Joseph Dictated The Book Of Mormon On The Fly?

[John Williams]

If you're going to keep claiming that your book is the rough equivelent of the Book of Mormon perhaps we should at least know the title and publisher?

Oh, my book is not the "rough equivalent" of the Book of Mormon. I just offered it as a comparison of writing rates and internal consistency. I don't think the Book of Mormon's rate of production is startling, nor is the internal consistency all that surprising.

You'll have to wait until the book is published. It's the story of an evil, manipulative religion that sucks the soul out of its members.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You really think he couldn't have done it in six years? Really? I wrote a book in 5 weeks, writing only late at night. With six years, the Book of Mormon is quite possible.

Obviously we disagree.

To be fair your Book has not brought forth or restored an ancient religion...yet?

[John Williams]

Really, I guess you have not read any of our posts in this forum.

NHM, Paanchi and Pahron, sheum come to mind. Perhaps you can give us those references in the Bible.

Yes, Charles, all these years I've just been ignoring the clear and convincing evidence.

NHM used to be a pretty solid match, but when it showed up on contemporary maps, it became less impressive.

I'd say the jury's still out on Paanchi, Pahoran, and sheum. But then my heart is hardened, or something.

[JDave]

NHM used to be a pretty solid match, but when it showed up on contemporary maps, it became less impressive.

Contemporary maps that were .... in his Bible ?

[John Williams]

Contemporary maps that were .... in his Bible ?

Right in the back.

[cdowis]

Yes, Charles, all these years I've just been ignoring the clear and convincing evidence.

NHM used to be a pretty solid match, but when it showed up on contemporary maps, it became less impressive.

I'd say the jury's still out on Paanchi, Pahoran, and sheum. But then my heart is hardened, or something.

So you admit that there is more to the BOM than "a reading of the Bible", regarding the Middle East.

[Scottie]

Look, you apologists here seem to be arguing that because of a, b, c and d, there is NO WAY that Joseph could have written the BoM.

We are simply trying to break these down and say that this person accomplished a, therefore it is not impossible that Joseph could have done a. This other person did b, so Joseph could have done b.

You all seem to want each person to be able to do a, b, c and d.

If anyone has seen Ninja Warrior, it is a Japanese obstacle course. Each part of the course is VERY challenging, yet people with a special skill set can beat each part and even multiple parts. Lots of people can master a single section, but fail at the others. Yet, there are a very few individuals who can complete the entire course.

So, while you might say it is impossible that JS could have made the BoM, we have proven that each of the "impossible" elements have been done successfully by someone else.

I think it is very possible, even likely, that JS had a unique talent that combined all of these.

[John Williams]

So you admit that there is more to the BOM than "a reading of the Bible", regarding the Middle East.

Do I think that there's anything conclusive in the Book of Mormon that goes beyond what is in the Bible? One place name on a contemporary map is the exception, I suppose.

[ThePhy]

Look, you apologists here seem to be arguing that because of a, b, c and d, there is NO WAY that Joseph could have written the BoM.

We are simply trying to break these down and say that this person accomplished a, therefore it is not impossible that Joseph could have done a. This other person did b, so Joseph could have done b.

You all seem to want each person to be able to do a, b, c and d.

If anyone has seen Ninja Warrior, it is a Japanese obstacle course. Each part of the course is VERY challenging, yet people with a special skill set can beat each part and even multiple parts. Lots of people can master a single section, but fail at the others. Yet, there are a very few individuals who can complete the entire course.

So, while you might say it is impossible that JS could have made the BoM, we have proven that each of the "impossible" elements have been done successfully by someone else.

I think it is very possible, even likely, that JS had a unique talent that combined all of these.

You make an interesting point. I wondered for some time how, if Mormonism is not true, it established itself so solidly. I think it is because of the multitude of upstart new faiths that have tried to take off in the Western world in the last couple of centuries, those that offered little more than other churches did would not be likely to survive. If one new Church arose under the guidance of a particularly adept leader, and sported some distinctively unique attractions, that is the one that would draw a significant following. Had it been the Campbellites, or the Strangeites, or any of the other fledgling groups that had filled that gap, this forum would be the Campbellite Apologetics forum, or the Strangeite Apologetics forum. In other words, the reason Mormonism is here is because it did the best job of getting â??a, b, c, andâ? into the mix. Those Churches that only managed â??a and câ? are footnotes in history. Joseph was kinda good at the Ninja warrior stuff.

