More Proof Of The Book Of Mormon?

[Not quite me]

Not Quite Me, I've been following the Shroud with great interest. I seem to have missed this discovery. Could you please fill me in about how the Shroud was made?

Yeah, paint an image of Christ in normal tones on a plate of glass. Place cloth beneath said glass and leave it out in the sun. I thought they made a very good case last year, as they replicated the shroud rather closely.

[charity]

Not Quite Me, the nefarious types seemed to have faded away when their plot was foiled. But God wasn't fooled.

[Uncle Dale]

Is there any evidence for the existence of such a plot by nefarious types?

Charity can correct me if I am wrong, but aren't all Mormons required to believe the contents

of the Standard Works as being true?

JS wrote in his Preface to the 1830 edition of the BoM that such devilish people were doing such

devilish things. I'm not sure that modern Mormons are allowed to disagree on such a

statement from President Smith, and still retain their temple recommends (or even membership).

On the other hand, if the original pages of the Book of Lehi had been on combustible paper,

rather than metal plates, there would have been an incentive for JS to have thrown each page

of some other person's handwriting (Rigdon's?) into the fireplace, just as quickly as it was

rendered into a scribe's handwriting upon new pages.

Whether the original Lehi pages went into a Harmony hearth or into the hands of a waiting angel

doesn't bother me, so much as the fact that they vanished by some means or another.

I wonder if Dr. Skousen has considered the possbility that the BoM MS was indeed altered by

"nefarious types," and that is why Bro. Chandler has tabulated so many strange letter changes?

Scribe 1(Oliver Cowdery)

Spelling changes: r=n

1. there was also writher=writhen [written] upon them a new writeing (135:35)

2. be hated amorg=among all Nations (152:7)

3. there shall be one fold & ore=one shepherd (163:37)

4. the Lord hath concecrated this lard=land unto me (165:29)

5. hath come to pass amorg=among the Jews (189:34)

6. may look forward urto=unto that life (191:36)

7. none of the prophets have written ror=nor prophesied (206:1)

8. I have given unto them this lard=land & it is a holy land (210:6)

9. he hath forgiver=forgiven us of these our many sins (249:19)

10. then let us stair=stain our swords no more (249:27)

11. be not staind with the blood of our Brethrer=Brethren (249:29)

12. if we should stair=stain our swords again (249:30)

13. in the which they were driver=driven & slain (255:31)

14. they had rather sacrifise thein=their lived=lives thon ever=even to take (266:27)

15. they have buried their weopors=weopons of war deep in the earth (266:28)

16. they began agair=again to destroy them (268:17)

17. departed out of the land & came irto=into the (L)Wilderness (270:7)

18. this is joy which nore=none re(t)ceiveth (271:16)

19. the Peopl of Nephi returred=returned again to their lands (274:30)

20. which was east of the lard=land of Zarahemla (292:29)

21. such wickedness among this People doth pair=pain my soul (297:25)

22. many of them are our r(e)=near Brethrer=Brethren (297:35)

23. as Alma was teaching & speakirg=speaking unto the People (299:19)

24. behold will rot=not this strengthen your faith (304:20)

25. that your Burders=Burdens may be light (311:6)

26. refiners do cast out it beirg=being of no worth (314:31)

27. the Lord hath said he dwelleth (rot=not) not in unholy temples (315:17)

28. he breathed out many threatnings agairst=against them (318:19)

29. stir them up also to angar agairst=against them (318:25)

30. for three nights was I raaked=racked ever=even with the pains of a damned soul (322:14)

31. they should be kept & harded=handed down (326:24)

32. carry us beyord=beyond the vale of sorrow (335:6)

33. Keep the commardments=commandments of God (335:15)

34. remember & take it upor=upon you (341:5)

35. they have gone conterrary to the rature=nature of God (350:25)

36. (redeem) redemption Could rot=not be brought about (354:33)

