Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 I mentioned the photographic memory because that could be a logical reason JS could dictate...because he wrote it already. He could stick his head in his hat because he could read items in his mind. That could explain why he can put in so many biblical verses in the text because he knew them. I'm not sure how rare the photographic memories really are. Which is more probable, a guy with a photographic memory or the BoM, its text and origins? The BoM tells an unbelievable story, which is why we ask for supernatural confirmation.I posit this because if it wasn't inspired, then there should be a naturalistic source. And I don't agree that "God still speaks to men" is the logical answer. Little to do with God is logical, hence the miraculous nature of religion. It also is evident because otherwise, this board, FAIR and apologists wouldn't exist.I have an audio perfect memory. I remember everything ever said to me that I find interesting. I could sit here and type every word of the Temple Ceremony. But I cannot spell it correctly or punctuate. Maybe a little with WORD©.
thesometimesaint Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 robuchan:It is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith and/or potential modern day writers wrote the Book of Mormon.
Darth_Bill Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I have an audio perfect memory. I remember everything ever said to me that I find interesting. I could sit here and type every word of the Temple Ceremony. But I cannot spell it correctly or punctuate. Maybe a little with WORD©.I realized I had a little of it when my wife asked me where suchandsuch a verse was and I told her. She commented that it drove her nuts that she never sees me open the scriptures yet I know where this stuff is. I replied..."I did read them... once." Now I know why I went nuts on my mission with such a limited library as I tend to read things only once and I move on.BTW, there are many muslims that have memorized the Qur'an also, so having scriptures within memory isn't that unusual, albeit not from a photographic memory...can't remember the technical term. Weaving a story around them might not be that difficult as I don't know many who have tried it. JS was a marvel at placing people and things around scripture. That was part of his appeal. I mean....Garden of Eden in Missouri...just a single example. We even have a book of scripture now surrounding his life and works. Edited February 23, 2012 by Darth_Bill
Darth_Bill Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 robuchan:It is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith and/or potential modern day writers wrote the Book of Mormon.It is also highly unlikely that angels reveal gold plates hidden in the ground in remote New York hillsides. I think we deal with the absurd whenever we deal with religion.
thesometimesaint Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html
robuchan Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 robuchan:It is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith and/or potential modern day writers wrote the Book of Mormon.I'm not a word print expert. I'm aware of this study but didn't think apologists took it too seriously. I'll do more research on it. It was done when? 1990 or 1997? Why has there been no follow up research?
Darth_Bill Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 http://www.jefflinds...SFAQ/index.htmlBig site, and I like Jeff and his Mormanity site. Great reads. Not sure what the point is posting a general link like that. Perhaps I should post fairlds.org to all critics and not engage in all this discussion. Perhaps missionaries should just hand out cards to LDS.org...wait...they do that. 1
Nevo Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Could you provide a couple of Universalist sermons Joseph may have heard that are similar to Alma 5 or other Book of Mormon teachings so we can compare them?I doubt there are any written traces for most of the sermons that Joseph might have heard between 1817 and 1829. But enough newspaper articles and printed sermons have survived from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century to give us a good sense of the sorts of arguments that were used against Universalists in the 1820s. And many of these sources do have intriguing parallels to passages in the Book of Mormon. I provided several excerpts in my initial post on the "Hebraisms" thread (here). You can find additional references in Vogel's New Approaches essay here.Here's an early anti-Universalism sermon, from 1776: "[T]he time of life here on earth is our only probation-time for eternity. Behold now is the accepted time! Behold now is the day of salvation! God is now in Christ Jesus reconciling the world unto himself—he is now on a throne of grace, but after death is judgment; after death, they that are filthy will be filthy still; and they that are holy will be holy still . . . That after death unto the final judgment, while our bodies are in the grave, our souls will be in a state of fixed happiness or misery, according to the state we were in when we gave up the ghost;—if in Christ, of happiness; if out of Christ—of misery, and after the resurrection and final judgment the wicked will be in a state of punishment in soul and body forever and ever" (John Cleaveland, An Attempt to Nip in the Bud, the Unscriptural Doctrine of Universal Salvation [salem, MA: E. Russell, 1776], 10; italics in original).Now Joseph Smith almost certainly never read this sermon, but such an exhortation would not be out of place in the Book of Alma. Edited February 23, 2012 by Nevo
stemelbow Posted February 23, 2012 Author Posted February 23, 2012 imo, the biggest roadblocks to belief in JS claims regarding the plates are from the D&C itself. Section 17 includes:Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a aview of the bplates,and: And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of themand: And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith.If the plates were really real, why would it take the "power of god" and "faith" to see them?I'd say with religious claims there are always reasons to find skepticism. Who knows exactly why? God knows, if'n He exists.
