen into responding to it, but he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that it's too stupid and incompetent to bother with. Perhaps I'll use you as another prod to provoke a reply from him.

Personally, I'd be delighted simply to see a unified, comprehensive countertheory that accounted for all the data, rather than an assemblage of often mutually contradictory ad hoc improvisations.

So I'm stupid. Sue me. What is your response to it, other than to tell me that Brother Skousen thinks it's stupid?

My editor's introduction to FARMS Review 16/2 (2004), entitled "'In the Hope That Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon," suggests something of the difficulty that critics have had over most of the past two centuries coming up with such a theory. It is accessible at

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...16&number=2

I see no reason to invoke a malicious trickster deity or an earthly conman to account for the quite unsurprising fact that archaeological data disappears, that genetic traces of small groups fail to survive, and that it's difficult to get a clear and exhaustive view of ancient history.

That wasn't me who made that statement. Please reread my remarks.

[Daniel Peterson]

So I'm stupid.

No, Royal Skousen thinks that the argument of that article is stupid.

That's rather a different matter.

What is your response to it, other than to tell me that Brother Skousen thinks it's stupid?

I agree with Professor Skousen.

That wasn't me who made that statement. Please reread my remarks.

I realize that. My apologies for the error in formatting my response. I've now corrected it, and the various erroneous opinions have been properly assigned to their respective authors.

[Not quite me]

No, Royal Skousen thinks that the argument of that article is stupid.

That's rather a different matter.

I agree with Professor Skousen.

That's not very helpful.

I realize that. My apologies for the error in formatting my response. I've now corrected it, and the various erroneous opinions have been properly assigned to their respective authors.

Thanks for correcting it.

[Ray Agostini]

No one can explain the origin of Oahspe either: http://www.angelfire.com/in2/oahspe3/addendum.html

One morning in 1870, Newbrough went to the home of his friend Davis, who lived on Sixth Avenue, near the old Hay Market, and said: "I've come for your advice; I had quite an experience about 4 a.m. this morning. I was sleeping nicely when I felt a hand on my shoulder. A voice said: 'Wake up, doctor. Everything is all right. I only want to ask you a question and we will go.'

"I sat up and answered: 'Yes, if

I can.' The voice said: 'Would you like to perform a mission for Jehovih?'

"I rubbed my eyes and saw that the room was lit up with pillars of a soft light so pleasing to the eyes that it was indescribable. I saw great numbers of beautiful spirits or angels. They did not have wings. I spoke: 'What is the mission, so that I may know whether to say yes or no?' The answer came back, 'Jehovih would like you to live spiritually for ten years, and at the end of that time we will come back and tell you what it is we desire, for your body and mind are not sufficiently perceptible now. You must be pure.'

"What do you mean by living spiritually?"

"'We want you never to kill anything, or eat anything that breathes: meat, fish, birds, reptiles, etcetera. Live on nuts, fruit, vegetables. You don't need so much food, as you are too heavy now; you need to lose weight. One other thing is very important: you must help people; give your services to people who need dental help, without pay, if they cannot pay. Do charity work; by individual charity you change the person's thoughts. They will think of you as a good man, and will send out good thoughts to you. You will need all the good will you can get.'

----------------------------

At 4 a.m. one morning late in 1880, John Ballou Newbrough was awakened from his slumber to find the same mysterious and beautiful lights filling his room. He sat up and demanded: "Am I worthy?" The same voice spoke: "You have done well. You have passed our test. We know that you feel more healthy. Now we want you to buy a typewriter and place it on this table. We will thereafter awaken you one hour before dawn each morning, and you will sit in this chair before the typewriter and put your hands on the keys. You will buy plenty of paper and keep it always ready to use.

"I don't know how to use a typewriter."

"We will control your hands and arms, and perform the task for you, so don't worry. You must not look at what is written until it is finished."

----------------------------------

Every morning, before sunrise, until December 15, 1881, John Ballou Newbrough wrote at his Sholes typewriter, at a speed physically almost impossible considering the crudity of this first typewriter, and finally the manuscript was complete.

-----------------------------------

In the light of present day science, the Book of Cosmology alone is evidence of a superior fore-knowledge that stands as a sturdy sentinel over the doctrinal portions. And in the light of present day anthropology and archaeology, its historical portions stand as remarkable evidence of that same superior fore-knowledge. OAHSPE is truly a gateway to understanding.

Most will say that Newbrough wrote it, naturally, but in this case, too, one has to account for Newbrough's "story". Oahspe is classed in the "Internet Sacred Texts", along with the Book of Mormon. It's about twice the length of the Book of Mormon.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/oah/

Obviously its manner of production is different to the Book of Mormon, but there are interesting similarities such as angels, revelation, and an author who did not know his subject. If you want to read Oahspe you can get it online: http://www.sacred-texts.com/oah/oah/index.htm

Newbrough was possibly the first to use the word 'Star-ship'. There are tales of ancient prophets (such as Zoroaster, Jesus, Confucius, Moses, etc.) which have practically no basis in any known mythology or history. The illustrations are remarkable in that they presage surrealism by several decades; maps and views of an incomprehensible internal landscape.

