The State of the Evidence

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

I think the evidence contrary to Joseph Smith's claims to be remarkably wanting.  

What critical books/articles have you read? I'm just wondering what evidence you've considered.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

You're making smac's point and mine from earlier.  You guys throw around terms like "there's overwhelming evidence" for this or that, and really, I think the evidence contrary to Joseph Smith's claims to be remarkably wanting.  

Exactly what is the state of evidence among disbelievers?  If it wasn't for your "testimony" would you be able to continue your disbelief in the church based on the evidence?  Or does the evidence stand on its own?  For as much evidence as you guys claim, you certainly use a lot of "it's unlikely", "probably", "it's possible" et al.

The smoking gun showing the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century production is the plethora of King James Bible passages quoted verbatim (or with little variation) in the Book of Mormon.

Making the matter even more conclusive from my point of view are the KJV passages that date from the time after Lehi left Jerusalem, and could therefore not have been found on the brass plates.

Deutero-Isaiah and New Testament passages fall into this latter category.

[smac97]

FairMormon has some interesting stuff about the KJV quotations in The Book of Mormon.

See, e.g, here:

Quote

Critics also fail to mention that even if all the Biblical passages were removed from the Book of Mormon, there would be a great deal of text remaining. Joseph Smith was able to produce long, intricate religious texts without using the Bible; if he was trying to deceive people, why did he "plagiarize" from the one book—the Bible—which his readership was sure to recognize?

I think this is a fair point.  

And this (same link, quoting Hugh Nibley):

Quote

{One of the} most devastating argument{s}  against the Book of Mormon was that it actually quoted the Bible. The early critics were simply staggered by the incredible stupidity of including large sections of the Bible in a book which they insisted was specifically designed to fool the Bible-reading public. They screamed blasphemy and plagiarism at the top of their lungs, but today any biblical scholar knows that it would be extremely suspicious if a book purporting to be the product of a society of pious emigrants from Jerusalem in ancient times did not quote the Bible. No lengthy religious writing of the Hebrews could conceivably be genuine if it was not full of scriptural quotations.

Hmm.

More:

Quote

Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? Do they give their own inspired translations? No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When "holy men of God" quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing.

Are quotations from the Septuagint a "smoking gun" which falsify The Bible as scripture?  Well, no.

Michael Ash has a YouTube video on this issue.  He also has a brief but insightful essay regarding "four scenarios in which Joseph Smith—acting as a prophet—could have used the KJV in his translation of the Book of Mormon."

FAIR also quotes Richard Lloyd Anderson, who also has some interesting thoughts:

Quote

In fact, the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.” Thus the Old Testament passages from Isaiah display a particular choice of phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith’s general freedom throughout the Book of Mormon for optional wording.

It seems like there is plenty of room for principled disagreement about why The Book of Mormon excerpts the KJV.  Not much of a smoking gun, methinks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2016 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

FairMormon has some interesting stuff about the KJV quotations in The Book of Mormon.

See, e.g, here:

I think this is a fair point.  

And this (same link, quoting Hugh Nibley):

Hmm.

More:

Are quotations from the Septuagint a "smoking gun" which falsify The Bible as scripture?  Well, no.

Michael Ash has a YouTube video on this issue.  He also has a brief but insightful essay regarding "four scenarios in which Joseph Smith—acting as a prophet—
could have used the KJV in his translation of the Book of Mormon."

FAIR also quotes Richard Lloyd Anderson, who also has some interesting thoughts:

It seems like there is plenty of room for principled disagreement about why The Book of Mormon excerpts the KJV.  Not much of a smoking gun, methinks.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Why is everything in strikethrough? Is this some sort of poststructuralist erasure?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why is everything in strikethrough? Is this some sort of poststructuralist erasure?

One of the quotes I used had a bracketed s, which encodes a strikethrough in the subsequent text.

Fixed now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Given that Joseph's career demonstrates a gift for syncretism, I'm not sure why it's supposed to be surprising that the Book of Mormon borrows from and expands on the King James Bible. 

Edited June 28, 2016 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

One of the quotes I used had a bracketed s, which encodes a strikethrough in the subsequent text.

Fixed now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Here I was thinking you were being ironic or something. 

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why is everything in strikethrough? Is this some sort of poststructuralist erasure?

He is one of Bennetts strikers!

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Here I was thinking you were being ironic or something. 

I'm not that clever.