37. prepared from the fourdation=foundation of the world (356:28)

38. bring them into bordage=bondage that they might (364:21)

39. ther=their Chief leader & commarder=commander (366:23)

40. I wi(th)ll commard=command my men (369:7)

41. retain the words which I have spoker=spoken (370:23)

42. & wher=when Alma had done this (377:2)

43. those which were wroth agairst=against their Brethren (378:28)

44. if we sho(l)=should fall into trarsgression=transgression (383:17)

45. come down to the foot of the Mourt=Mount for he desired to (sh)=speak (391:2)

46. they were also taught rever=never to give an offence (398:9)

47. they were agair=again disappointed (403:25)

48. their chief Captairs=Captains had sworn with an oath (403:26)

49. because Moroni had kept the Commandmerts=Commandments of God (405:26)

50. a battle commerced=commenced between them (411:28)

51. it came to pass that ir=in that same year (411:34)

52. that a few particular Poirts=Points of the law should be (413:18)

53. for they had not taker=taken any cities (419:27)

54. but he kept his men rourd=round about as if makeing (419:31)

55. he kept thus prepareirg=prepareing for war (419:34)

56. until Moroni had sert=sent a large number of men (419:35)

57. the West borders of the lard=land (421:28)

58. to meet them upo(m)n the plairs=plains (422:13)

59. overpowered by the perswasiors=perswasions of Helaman (429:12)

60. at the head of his two (hu) thousard=thousand stripling(s) soldiers (430:35)

61. he wrote(n) an epistle & sert=sent it (to t) by the servant (431:13)

62. we know not such a beirg=being neither do ye (435:28)

63. their Chief Captairs=Captains temanded=demanded (439:22)

64. that wher=when he had fortified the city (439:29)

65. brought down out of the lard=land of Nephi (441:23)

66. that they should brake this covenart=covenant which they had made (441:34)

67. it came to pass that wher=when the Lamanites saw (443:24)

68. to (t)maintain those cities which they had taker=taken (443:29)

69. about to watch the mouemerts=movements of the(i) Lamanites (443:34)

70. they did rot=not turn to the right nor to the left (445:32)

71. should fall into their hards=hands (446:6)

72. they were all of them very yourg=young (447:22)

73. had I not returred=returned with my two thousard=thousand (447:34-35)

74. but I sent ar=an Epistle unto the King (449:25)

75. the City of Antiparah fell in to our hards=hands (449:31)

76. we did surnourd=surround by right=night the City Cumeni (450:6)

77. after this manren=manner they were still determined (450:14)

78. a verry serious matter to derermire=determine concerning those (451:29)

79. cassed=caused that their wourds=wounds should be dressed (453:17)

80. the Chief Captain over the bard=band (453:33)

81. resolveirg=resolveing by stratigem to destroy us (457:34)

82. least my=by any mears=means the Judgments of God (458:9)

83. to be lead away irto=into the Wilderness (461:14)

84. cities which had beer=been taken by the Lamanites (463:35)

85. that they would easily maintair=maintain that City (468:21)

86. he wrote agair=again to the governor of the land (468:29)

87. our womer=women & our Children (474:20)

88. upon the Lamarites=Lamanites irsomuch=insomuch that they did (480:6)

89. unto the corvinceing=convinceing of many People (481:27)

90. from all manrer=manner of afflictions (483:3)

91. he was condemned urto=unto Death (489:9)

92. he went unto those that sert=sent him (489:13)

93. gathered together an inrumerable=innumerable army of men (490:24)

94. the number of the Nephites which were slair=slain (493:27)

95. there was no one to fill the Judgmert=Judgment seat (494:17)

96. the Son of Helaman was appoirted=appointed to fill (495:19)

97. when Helaman sert=sent forth to take them (496:12)

98. even untill they have faller=fallen into transgression (500:22)

99. spiritual death for all markind=mankind by the fall of Adam (503:15)