[ttribe]

You make an interesting point. I wondered for some time how, if Mormonism is not true, it established itself so solidly. I think it is because of the multitude of upstart new faiths that have tried to take off in the Western world in the last couple of centuries, those that offered little more than other churches did would not be likely to survive. If one new Church arose under the guidance of a particularly adept leader, and sported some distinctively unique attractions, that is the one that would draw a significant following. Had it been the Campbellites, or the Strangeites, or any of the other fledgling groups that had filled that gap, this forum would be the Campbellite Apologetics forum, or the Strangeite Apologetics forum. In other words, the reason Mormonism is here is because it did the best job of getting â??a, b, c, andâ? into the mix. Those Churches that only managed â??a and câ? are footnotes in history. Joseph was kinda good at the Ninja warrior stuff.

Or it really is true. But, since you are proceeding from an a priori conclusion of "there is no God", that result is by definition off the list of possibilities.

[selek]

In other words, the reason Mormonism is here is because it did the best job of getting â??a, b, c, andâ? into the mix. Those Churches that only managed â??a and câ? are footnotes in history. Joseph was kinda good at the Ninja warrior stuff.

Condescension aside, it is notable that you automagically reject any possibility that the reason for the Church's success may be because it is true.

You are willing to explore every remote possibility about why it succeeded except the simplest one of all- and that one you reject out of hand.

The only one truly blind is he who will not see.

[ThePhy]

Or it really is true. But, since you are proceeding from an a priori conclusion of "there is no God", that result is by definition off the list of possibilities.

If I were starting from a totally unbiased viewpoint, then indeed I would need to admit that Mormonismâ??s success might have been a result of divine origin. But as you say, for me I am past that point, and the God explanation is not one I accept. So itâ??s back to who can run the ninja course the best.

[ThePhy]

Condescension aside, it is notable that you automagically reject any possibility that the reason for the Church's success may be because it is true.

You are willing to explore every remote possibility about why it succeeded except the simplest one of all- and that one you reject out of hand.

The only one truly blind is he who will not see.

See my response to ttribe above.

[ttribe]

If I were starting from a totally unbiased viewpoint, then indeed I would need to admit that Mormonismâ??s success might have been a result of divine origin. But as you say, for me I am past that point, and the God explanation is not one I accept. So itâ??s back to who can run the ninja course the best.

Which begs the question - why spend so much time researching the phenomenon that is Mormonism then? Unless you intend it to be your dissertation or some such thing.

[selek]

If I were starting from a totally unbiased viewpoint, then indeed I would need to admit that Mormonismâ??s success might have been a result of divine origin. But as you say, for me I am past that point, and the God explanation is not one I accept. So itâ??s back to who can run the ninja course the best.

Yet if you are wrong....

What is the term for someone who is so set in their ways that they cannot accept new data?

What is the term for someone who will not accept ideas that contradict his own, yet comes to argue for the sake of argument?

What is the term for someone who isn't interested in learning, but engages in the argument for the sake of dissension?

I think Elder Maxwell had you pegged- which is why the response was so terribly shrill.

[ThePhy]

Which begs the question - why spend so much time researching the phenomenon that is Mormonism then? Unless you intend it to be your dissertation or some such thing.

Isnâ??t this question better suited to a â??Why are you hereâ? type of thread?

[ttribe]

Isnâ??t this question better suited to a â??Why are you hereâ? type of thread?

I don't know. I thought it was more of a rhetorical question than anything...at least based on your posting history.

[ThePhy]

Yet if you are wrong....

What is the term for someone who is so set in their ways that they cannot accept new data?

What is the term for someone who will not accept ideas that contradict his own, yet comes to argue for the sake of argument?