[Uncle Dale]

Yes, that's the one I expected.

I've tried to lure Professor Skousen into responding to it, but he thinks (rightly or wrongly) that

it's too stupid and incompetent to bother with.

That's an unusal response, it seems to me. Ted Chandler may not be totally convincing in each and

every one of his anti-Mormon arguments, but this is the first time I have heard him called "stupid"

or "incompetent."

Ted's primary idea is this: "These errors [in the BoM] indicate clearly that the scribes were misreading

rather than mishearing the text."

Perhaps the web-page format and minimalist approach taken by Ted makes his essay look stupid to

some LDS readers. Or perhaps his methodology is in some way problematic?

If you wish me to write up a reply to your own editor's arguments, I could easily ask Ted for his less

"stupid" input -- so that his idea is conveyed to your readers in more "competent" language.

Your thoughts?

UDale

[Not quite me]

That's an unusal response, it seems to me. Ted Chandler may not be totally convincing in each and

every one of his anti-Mormon arguments, but this is the first time I have heard him called "stupid"

or "incompetent."

Ted's primary idea is this: "These errors [in the BoM] indicate clearly that the scribes were misreading

rather than mishearing the text."

Perhaps the web-page format and minimalist approach taken by Ted makes his essay look stupid to

some LDS readers. Or perhaps his methodology is in some way problematic?

If you wish me to write up a reply to your own editor's arguments, I could easily ask Ted for his less

"stupid" input -- so that his idea is conveyed to your readers in more "competent" language.

Your thoughts?

UDale

Well, I was hoping for a substantive response. I don't think "it's stupid" qualifies. So I'm a little disappointed.

[charity]

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.

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?

tarski, if the book was written ahead of time and the translation process a "show" you still have to account for the monumental task of memorizing 5,000 words of text overnight, to reproduce the next day in dictation to a scribe. And the method described by those scribes as being without having to go back and ask where they left off, when returning to the work after a break.

tarski, you are a bright fellow. Demonstrate to us that you can memorize a text your are not presently familiar with, dictate it 5,000 words at time, sitting with your face in a hat, staring at a stone. I will overlook the fact that you already have a head start on Joseph with your education. Do you think you can do that?

And about fraud. The biggest argument there is against the fraud proposition is that there had to be so many people involved in the fraud. That there was nothing ever personally gained by any of them. That many of the people who would have been involved became disaffected in the leader of the gang, and yet never blew the whistle. Trying to maintain fraud is even more preposterous than saying an angel brought gold plates.

[Uncle Dale]

Well, I was hoping for a substantive response. I don't think "it's stupid" qualifies.

So I'm a little disappointed.

It appears that the good Doc was merely relaying the off-the-cuff remarks of his associate,

and was agreeing with that fellow, without having taken the time to exhaustively study the

matter himself.

But, as I've said, perhaps all of this can be addressed in a more careful manner, if anybody

has an interest in going at it with a more methodical approach than in casual MB chatter.

UD

.

[structurecop]

There are no eyewitnesses to the revelation of the Qurâ??an who are even remotely comparable to the eyewitnesses to the Book of Mormon. Nothing of the kind exists in the case of Muhammad.

How do you think the Quran compares to the Gospels in regard to historical accuracy?

[Not quite me]

tarski, if the book was written ahead of time and the translation process a "show" you still have to account for the monumental task of memorizing 5,000 words of text overnight, to reproduce the next day in dictation to a scribe. And the method described by those scribes as being without having to go back and ask where they left off, when returning to the work after a break.

Uh, no you don't. How do we know the entire thing was dictated orally? We don't.

tarski, you are a bright fellow. Demonstrate to us that you can memorize a text your are not presently familiar with, dictate it 5,000 words at time, sitting with your face in a hat, staring at a stone. I will overlook the fact that you already have a head start on Joseph with your education. Do you think you can do that?

No one necessarily had to do that, charity.

And about fraud. The biggest argument there is against the fraud proposition is that there had to be so many people involved in the fraud. That there was nothing ever personally gained by any of them. That many of the people who would have been involved became disaffected in the leader of the gang, and yet never blew the whistle. Trying to maintain fraud is even more preposterous than saying an angel brought gold plates.

Why did there have to be so many people involved in the fraud? By my count, only Joseph and his scribes were necessarily in on it. That's what, 4 or 5 people?

[cdowis]

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.

Can you give us a specific link to the specific eyewitnesses, and what they actually saw.

Thanks mucho.