100. if they are condemred=condemned (505:12)

101. thus erded=ended the Book of Helaman (512:24)

102. which had beer=been handed down (534:17)

103. it could not be a rew=new Jerusalem (546:16)

Spelling Changes: n=r

1. the tempest began to be exceding sone=sore (147:25)

2. was braught to pass which he said concenning=concerning the seed (257:13)

3. because of thein=their love towards thein=their Brethren (266:26)

4. according to the desin=desires of their enemy (268:18)

5. & when thou n=riseet=risest in the morning (333:17)

6. ensercled the Lamanites about on the East in their rean=rear (364:35)

7. their wives & their Children & thein=their all (366:29)

8. saw the men of Lehi on the east of the Riven=River Sidon (367:16)

9. number of Prisones=Prisoners which were taken exceded mon=more than the numben=number (425:30)

10. as they never had (th) hithento=hitherto bee(m)n (430:26)

11. his army had been nedused=redused by the Lamanites (442:7)

12. they rehearsed unto me the words of thein=their Mothers (447:29)

13. we did surnourd=surround by right=night the City Cumeni (450:6)

14. being cut off from their support after this manren=manner (450:14)

Spelling Changes: r=v

1. I hare=have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction(s) (154:20)

2. erery=every Nation which shall war against thee (161:35)

3. that they m(y)ay possess this land unto themselres=themselves (166:7)

4. for your iniquities have ye sole=sold yourselres=yourselves (178:18; Isa. 50)

5. for I hare=have heard & seen (206:3)

6. ye have none (sare) save it be your word only (288:30)

7. I would ask if ye hare=have read these scriptures (309:16)

8. remember the words which I hare=have spoken unto you (332:5)

9. I perceire=perceive that thy mind hath been worried (347:32)

10. their simeters which brought death al(so)most at erery=every strike=stroke (365:5)

11. the more vital parts (the)of the body or the more

[Mordecai]

Is there any evidence for the existence of such a plot by nefarious types?

Then we disagree. I'd really like to see an expert weigh in. So far, I have Dr. Peterson's "it's stupid" argument and yours.

I don't know. I can think of at least one reason to get rid of the original manuscript as it was copied. But then I'm nefarious (I like that word).

I'm going with Dr. Peterson's "It's stupid" argument. This is the ravings of an inept anti-Mormon. It is REALLY stupid.

[Zakuska]

When writting... who's n's dont turn out to be rs sometimes!

I help in the stake name extraction. Beleive me, hand writting is another whole ball of wax.

[Not quite me]

I'm going with Dr. Peterson's "It's stupid" argument. This is the ravings of an inept anti-Mormon. It is REALLY stupid.

I don't know that I'd dismiss it so flippantly. These don't seem like mistakes that would be made from dictation. Like I said, I'd prefer to have an expert weigh in on it.

[Mordecai]

I wonder if Dr. Skousen has considered the possbility that the BoM MS was indeed altered by

"nefarious types," and that is why Bro. Chandler has tabulated so many strange letter changes?

Uncle Dale

These are typical errors that naturally occur when writing ANYTHING, whether from text or through dictation. They prove zilch. Any evidence to the contrary? Since when do these errors occur more in copying than in dictation? No evidence that they occur more in either one, and it is nearly certain that a person who is rushing will make more errors in general. This is an example of a high quantity but worthless quality. Again, stupid. This guy sure tried hard to prove his point, posting all of these errors, when the errors prove nothing. It's like he was compensating for something, like with his "fatigue" and "light" so-called arguments.

[Not quite me]

These are typical errors that naturally occur when writing ANYTHING, whether from text or through dictation. They prove zilch. Any evidence to the contrary? Since when do these errors occur more in copying than in dictation? No evidence that they occur more in either one, and it is nearly certain that a person who is rushing will make more errors in general. This is an example of a high quantity but worthless quality. Again, stupid. This guy sure tried hard to prove his point, posting all of these errors, when the errors prove nothing. It's like he was compensating for something, like with his "fatigue" and "light" so-called arguments.