What is the term for someone who isn't interested in learning, but engages in the argument for the sake of dissension?

I think Elder Maxwell had you pegged- which is why the response was so terribly shrill.

Amazing how perfectly you have misrepresented me. I am a scientist. That means I hold none of my conclusions or beliefs as sacrosanct. Anything I believe is subject to revision, or even complete abandonment if shown to be wrong.

But I can point you to several very pointed declarations made to me in these forums by Mormon defenders where they declare nothing can or will overturn their knowledge of the truthfulness of Mormonism. And you accuse me of being intransigent in my views?

On the Maxwell characterization, I think it only fair to point out that, according to the Bible, Maxwellâ??s God is â??arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bullyâ? (credit to Dawkins).

[ThePhy]

I don't know. I thought it was more of a rhetorical question than anything...at least based on your posting history.

I didn't realize people were interested enough to track my posting history. Thanks (I guess?)

[Alf O'Mega]

Back to Consiglieri's specific example:

3 Nephi 16 ends with Jesus quoting three verses from Isaiah, and 3 Nephi 20:10 picks up exactly where Jesus left off at the end of 3 Nephi 16.

Here is why I find this of interest.

At the end of 3 Nephi 16, Jesus says the following:

3 Nephi 16:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, thus hath the Father commanded meâ??that I should give unto this people this land for their inheritance.

17 And then the words of the prophet Isaiah shall be fulfilled, which say:

18 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing, for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion.

19 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.

20 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God.

At the beginning of chapter 17, Jesus says the people can't understand all his words right now, so he is going to give them the night to think about it, because he has to go to his Father, and then to the ten tribes of Israel.

BUT the people long for him to stay, so chapters 17-18 are filled with the things that Jesus did and taught the Nephites at the end of the first day but after he had originally planned to leave.

Jesus finally leaves at the end of chapter 18. Chapter 19 has the Nephites going out to gather in everybody to the temple so they can be there the next day when Jesus arrives; then the disciples teach the assembled crowd what Jesus taught them the day before; all are baptized; and a great deal of praying ensues, during which Jesus joins them in prayers and offers his own intercessory prayer to the Father.

This continues into the first ten verses of chapter 20, after which the sacrament is again provided and partaken of by the multitude.

But then comes 3 Nephi 20:10, at which point Jesus, without missing a beat, picks up his discourse exactly where he left off at the end of chapter 16, right before he was planning on leaving at the end of the first day.

3 Nephi 20:10 And it came to pass that when they had all given glory unto Jesus, he said unto them: Behold now I finish the commandment which the Father hath commanded me concerning this people, who are a remnant of the house of Israel.

11 Ye remember that I spake unto you, and said that when the words of Isaiah should be fulfilledâ??behold they are written, ye have them before you, therefore search themâ??

12 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that when they shall be fulfilled then is the fulfilling of the covenant which the Father hath made unto his people, O house of Israel.

13 And then shall the remnants, which shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth, be gathered in from the east and from the west, and from the south and from the north; and they shall be brought to the knowledge of the Lord their God, who hath redeemed them.

14 And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance.

It is these types of connections that provide strong evidence of a pre-planned structure of the Book of Mormon text. The more I study the Book of Mormon, the more I see these types of structures, and the less plausible it seems that Joseph Smith would have been able to just dictate it off the top of his head.

The feat of remembering where in the Bible you were quoting from after producing three intervening chapters before resuming your scriptural commentary is perhaps less amazing if you consider the possibility that there was an open Bible available to be consulted during the dictation. I know that there is eyewitness testimony that the dictation occurred while Joseph had his face buried in a hat, but, as has been pointed out elsewhere, this is no proof that Joseph never employed other means during the production of the text. At many points the text sounds like it is dictated. At others, however, it reads like a text that has been derived from another text (the Bible). There is no reason the two methods couldn't both have been employed in turn.

[cinepro]

Condescension aside, it is notable that you automagically reject any possibility that the reason for the Church's success may be because it is true.

You are willing to explore every remote possibility about why it succeeded except the simplest one of all- and that one you reject out of hand.