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

       Quote

Critics also fail to mention that even if all the Biblical passages were removed from the Book of Mormon, there would be a great deal of text remaining. Joseph Smith was able to produce long, intricate religious texts without using the Bible; if he was trying to deceive people, why did he "plagiarize" from the one book—the Bible—which his readership was sure to recognize?

Smac- I think this is a fair point.  

I once had a classmate make similar excuses when he was caught plagiarizing.

"Part of my paper was original."

"Do you really think I'd be stupid enough to plagiarize from a text you'd recognize?"

Those extremely weak arguments didn't serve him very well.

 

Those "fair points" are laughable.

I'm fine with the idea that Joseph was "inspired" to pull ideas and even portions of text from various sources. Talking about the BoM as revelation or inspiration makes much more sense to me than claiming direct translation from literal plates. God could inspire Joseph in any way he wanted, but I wouldn't expect deutero-Isaiah texts to be a part of a physical record from which JS translated. Nor would I expect the plates to have the same specific wording/errors unique to JS's personal bible.

Then again, maybe there was a point where the rock told Joseph to pull out his bible and quote from page 1265. I suppose that's possible but it's not a very credible theory.

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Given that Joseph's career demonstrates a gift for syncretism, I'm not sure why it's supposed to be surprising that the Book of Mormon borrows from and expands on the King James Bible. 

It seems like syncretism swings both ways, both as an argument against The Book of Mormon (by critics/skeptics), and an argument in its favor (Nibley seems to cite syncretism (not by name, but the concept) as something to be expected in The Book of Mormon).

Put another way, syncretism in The Book of Mormon can reasonably be viewed as not only not a "smoking gun" and not "surprising," but as something in favor of the book's historicity (and/or its status as scripture).  I'm not saying this is an inevitable or necessary interpretation of the data, but it seems to be a reasonable one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I once had a classmate make similar excuses when he was caught plagiarizing.

"Part of my paper was original."

"Do you really think I'd be stupid enough to plagiarize from a text you'd recognize?"

Those extremely weak arguments didn't serve him very well.

 

Those "fair points" are laughable.

I'm fine with the idea that Joseph was "inspired" to pull ideas and even portions of text from various sources. Talking about the BoM as revelation or inspiration makes much more sense to me than claiming direct translation from literal plates. God could inspire Joseph in any way he wanted, but I wouldn't expect deutero-Isaiah texts to be a part of a physical record from which JS translated. Nor would I expect the plates to have the same specific wording/errors unique to JS's personal bible.

Then again, maybe there was a point where the rock told Joseph to pull out his bible and quote from page 1265. I suppose that's possible but it's not a very credible theory.

 

It's these issues that motivated Blake Ostler's "modern expansion" theory, as the text is clearly dependent, textually and doctrinally, on the English Bible. I don't know anyone who disputes that dependency. 

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It seems like syncretism swings both ways, both as an argument against The Book of Mormon (by critics/skeptics), and an argument in its favor (Nibley seems to cite syncretism (not by name, but the concept) as something to be expected in The Book of Mormon).

Put another way, syncretism in The Book of Mormon can reasonably be viewed as not only not a "smoking gun" and not "surprising," but as something in favor of the book's historicity (and/or its status as scripture).  I'm not saying this is an inevitable or necessary interpretation of the data, but it seems to be a reasonable one.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did I say it was a smoking gun? It sounds like you agree that the Book of Mormon is textually and thematically dependent on the King James Bible. The implications of that dependency we can argue about, I suppose. 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I once had a classmate make similar excuses when he was caught plagiarizing.

"Part of my paper was original."

"Do you really think I'd be stupid enough to plagiarize from a text you'd recognize?"

Those extremely weak arguments didn't serve him very well.

More context, please.  What was the paper?  What text did he plagiarize?  Did he explicitly reference the source "plagiarized" text (which is what we see, for example, in The Book of Mormon when it specifically says, in essence, "Hey, I, Nephi, am going to quote a bunch of stuff from Isaiah . . . here we go!")?

Quote

Those "fair points" are laughable.

Ah.  Scorn and contempt instead of reason and analysis.

Quote

I'm fine with the idea that Joseph was "inspired" to pull ideas and even portions of text from various sources. Talking about the BoM as revelation or inspiration makes much more sense to me than claiming direct translation from literal plates.

What do you think are the "various sources" for the bulk of the text which is, for lack of a better word, "original?"  

Quote

God could inspire Joseph in any way he wanted, but I wouldn't expect deutero-Isaiah texts to be a part of a physical record from which JS translated.