cdowis Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) It is also highly unlikely that angels reveal gold plates hidden in the ground in remote New York hillsides. I think we deal with the absurd whenever we deal with religion.Faster-than-light communication? A probabilistic view of the universe -- indeterminate cause and effect?!What nonsense.I think we deal with the absurd wienever we deal with quantum mechanics. According to Richard Feynman, quantum mechanics deals with "nature as she is — absurd."To a godless atheist, a book delivered by an angel is nonsense, regardless of the evidence. Edited February 23, 2012 by cdowis
Jaybear Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) It is also highly unlikely that angels reveal gold plates hidden in the ground in remote New York hillsides. I think we deal with the absurd whenever we deal with religion.I get that people have faith, either born or strengthened by what they perceive to be a spiritual experience, that the Book of Mormon is an genuine 18th century translation of an ancient manuscript. I really do.What I don't get are those who come here and try to present a credible argument that there is no other rational explanation. The OP wants "evidence" that the BOM was written in the 19th century.The only secular evidence one needs to support this conclusion is the simple fact that the plates are not available for inspection, and that the explanation presented to explain the absence .... taken back to heaven by an angel ... is simply not credible. For good measure, we can throw in the fact that Smith does not have a credible explanation as to how he found the plates or how he translated the plates. The fact that Smith had charged people money by pretending to locate buried treasure by looking a seer stone in his hat should put an end to any rational/secular discussion as to whether the purported translation is genuine.Faith. In the end, it all comes down to faith. Edited February 23, 2012 by Jaybear
thesometimesaint Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I don't have a problem with religion. People can believe whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.I don't have a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon. I have had personal experiences that I can only describe as religious experiences with God. He hasn't come down to me personally and said feel the wounds in his hands and side. Am I willing to dismiss what I have experienced? Where do I go for the words of Eternal Life? Edited February 23, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Darth_Bill Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Faster-than-light communication? A probabilistic view of the universe -- indeterminate cause and effect?!What nonsense.I think we deal with the absurd wienever we deal with quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman, quantum mechanics deals with "nature as she is — absurd."To a godless atheist, a book delivered by an angel is nonsense, regardless of the evidence.Yep. Absurdities abound and not just in religion. Absurdity is subjective anyway. Still, mentioning that some absurdities may be true doesn't make all absurdities true. We much pick and choose what nonsense to believe/act upon/disregard/ignore.