[structurecop]

Can you give us a specific link to the specific eyewitnesses, and what they actually saw.

Thanks mucho.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/biogra...iographies.html

[Zakuska]

How does three Generations away make one an eye Witness?

The Gospels and Paul's letters where written how many generations after?

The 11 Witnesses of the BOM had angels present the plates to them.

I see a big difference here.

[maklelan]

So, if critics can't produce a "theory" that satisfies believers - who already have reached a predetermined conclusion based on the bedrock foundations... of faith no less, then that somehow validates the BoM's claims of historicity?

I think the OP diluted the actual problem with the theories. It's not that they can't all agree, it's that no acceptable theory can be postulated that remains faithful to the criteria of honest historical methodology. If we say one person wrote it from a manuscript, then we flatly reject the various first-hand accounts of the production of the text with the only justification being the complete impossibility of reconciling those accounts and the existence of the book with the assumption agreed upon by you all that no supernatural intervention took place. That's dishonest scholarship, which is why all these these crazy theories are promulgated by the "New Mormon Challenge." They're trying to make it work within the parameters of real scholarship, which is proving to be, well, impossible.

We know how the book was created. It was made the way every book that fills our library was created; it was penned by human hand. The genius of the book as presented by believers is a subjective criteria and the book may not be so ingenious, clever or anything except a story written in biblical sounding verse. What special theory is needed to explain Joseph Smith dictating to Oliver Cowdery?

The theories are meant to reconcile the book with the impossibly accurate representation of the ancient Near Eastern paradigm (from Yale's Harold Bloom: "I can only attribute to his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly." Charlesworth says that there are "important parallels . . . that deserve careful examination."), the impossibility of the consistency that exists in a book produced from the hip (anachronisms have pretty much all been dismissed, and the ones that remain do so merely because of a lack of evidence either way. Other internal inconsistencies pointed out are weak), the fact that the witnesses swear up and down that there was no resource to which Smith could have appealed, and the fact that the mode of transmission is sworn to by eleven eyewitnesses who could not in any manner be coerced to change their story, despite later criticisms toward Smith. These facts cannot be reconciled easily (or at all, up to this point).

I would like to see a believer explain why God hides some evidence (the golden plates) but doesn't care if other potential evidence is found in archealogy, linguistics, DNA, or any of the scientific disciplines believers utilize in their attempt to validate the book's literal claims?

You'll notice that nothing groundbreaking has been produced by either side, and nothing ever will. I don't believe God will ever allow the evidence for the book to be so strong that faith not be the foundation of any conviction that the book is true, and I don't think he'll ever let the evidence against it retreat to the point where nobody's faith is tested. Ya happy now?

God is either malicious, or someone has pulled a fast one.

Or, more likely, you just don't understand the issue as well as you've convinced yourself you do.

[Tarski]

tarski, if the book was written ahead of time and the translation process a "show" you still have to account for the monumental task of memorizing 5,000 words of text overnight, to reproduce the next day in dictation to a scribe.

You see how easily the misdirection worked on you? The scribe may have never written a thing down or may have thrown it away and the words that JS was saying as he was looking in the hat may have been nothing like what was written in the book. No one independent observer was taking notes so as to compare later. In other words, there was only the vaguest similarity between what JS was saying out loud and what was already written in manuscript which lay elsewhere.

[Mordecai]

I tend to agree with Dale's proposed method of production: Oliver copying from a manuscript.

According to Skousen's work on the original manuscript, there were multiple scribes and the errors on the original manuscript reflect the types of errors that occur when one is taking dictation. The OT was apparently dictated. Also, the scribes who discussed their experience reported the same thing: Joseph Smith's eyes were covered by his hat. Seemed funny before, but when you think about it, Joseph Smith dictated the entire book with his EYES COVERED. Pretty good trick.

[Tarski]

You see how easily the misdirection worked on you? The scribe may have never written a thing down or may have thrown it away and the words that JS was saying as he was looking in the hat may have been nothing like what was written in the book. No one independent observer was taking notes so as to compare later. In other words, there was only the vaguest similarity between what JS was saying out loud and what was already written in manuscript which lay elsewhere.

Furthermore, there is evidence offer by apologists that suggest that there were errors that can only be made is someone is copying something rather than listening. I know what this article below is trying to show but the same evidence can be read as evidence of an entirely different senario whereby the scribe was copying something rather than really listening to what JS was saying as he looked into his hat. It was all a show.

article:

http://mormonstudies.com/scribe.htm

The evidence of copying errors are there. The question is: what happened when?

[Not quite me]

According to Skousen's work on the original manuscript, there were multiple scribes and the errors on the original manuscript reflect the types of errors that occur when one is taking dictation. The OT was apparently dictated.

And of course, there's evidence to the contrary, but then it's "stupid." I would imagine it depends on what you're looking for.