Well, I'm not sure the expectations of a 21st-century reader are evidence one way or another.  That's what I like about Nibley.  He treats the text like an ancient text and then tests it to see how that shakes out.  

Quote

Nor would I expect the plates to have the same specific wording/errors unique to JS's personal bible.

The plates were written in Reformed Egyptian.  So nobody has this expectation.  Rather, the question is whether the narrative about the origins of The Book of Mormon can accommodate these errors.  Nibley and Anderson both have, I think, plausible explanations for this issue.  I'm not saying these explanations are necessarily true, but I think they and other explanations (Jeff Lindsay's, for example) belie your glib and unsupported summary dismissal of the Church's position on this issue as "laughable."

Quote

Then again, maybe there was a point where the rock told Joseph to pull out his bible and quote from page 1265. I suppose that's possible but it's not a very credible theory.

If I thought this was something other than a snide potshot, I would attempt to address it.  But I don't, so I won't.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2016 by smac97

[Johnnie Cake]

From my perspective Mormonism exists in spite of the evidence for or against.  And I guess that's the beauty of it.  Mormonism is built on a desire to believe in something greater than this crazy screwed up world we find ourselves in.

Take my wife for example...in her words...she chooses to believe and have faith in the truth claims of the church because it comforts her, it gives her a purpose and meaning to life and a hope to something beyond this life...irrespective of whether or not it is true.  But of course she does believe it to be all it claims...but in her mind it is a choice to have faith and believe.

And I...what do I have to look forward to... the total and complete snuffing out of my existence...pretty much why this life is so important to me and why I try to make every day count and live it to its fullest (so what am I doing wasting my time here? :-)

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Critics also fail to mention that even if all the Biblical passages were removed from the Book of Mormon, there would be a great deal of text remaining. Joseph Smith was able to produce long, intricate religious texts without using the Bible; if he was trying to deceive people, why did he "plagiarize" from the one book—the Bible—which his readership was sure to recognize?

This is a dumb argument.  So because Joseph Smith produced things that weren't plagiarized, it means he didn't plagiarize other stuff?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

{One of the} most devastating argument{s}  against the Book of Mormon was that it actually quoted the Bible. The early critics were simply staggered by the incredible stupidity of including large sections of the Bible in a book which they insisted was specifically designed to fool the Bible-reading public. They screamed blasphemy and plagiarism at the top of their lungs, but today any biblical scholar knows that it would be extremely suspicious if a book purporting to be the product of a society of pious emigrants from Jerusalem in ancient times did not quote the Bible. No lengthy religious writing of the Hebrews could conceivably be genuine if it was not full of scriptural quotations.

This is a dumb argument.  What is "extremely suspicious" is a book purporting to have been written by Jews who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. containing verbatim texts from the KJV Bible written after they left.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? Do they give their own inspired translations? No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When "holy men of God" quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing.

This is a dumb argument.  Because a word or two are changed here or there doesn't make lengthy cribbing from the KJV something other than plagiarism.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In fact, the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.” Thus the Old Testament passages from Isaiah display a particular choice of phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith’s general freedom throughout the Book of Mormon for optional wording.

This is a dumb argument.  It says nothing about how the KJV of Deutero-Isaiah shows up in the BOM, not to mention the KJV of New Testament passages.

 

But these are the best arguments that FAIR can trot out to answer this smoking gun showing the BOM to be a product of the 19th century.

 

In summary,

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by consiglieri

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

And I...what do I have to look forward to... the total and complete snuffing out of my existence...pretty much why this life is so important to me and why I try to make every day count and live it to its fullest (so what am I doing wasting my time here? :-)

I have faith that you're here to try to share your perspective and paradigm with us, as much as you can, in your desire to share and teach us about how you have and continue to find additional sources of joy in your life.

Pretty much the same reason that I am here, too.  

Plus I'm kinda stuck at my job and there isn'the much more I can do that I would enjoy doing.  Reading good books is all well and good but I like things that are a little more interactive than reading something that can't talk back to me.

[consiglieri]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Put another way, syncretism in The Book of Mormon can reasonably be viewed as not only not a "smoking gun" and not "surprising," but as something in favor of the book's historicity (and/or its status as scripture).  I'm not saying this is an inevitable or necessary interpretation of the data, but it seems to be a reasonable one.

 

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard you say, Smac.

So the fact that the BOM quotes verbatim lengthy passages of the KJV from the New Testament is evidence in favor of the book's historicity?

You must be joking.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard you say, Smac.