The problem, then, is that the dictation errors could likewise be passed off as typical errors that occur when writing. Do you see the problem?

[Mordecai]

I don't know that I'd dismiss it so flippantly. These don't seem like mistakes that would be made from dictation. Like I said, I'd prefer to have an expert weigh in on it.

Until we have an expert weigh in, the "evidence" is non-existent. In reality, an expert would have to examine Cowder's other writings to see if he consistenly made r=n. Since Cowdery was certainly tired and rushed to keep up with dictation, of course he'd have more of every error. r=n=copying texts... that's hilarious. There is NO reason to believe that proves anything one way or another. I am going to continue to be completely and utterly flippant, especially since I've seen the other side of the debate. Skousen's arguments are based on phonological reality. r=n=copying text? Based on wishful thinking.

[SolarPowered]

Yeah, paint an image of Christ in normal tones on a plate of glass. Place cloth beneath said glass and leave it out in the sun. I thought they made a very good case last year, as they replicated the shroud rather closely.

Thanks for the reply! Though, that approach has been debunked, as it doesn't produce an image in the starch layers on the surface of the fibers, and as separate images on both sides of the cloth, as is the case in the Shroud itself.

[Not quite me]

Thanks for the reply! Though, that approach has been debunked, as it doesn't produce an image in the starch layers on the surface of the fibers, and as separate images on both sides of the cloth, as is the case in the Shroud itself.

Well, it seems I'm behind in my shroudology. Can you point me to a reference wherein it was debunked?

[Mordecai]

The problem, then, is that the dictation errors could likewise be passed off as typical errors that occur when writing. Do you see the problem?

Actually, the phonological arguments could not be passed off in that fashion. When someone speaks, certain sounds turn up in particular contexts. Mishearing that would definitely produce a specific type of error. I suppose you'd have to see Skousen's work. In my mind, it's case-closed. Skousen wins. Is that really a surprise? The guy is a renowned expert. Chandler is way out of his league.

By way of example: "With them," would blend the [th] sounds, thus making them sound a lot like like him. Him replacing them while copying texts? Please.

[SolarPowered]

Well, it seems I'm behind in my shroudology. Can you point me to a reference wherein it was debunked?

I'll do that this evening.

[Not quite me]

Actually, the phonological arguments could not be passed off in that fashion. When someone speaks, certain sounds turn up in particular contexts. Mishearing that would definitely produce a specific type of error. I suppose you'd have to see Skousen's work. In my mind, it's case-closed. Skousen wins. Is that really a surprise? The guy is a renowned expert.

I know Royal Skousen. He's a good man. I heard his presentation on this about 14 years ago, if I remember right. I guess I'm never comfortable with these "us vs. them," winner vs. loser things. Skousen makes a good case for an orally dictated manuscript. Again, whether the opposite case is as weak as you think I would prefer to leave to someone who knows what he's talking about.

I've said many times that the method of production is fascinating to me, but ultimately it's the content of the book that indicates whether it's authentic or not.

I'll do that this evening.

Thanks. I find the shroud mythology fascinating and have since our Gospel Doctrine teacher once spent 2 Sundays showing videos about the shroud. Needless to say, the bishop wasn't amused, and he was released shortly thereafter.

[USU78]

When we have evidence of systematic misspellings in holographs, we need to re-examine our assumptions. For example, if "n" is always written as "r," we might just be misreading the "r" as our scribe's rendering of "n." I've always written my cursive "r" as an "n" without the final downward stroke of the pen. I also quite often put an extra hump in my "n"s and sometimes only one hump in my "m"s.

USU "Of course, I never got better than a 'C' in penmanship" 78

[Tarski]

This is certainly an interesting and lively discussion. It seems from what I have read that yet another theory is being advanced to the growing corpus of alternative naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon; that of Joseph Smith--the Magician.