The only one truly blind is he who will not see.

Really? So what was the process you followed to determine that the Jehovah's Witnesses, SDA's, Pentacostals, and Scientologists aren't also as true as the LDS Church (based on their success)?

Perhaps the greatest sin of the non-LDS disbelievers is that they have followed the same approach to the LDS Church that LDS follow for all other churches?

Back to the subject at hand, here's a little trivia question: What was the biggest city Joseph Smith had visited before his 18th birthday, and how long did he stay there?

Also, as an "uneducated farmer" with a second grade education, did Joseph Smith have any school teachers living nearby that could supplement his formal education as he grew up?

[poulsenll]

Who is making this argument? I for one don't believe that he was a prodigy or unbelievably brilliant. 6 or 7 years is plenty of time to write something consistent with the Bible and consistent with Mound Builder mythology but inconsistent with ancient America. My book is self-consistent in narrative, and I wrote in 5 weeks. Am I a genius?

The propensity of people to believe that he got "weird guesses" right seems to be directly correlated with people's testimonies.

So, you wrote a book in 5 weeks. Nothing to it. How many copies has it sold and how many people have actually read it? What is the title and who published it?

You are right that it is no great thing to write a book in 4 to 5 years but even best sellers dont stick around and have the influence that the Book of Mormon has had. Could it possibly have something to do with the promise in Moroni 8 and nothing to do with the time it took to write it?

Larry P

[YH8]

. . . I am a scientist. That means I hold none of my conclusions or beliefs as sacrosanct. Anything I believe is subject to revision, or even complete abandonment if shown to be wrong.

Sure thing!

Why don't you go ahead and take the next step and claim you don't really "believe" anything, rather you just accept the facts as they are.

On the Maxwell characterization, I think it only fair to point out that, according to the Bible, Maxwellâ??s God is â??arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bullyâ? (credit to Dawkins).

You objective scientist, you.

Talk about a ridiculously simplistic caricature! What's more, it is clearly meant to agitate rather than facilitate reasonable and rational discussion (RRD). Not that those that trade in this type of garbage are interested in RRD, of course.

[ThePhy]

Why don't you go ahead and take the next step and claim you don't really "believe" anything, rather you just accept the facts as they are.

I am not taking a fringe position in admitting that my understandings are tentative. Many people in the scientific community do the same.

I do â??believeâ? things, in the sense that I am very confident in my understanding on some things.

Talk about a ridiculously simplistic caricature! What's more, it is clearly meant to agitate rather than facilitate reasonable and rational discussion (RRD). Not that those that trade in this type of garbage are interested in RRD, of course.

As I said, that originates with Dawkins. But I will admit, I think it is not far off the mark. If such a blunt pr

[YH8]

I am not taking a fringe position in admitting that my understandings are tentative. Many people in the scientific community do the same.

Who said the ideal of objectivity in empiricism (the current philosophy of science) is a fringe position? However, you are squarely on the fringe, so to speak (along with too many others), if you do not recognize the untenable proposition of objectivity and the pragmatic reality of the lack of objectivity in science. BTW, I know science gave us microwave ovens, so don't go there. There is quite a difference between producing a microwave oven and understanding history (not only history proper, but archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc.) and predicting the future.

I do â??believeâ? things, in the sense that I am very confident in my understanding on some things.

This admission of yours belies your coy profession regarding the tentative nature of science.

BTW, has your status as a scientist enabled you to be "very confident in [your] understanding" that there is no God? (I haven't read enough of your posts to know this about you. However, when one professes to be a "scientist" in these parts, it likely means they are smarter than the rest of us and thus we should listen to what they have to say about the non-existence of God, etc.)

If so, what were the research questions that you asked, what were your corresponding hypotheses, what measures did you use, what data did you obtain, how did you analyze your data, and how did you interpret your data? In other words, since when is determining the existence of God an empirical question? Also, given the fact that it is not an empirical question, how is it more informed to conclude that there is no deity rather than that there is deity?

As I said, that originates with Dawkins. But I will admit, I think it is not far off the mark. If such a blunt pr