So the fact that the BOM quotes verbatim lengthy passages of the KJV from the New Testament is evidence in favor of the book's historicity?

You must be joking.

If I thought you were interested in a good faith discussion, I would respond.  But I don't, so I won't.

I'm not making these things up.  Nibley has a lot to say about this.  So does Anderson.  And Jeff Lindsay.  And many, many others.  And your response is "This is a dumb argument" repeated over and over.

No thanks.

-Smac

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

From my perspective Mormonism exists in spite of the evidence for or against. 

There are all sorts of controversially things that have "evidence for or against" them.  "Evidence" is not some mathematical formula that, when viewed, yields the same results over and over.  Evidence must be interpreted.  Studied.  Weighed against other pieces of evidence.  It's a complicated and messy process.  Hence the need for . . . faith.

Quote

And I guess that's the beauty of it.  Mormonism is built on a desire to believe in something greater than this crazy screwed up world we find ourselves in.

Desire, yes.  And faith.  And most of all . . . The Spirit.

Quote

Take my wife for example...in her words...she chooses to believe and have faith in the truth claims of the church because it comforts her, it gives her a purpose and meaning to life and a hope to something beyond this life...irrespective of whether or not it is true. 

She believes in the truth claims of the LDS Church "irrespective" of whether those claims are true?  I don't understand that.

For me, the Restored Gospel is not a comfort blanket.  It's not a set of platitudes that make me feel better "whether or not {they are} true."  It is precisely because the Church's truth claims are "true" that I find them to have value.

I have several heroes in my life, such as Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc, Thomas More, Atticus Finch, Captain America and Gandalf.  The first three were real, historical people, and the latter three are fictional.  All of them have attributes which I admire and hope to emulate in some ways.  But at the end of the day, there are two conclusions that I reach: First, I admire them for their attributes, "irrespective of whether or not" they are real or fictional.  Second, even though I admire them for their attributes, I don't really need any of them.  I could easily find other heroes, both real and fictional, to take their place in my worldview.

But the truth claims of the LDS Church are a qualitatively different set of things in my life.  Whether God exists, or not, matters to me.  It is essential.  Whether we have a relationship with Him, and the nature of that relationship, these things matter and are essential.  The Plan of Salvation and its central message about the Atonement of Jesus Christ matter.  A lot.  And more to the point, these things matter only to the extent they are "true."  

Quote

But of course she does believe it to be all it claims...but in her mind it is a choice to have faith and believe.

I'm confused.  She "does believe it to be all it claims," but she beliefs such things "irrespective of whether or not {they are} true."  I don't understand that.

But this is delving into personal territory, so I'll refrain from further inquiry.

Quote

And I...what do I have to look forward to... the total and complete snuffing out of my existence...pretty much why this life is so important to me and why I try to make every day count and live it to its fullest (so what am I doing wasting my time here? :-)

Your anticipation of "the total and complete snuffing out of {your} existence" seems like a matter of faith.  You don't claim to know your existence will be snuffed out, right?

I am curious as to how your brand of faith is superior to ours.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Johnnie Cake]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are all sorts of controversially things that have "evidence for or against" them.  "Evidence" is not some mathematical formula that, when viewed, yields the same results over and over.  Evidence must be interpreted.  Studied.  Weighed against other pieces of evidence.  It's a complicated and messy process.  Hence the need for . . . faith.

Desire, yes.  And faith.  And most of all . . . The Spirit.

She believes in the truth claims of the LDS Church "irrespective" of whether those claims are true?  I don't understand that.

For me, the Restored Gospel is not a comfort blanket.  It's not a set of platitudes that make me feel better "whether or not {they are} true."  It is precisely because the Church's truth claims are "true" that I find them to have value.

I have several heroes in my life, such as Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc, Thomas More, Atticus Finch, Captain America and Gandalf.  The first three were real, historical people, and the latter three are fictional.  All of them have attributes which I admire and hope to emulate in some ways.  But at the end of the day, there are two conclusions that I reach: First, I admire them for their attributes, "irrespective of whether or not" they are real or fictional.  Second, even though I admire them for their attributes, I don't really need any of them.  I could easily find other heroes, both real and fictional, to take their place in my worldview.

But the truth claims of the LDS Church are a qualitatively different set of things in my life.  Whether God exists, or not, matters to me.  It is essential.  Whether we have a relationship with Him, and the nature of that relationship, these things matter and are essential.  The Plan of Salvation and its central message about the Atonement of Jesus Christ matter.  A lot.  And more to the point, these things matter only to the extent they are "true."  