The use of the word magician here is just a color way of pointing out that misdirection is a integral part of certain kinds of fraud, especially those apealing to people's spiritualist sensibilities and wishful thinking.

Both the magician and the fraudster depend on people making certain assumptions. For example, Charity's assumption that if the BoM was already written beforehand then JS must have memorized it. The fact is, there is no way we can tell if what he was dictating to his scribes is the same as what the scribes were writing or, if if it was, there is no way to check that what the scribes wrote down is what we see in the BoM.

In fact, since I am no better than most at unraveling a purposeful deception, there are likely many possiblities that I haven't thought of---there is just to must room for jiggle, too much missing info and unaccounted for hours and days lost to history.

But, there has been hundreds of spritualist/religious frauds and and fakes. When do we just learn our lesson on this type of thing once and for all? Alas, the desire for a supernatural world and magical happenings is just too strong.

http://www.amazon.com/Transcendental-Tempt...l/dp/0879756454

[consiglieri]

The use of the word magician here is just a color way of pointing out that misdirection is a integral part of certain kinds of fraud, especially those apealing to people's spiritualist sensibilities and wishful thinking.

Both the magician and the fraudster depend on people making certain assumptions. For example, Charity's assumption that if the BoM was already written beforehand then JS must have memorized it. The fact is, there is no way we can tell if what he was dictating to his scribes is the same as what the scribes were writing or, if if it was, there is no way to check that what the scribes wrote down is what we see in the BoM.

In fact, since I am no better than most at unraveling a purposeful deception, there are likely many possiblities that I haven't thought of---there is just to must room for jiggle, too much missing info and unaccounted for hours and days lost to history.

But, there has been hundreds of spritualist/religious frauds and and fakes. When do we just learn our lesson on this type of thing once and for all? Alas, the desire for a supernatural world and magical happenings is just too strong.

http://www.amazon.com/Transcendental-Tempt...l/dp/0879756454

Hi, Tarski,

I hear what you're saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because of all the other spiritual fakes that have existed and been exposed. A lot of people 2,000 years ago threw Jesus out with the bathwater because of all the other "Messiahs" that the Jews breeded "by the sackful."

On the other hand, I am reminded of a quote from Mark Twain about the cat that once jumped up on a hot stove. After that experience, the cat never jumped on a hot stove again. But then, the cat never jumped on any stove again.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sethbag]

I realize it's been all day since this was posted, and we've moved onto many pages worth of replies to which I was not party. I did, however, want to address Why Me's reply to me on page 2.

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?

Why Me, the OP was positing that a lack of consensus by the countermos on a story for how the BoM was constructed constituted some kind of evidence that it is true. I'm disagreeing with that statement, and offering an argument which I think defeats it. Of course by nature my statement is offered with "if" statements because all that is required to defeat the OP's contention is to provide a plausible counterexample. I don't have to prove that the counterexample is true, I merely have to show how the counterexample, if true, defeats the hypothesis.

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....

Some of the TBMs on this board have shown a propensity for assuming, or asserting, that us countermos must have committed adultery, because you can twist our words into "sign seeking" and invoke that scripture from the NT. Tsk tsk. I don't sit around casting aspersions of child molestation against you, do I? Do I insinuate that you must beat your dog? Do I ever claim that obviously you are a shoplifter, or a cleptomaniac? If not, then once and for all, can we hold off the stupid claims that we're adulterers because we point out that all of the physical "evidence" for the BoM is gone?

[cksalmon]

Following the detailing a few hundred examples for consideration:

I'm going with Dr. Peterson's "It's stupid" argument. This is the ravings of an inept anti-Mormon. It is REALLY stupid.

And this:

Until we have an expert weigh in, the "evidence" is non-existent.

And this:

In my mind, it's case-closed. Skousen wins. Is that really a surprise? The guy is a renowned expert. Chandler is way out of his league.