cdowis Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I get that people have faith, either born or strengthened by what they perceive to be a spiritual experience, that the Book of Mormon is an genuine 18th century translation of an ancient manuscript. I really do.What I don't get are those who come here and try to present a credible argument that there is no other rational explanation.Who makes that claim that there is no other explanation? I want to see that post, please. I understand why you want to discredit and mock believers, but at least tell the truth.The OP wants "evidence" that the BOM was written in the 19th century.I have presented "evidence" that it was written in the 20th century. No one has refuted my evidence.The only secular evidence one needs to support this conclusion is the simple fact that the plates are not available for inspection, and that the explanation presented to explain the absence .... taken back to heaven by an angel ... is simply not credible."Not found, not exist". So your argument is flawed logic. There are many events in history for which there is no physical evidence, only the written records.I find your argument very silly, but whatever floats your boat.For good measure, we can throw in the fact that Smith does not have a credible explanation as to how he found the plates or how he translated the plates."I do not believe in miracles, therefore he is not credible." Your arguments are..... interesting. The fact that Smith had charged people money by pretending to locate buried treasure by looking a seer stone in his hat should put an end to any rational/secular discussion as to whether the purported translation is genuine.I follow your logic. Let me try to use it ===>>"The fact that quantum mechanics makes the claim of faster-than-light communication should put an end to such nonsense." How did that work? Faith. In the end, it all comes down to faith.I think we can all agree on that. Any apparently convincing evidence for the BOM has been dismissed here on this forum as a "coincidence". It also requires faith to ignore such evidence. Edited February 23, 2012 by cdowis
Jaybear Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 I get that people have faith, either born or strengthened by what they perceive to be a spiritual experience, that the Book of Mormon is an genuine 18th century translation of an ancient manuscript. I really do.What I don't get are those who come here and try to present a credible argument that there is no other rational explanation.Who makes that claim that there is no other explanation? I want to see that post, please. I understand why you want to discredit and mock believers, but at least tell the truth.TSS (28 minutes earlier); "I don't have a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon."The only secular evidence one needs to support this conclusion is the simple fact that the plates are not available for inspection, and that the explanation presented to explain the absence .... taken back to heaven by an angel ... is simply not credible."Not found, not exist". So your argument is flawed logic. There are many events in history for which there is no physical evidence, only the written records.I find your argument very silly, but whatever floats your boat.That is not the argument. You miss the essential point that the person who claimed to have found the plates, offered an incredible explanation for why they can't be presented for public scrutiny.. If you criticize the logic of my argument please do so. But don't present and criticize a strawman. For good measure, we can throw in the fact that Smith does not have a credible explanation as to how he found the plates or how he translated the plates.I do not believe in miracles, therefore he is not credible. Your arguments are..... interesting.If someone charged with burglary, claimed that he was magically teleported into the premises against his will, he would be found guilty. The explanation is simply not credible. Now if you can present a rational explanation as to how one can translate an ancient language using a seer stone and a hat, please do so. Even simpler. Repeat the process with the actual seer stone. The fact that Smith had charged people money by pretending to locate buried treasure by looking a seer stone in his hat should put an end to any rational/secular discussion as to whether the purported translation is genuine.I follow your logic.The fact that quantum mechanics makes the claim of faster-than-light communication should put an end to such nonsense. I am glad you follow the logic, because I don't see the connection. I don't personally understand how television works, but the fact that it does works isn't proof of of the power of angels, gods,and seer stones. . Faith. In the end, it all comes down to faith.I think we all agree on that.I don't and would not criticize anyone whose belief is premised on faith. Faith is personal.
KevinG Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 We much pick and choose what nonsense to believe/act upon/disregard/ignore.Now that's some profound nonsense. I believe it!
Darth_Bill Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Now that's some profound nonsense. I believe it!I'm all about profound nonsense! Love the stuff.
cdowis Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Jaybear,OK, I got it.Your argument is based on the fact that you don't believe it, that you find "not credible". Why? Because you find the existence of angels "not credible". You find taht God speaking to JS, giving him a command to return the plates "not credible", etc.This is a tautology -- as an atheist, this whole story is absurd. And I already get it, so don't present that as an argument. You are merely repeating yourself.In your citation of an apologist, I agree with him that I also cannot find a credible naturalistic explanation. there may be one out there somewhere, but you and the critics have given no credible naturalistic explanation for the BOM. For example, I have yet to find a cogent answer to my question on the witnesses -- were they co-conspirators, or were they dupes. Or both.You have no case. You can only throw out "I don't believe" and speculation/opinion/assertion without a cogent explanation but with gaping holes and flawed logic to attempt to fill those holes. Edited February 23, 2012 by cdowis 1
dougtheavenger Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 What I want critics of the church to tell me is how Joseph Smith knew of NHM in northern Yemen and knew that 1 degree due East of NHM was an oasis, named Khor Karfat with water, timber, iron ore that could be accessed from the desert and that is uninhabited to this day. I also want the odds on incredibly lucky guesses made by Smith.1. In 1996, Peter Underhill calculated that Native Americans males with a Y-chromosome mutation known as M3 descend from a male who lived in 151 BC2. About 15% of Yemenite Jews belong to Y-chromosome lineage group called Q1a3b which can easily be mistaken for Q1a3a a clade to which many American Indians belong to. This means that when someone gets around to looking for M323 in Native Americans, they may just find it and find a direct link to Israelite populations of the Middle East.3. Many Native Americans who believe they are entirely of pre-Columbian ancestry have haplogroup R Y-chromosome that are more closely related to Middle Eastern R than to any of the few R lineages found in Siberia.4. The Q1a3 lineages found in Siberia go back no farther than 6,000 years ago. This means mainstream science has to fall back on the theory that lineages which might provide a direct link between Siberian Q and Native American Q became extinct in Siberia. 1
Darth_Bill Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 " For example, I have yet to find a cogent answer to my question on the witnesses -- were they co-conspirators, or were they dupes. Or both."Both, or neither. The 8 can be dismissed. All it takes is a physical prop. Might not be probable, but there is an easy naturalistic explanation. The three is more problematic.Now what follows is a bunch of assumin' and rationalization. It happens on both sides. Critics can't see God doing it one way and believers can't follow the logic of any other way. Tiresome.