I'm confused.  She "does believe it to be all it claims," but she beliefs such things "irrespective of whether or not {they are} true."  I don't understand that.

But this is delving into personal territory, so I'll refrain from further inquiry.

Your anticipation of "the total and complete snuffing out of {your} existence" seems like a matter of faith.  You don't claim to know your existence will be snuffed out, right?

I am curious as to how your brand of faith is superior to ours.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course I'm opining from my perspective as a non-believer...so please take that into consideration...when I've had conversations with her regarding church truth claims, she merely brushes them aside and says...I choose to believe in spite of evidence for or against...and I walk away and say...ok what ever

Edited June 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[SteveO]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard you say, Smac.

So the fact that the BOM quotes verbatim lengthy passages of the KJV from the New Testament is evidence in favor of the book's historicity?

You must be joking.

I'll admit the quoted scripture is probably the critics strongest argument against the Book of Mormon--but it does not shake my faith anymore than Ishmael's burial site at NHM would shake yours.  And that's the point I'm trying to make here.  I may be wrong here, but you guys seem oblivious that your method in choosing what to accept and discard as evidence is exactly the same as mine.  You have to approach your disbelief in the church with some faith do you not?  Or do you believe the evidence stands on its own?  If so, you are making a lot of assertions about the manner of Jospeh's translating.  You are making a lot of assertions about Mormon/Moroni's abridgment process.  You are making a lot of assertions about the accuracy with which historians have dated writings and world history (there is evidence that Egyptian history is off by nearly 350-400 years)...I mean, you guys sound certain, but there's a lot of stuff that "could" just as easily shatter this whole thing that you are hanging your hats on.  I maintain you're no more certain than I am with regards to the truthfulness of the church and Joseph Smith.

[consiglieri]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If I thought you were interested in a good faith discussion, I would respond.  But I don't, so I won't.

I'm not making these things up.  Nibley has a lot to say about this.  So does Anderson.  And Jeff Lindsay.  And many, many others.  And your response is "This is a dumb argument" repeated over and over.

No thanks.

-Smac

You are the one who is not interested in a good faith discussion, Spencer.

It is not good faith to claim that obvious evidence of KJV plagiarism from sources unavailable to the purported authors of the Book of Mormon is evidence "in favor of the books' historicity."

I did not just call the arguments dumb.  I showed why they are dumb.

What you have not done is to show why they are not dumb.

I can understand your desire to bow out at this point.

[bdouglas]

Bushman and others have said the evidence for BOM, the plates, etc., is evenly divided between for and against. I disagree. I think the evidence is weighted strongly in favor of JS, that he was telling the truth, that there were gold plates, etc. But for the sake of argument, let's say it is perfectly balanced, for and against. What throws the balance one way or the other?

A choice. We make a choice to believe, or not to believe. I believe this is a moral choice, just like the choice one makes to commit adultery, or not commit adultery; to steal or not to steal; to lie or not to lie.

Edited June 28, 2016 by bdouglas

[consiglieri]

14 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I'll admit the quoted scripture is probably the critics strongest argument against the Book of Mormon--but it does not shake my faith anymore than Ishmael's burial site at NHM would shake yours.  And that's the point I'm trying to make here.  I may be wrong here, but you guys seem oblivious that your method in choosing what to accept and discard as evidence is exactly the same as mine.  You have to approach your disbelief in the church with some faith do you not?  Or do you believe the evidence stands on its own?  If so, you are making a lot of assertions about the manner of Jospeh's translating.  You are making a lot of assertions about Mormon/Moroni's abridgment process.  You are making a lot of assertions about the accuracy with which historians have dated writings and world history (there is evidence that Egyptian history is off by nearly 350-400 years)...I mean, you guys sound certain, but there's a lot of stuff that "could" just as easily shatter this whole thing that you are hanging your hats on.  I maintain you're no more certain than I am with regards to the truthfulness of the church and Joseph Smith.

You must have missed my initial comment in this thread where I set forth my position.  Your comment completely misses the mark at least as far as its application to me.
 

Quote

 

I am of two minds on the issue of Book of Mormon historicity.

On the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence it is a product of the 19th century.

On the other hand, there are too many significant ties with the ancient world for me to conclude the Book of Mormon is exclusively a product of the 19th century.

It therefore seems to be one of those treasures both new and old.

Matthew 13:52

52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

 

 

I am still waiting for you to answer Nevo's question as to what critical articles or books you have read.