I suppose I shouldn't find this all that surprising. But I do, in a way. It's as if merely dismissing an argument out of hand, and labeling it stupid, REALLY stupid, the product of an inept anti-Mormon spouting "non-existent" evidence in a case that is, a priori, "closed"--Skousen wins!--utterly defeats the argument in the first place.

I really wouldn't suppose that's a legitimate approach to engaging a contrary view.

But, then, the contrary view is stupid. REALLY stupid. In fact, there is no contrary view. At least no evidence to back it up. It's just stupid. Let's stop thinking about it.

Stupid.

CKS

PS. Just to head off a possible rejoinder... Suggesting that until one can be shown solid reasons why it's not stupid, then it is REALLY stupid isn't a very legitimate approach either.

[Tarski]

On the other hand, I am reminded of a quote from Mark Twain about the cat that once jumped up on a hot stove. After that experience, the cat never jumped on a hot stove again. But then, the cat never jumped on any stove again.

And I suppose that the cat didn't miss much.

[Uncle Dale]

When we have evidence of systematic misspellings in holographs, we need to re-examine our

assumptions. For example, if "n" is always written as "r," we might just be misreading the "r"

as our scribe's rendering of "n." I've always written my cursive "r" as an "n" without the final

downward stroke of the pen. I also quite often put an extra hump in my "n"s and sometimes only

one hump in my "m"s.

USU "Of course, I never got better than a 'C' in penmanship" 78

As I recall, most of the Isaiah material in 1st Nephi is missing from the preserved Dictated MS pages --

correct? I would say that any preserved Isaiah pages are the first place to look for problematic

spelling changes.

The BoM scribes should have been familiar enough with Isaiah's language not to multilate most of his

words -- and if they did, not by making the same mistake over and over again.

But, evidently none of us are experts, so our opinions must be stupid ones.

Shall we take up a collection and hire an expert?

UD

.

[consiglieri]

And I suppose that the cat didn't miss much.

Didn't miss much? Why, that cat only missed jumping on the one stove that could take him to heaven, that's all! Didn't miss much, indeed!

Perhaps the words of another American poet are in order:

Some people stay far away from the door

If there's a chance of it opening up

They hear a voice in the hall outside

And hope that it just passes by

Some people live with the fear of a touch

And the anger of having been a fool

They will not listen to anyone

So nobody tells them a lie

I know you're only protecting yourself

I know you're thinking of somebody else

Someone who hurt you

But I'm not above

Making up for the love

You've been denying you could ever feel

I'm not above doing anything

To restore your faith if I can

Some people see through the eyes of the old

Before they ever get a look at the young

I'm only willing to hear you cry

Because I am an innocent man

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[USU78]

But, evidently none of us are experts, so our opinions must be stupid ones. Shall we take up a collection and hire an expert?

Anyone who would accuse my ain deir Rabbi of stupidity would have to answer to yours in bellicosity. As for hiring the expert, I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a retainer today.

USU "If only DP would go on sale again!" 78

[Uncle Dale]

USU "If only DP would go on sale again!" 78

I got mine for half price at the BYU Bookstore close-put, back when it still had a "C" in the middle.

UD

[Gervin]

Actually, the phonological arguments could not be passed off in that fashion. When someone speaks, certain sounds turn up in particular contexts. Mishearing that would definitely produce a specific type of error. I suppose you'd have to see Skousen's work. In my mind, it's case-closed. Skousen wins. Is that really a surprise? The guy is a renowned expert. Chandler is way out of his league.

By way of example: "With them," would blend the [th] sounds, thus making them sound a lot like like him. Him replacing them while copying texts? Please.

I wonder why someone would write "Lerd" for "Lord" and even capitalize "Lerd" as a proper name? I wonder why someone would write "Meses" for "Moses" and do the same? Does Skousen address these anomolies?