cdowis Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 The whole haplogroup X discussion where the researchers of the so-called Siberian connection basically admitted that the Siberian haplogroup X does not match the Amerindian. The critics forgot to read the whole article and conclusions.
Darth_Bill Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 "What I want critics of the church to tell me is how Joseph Smith knew of NHM in northern Yemen and knew that 1 degree due East of NHM was an oasis, named Khor Karfat with water, timber, iron ore that could be accessed from the desert and that is uninhabited to this day. I also want the odds on incredibly lucky guesses made by Smith."I am unaware that Smith said it was in Northern Yemen. I think this is a process of looking for a place that fits the text and that there was a place in one of the places that someone assumed was the path Lehi took. It may be the place that Nephi found, but it isn't a given as THE place. It just fits some of our assumptions.
cdowis Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) " For example, I have yet to find a cogent answer to my question on the witnesses -- were they co-conspirators, or were they dupes. Or both."Both, or neither. The 8 can be dismissed. All it takes is a physical prop. Might not be probable, but there is an easy naturalistic explanation. Really? why don't you give it a shot.Take the physical description of the plates and give us how the prop was constructed, how its construction was done in secret decades later, lots of pages (not just one or two), etc, given the practical circumstances.As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. You have to go beyond "just a prop" to fool the eight witnesses who are certainly familiar with metals, who hefted the plates, turned the pages and viewed the engravings. Edited February 23, 2012 by cdowis
Molloch Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Whatever it was the witnesses saw, held, and felt, it wasn't compelling enough evidence to keep them in the church later.
Jaybear Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Jaybear,OK, I got it.Your argument is based on the fact that you don't believe it, that you find "not credible". Why? Because you find the existence of angels "not credible". You find taht God speaking to JS, giving him a command to return the plates "not credible", etc.Would you find Smith's explanation for the absence of the plates to be "credible" or "incredible" if had said that a leprechaun took them back to the forest?My point is not what I personally believe, but what conclusions one must draw from a purely secular/rational examination of the facts. As an atheist, this whole story is absurd. And I understand that, but I don't find that as a credible argument.If you accept supernatural explanations as rational, then no explanation becomes irrational.In your citation of an apologist, I agree with him that I also cannot find a credible naturalistic explanation. there may be one out there somewhere, but you and the critics have given no credible naturalistic explanation for the BOM. For example, I have yet to find a cogent answer to my question on the witnesses -- were they co-conspirators, or were they dupes. Or both.The witness are only relevant because they needed to fill the void created by the plates having supposedly taken back to heaven. If you actually had plates, which were confirmed to be ancient, then the world would be impressed. There were witnesses who saw and handled the kinderhook plates. Consirators, dupes, both?You have no case. You can only throw out "I don't believe" and speculation/opinion/assertion without a cogent explanation but with gaping holes and flawed logic to attempt to fill those holes. Faith is personal. Logic is universal. There is no flaw in my logic. Belief in god, and angels is not driven by reason, but by faith.
Recommended Posts