Michael D. Coe, Mesoamericanist and Book of Mormon skeptic, recently died

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry, but that's not science.  Science is not easy, and it cannot "be completed in the very initial stages."  Apriori rejection is always unscientific.  That is not to say that there are not police and prosecutors who charge and convict innocent people of crimes they did not commit.  Happens all the time.  Assumptions are made off the cuff and there seems to be no real need for a scientific investigation -- such as checking the skin and clothes for gunshot residue (GSR), no need to examine DNA found at the scene, etc.  Not being confused by the facts certainly can move an investigation along more quickly.  But, then, oops.  Twenty years later the guy gets released after demonstrating he was wrongly convicted.  Everyone feels sorry for the guy, and then they all go along and get on with their lives as though nothing bad had really happened.

Making it up as you go isn't really the same as science.  Science is rigorous and logical, based on fact, not fancy.

That's a convenient strawman analogy you've made. Maybe you're saying that in a case like that of John Wilkes Boothe, the accused should not have been convicted without a trial or guilty plea.  I can agree with that, but my point is similar to saying that there's no need for us to put a person born in 1900 on trial for Lincoln's murder. To press on with such a trial would be unscientific. To make the decision to reject such a trial would not be dismissive of facts but would be, on the contrary, honouring fact and science.

Putting the preposterous provenance of the Book of Mormon aside, Joseph Smith arbitrarily called Native Americans Lamanites. The church identified the peoples in the BOM as the principal ancestors of Native Americans. This makes the question of historicity of the BOM very simple in nature. Those who try to shrink those claims and identifications are departing from the claims of fact.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Meadowchik

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Apriori rejection is always unscientific.

Robert.

When I read statements that defend Joseph Smith by claiming he could not of known such and such, they come across as apriori rejection. We have no scientific evidence of the limits of his abilities.

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Robert.

When I read statements that defend Joseph Smith by claiming he could not of known such and such, they come across as apriori rejection. We have no scientific evidence of the limits of his abilities.

Yes, of course.  Science is not partisan.  It always works both ways.  However, the notion that human ability is theoretically unlimited cannot be logically or scientifically verified.  Exploring those potential limits is a scientific endeavor -- and subject to natural law.

There are claims out there that some humans can read minds or perform other psychic feats.  Even if true, those would likely also be limited (cf. Lior Suchard).  Quantum physics suggests some very odd effects, including instantaneous "spooky action at a distance."  Even if true, it is once again very limited in real-life application.  Even if we posit divine intervention, fallible humans once more limit the effects.  Moreover, without objective measures of such odd phenomena, and reproducibility in a lab, we cannot apply science to such claims.  We are left measuring worldly effects and natural law.  That is all science allows us to do.  It is really only in that context that we can meaningfully discuss Joseph Smith's abilities -- or lack of them.

A prime example would be his ability to reproduce Early Modern English in the BofM.  Could he have done so?  Is it reasonable to suggest that he could?  There is nothing apriori about Stanford Carmack's careful research on that.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

That's a convenient strawman analogy you've made. Maybe you're saying that in a case like that of John Wilkes Boothe, the accused should not have been convicted without a trial or guilty plea.  I can agree with that, but my point is similar to saying that there's no need for us to put a person born in 1900 on trial for Lincoln's murder. To press on with such a trial would be unscientific. To make the decision to reject such a trial would not be dismissive of facts but would be, on the contrary, honouring fact and science.

That was no strawman analogy, and I speak as someone who has a certificate in crime scene investigation.  I have seen people convicted without any evidence having been collected and tested in a crime lab.  It happens in real life, and usually because the accused cannot afford a good lawyer.  I even heard a judge here in Provo say that he feared that a miscarriage of justice was taking place -- as he accepted the plea deal already arranged.  As to your Boothe example, surely you know that Boothe escaped and was shot.  So I don't know what you mean about no need for a trial, unless you are justifying shooting him down like a dog.  After all, if you just know that someone is guilty, why bother with a trial?  That's how innocent people get convicted.

I have pointed out elsewhere how a crime scene investigation is just like an archeological excavation, and science is at the heart of both:  https://www.quora.com/How-legit-are-geology-and-archaeology-I-started-to-get-interested-in-them-after-taking-some-geophysics-courses-but-at-the-moment-archaeology-just-sounds-like-nonsense-to-me-and-inaccurate-that-the-more-I-look-into/answer/Bob-Smith-3106 .

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Putting the preposterous provenance of the Book of Mormon aside, Joseph Smith arbitrarily called Native Americans Lamanites. The church identified the peoples in the BOM as the principal ancestors of Native Americans. This makes the question of historicity of the BOM very simple in nature. Those who try to shrink those claims and identifications are departing from the claims of fact.

While it is true that Bruce R. McConkie put a phrase about "the principal ancestors" in the intro to the 1981 edition of the BofM, it was removed by Brethren who realized his error.  The BofM itself makes no such claim, as any scientific and systematic reading would quickly show.  The same applies to statements made by Joseph Smith about who he thought the Lamanites were or are.  He read the text of the BofM to his scribes, and knew nothing about ancient civilizations.

A fact-based analysis of the BofM does not use the approach you describe at all.  The historicity of any document can be tested by science, and professional document examiners do that every day.  It is not based on rumor or automatic assumptions, but on hard logic and rigorous science.

[Meadowchik]

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That was no strawman analogy, and I speak as someone who has a certificate in crime scene investigation.  I have seen people convicted without any evidence having been collected and tested in a crime lab.  It happens in real life, and usually because the accused cannot afford a good lawyer.  I even heard a judge here in Provo say that he feared that a miscarriage of justice was taking place -- as he accepted the plea deal already arranged.  As to your Boothe example, surely you know that Boothe escaped and was shot.  So I don't know what you mean about no need for a trial, unless you are justifying shooting him down like a dog.  After all, if you just know that someone is guilty, why bother with a trial?  That's how innocent people get convicted.

I have pointed out elsewhere how a crime scene investigation is just like an archeological excavation, and science is at the heart of both:  https://www.quora.com/How-legit-are-geology-and-archaeology-I-started-to-get-interested-in-them-after-taking-some-geophysics-courses-but-at-the-moment-archaeology-just-sounds-like-nonsense-to-me-and-inaccurate-that-the-more-I-look-into/answer/Bob-Smith-3106 .

While it is true that Bruce R. McConkie put a phrase about "the principal ancestors" in the intro to the 1981 edition of the BofM, it was removed by Brethren who realized his error.  The BofM itself makes no such claim, as any scientific and systematic reading would quickly show.  The same applies to statements made by Joseph Smith about who he thought the Lamanites were or are.  He read the text of the BofM to his scribes, and knew nothing about ancient civilizations.

A fact-based analysis of the BofM does not use the approach you describe at all.  The historicity of any document can be tested by science, and professional document examiners do that every day.  It is not based on rumor or automatic assumptions, but on hard logic and rigorous science.

Boothe is an example of someone who we "know" committed murder, and I am saying I would still favor a trial for someone like that, unless they pled guilty. So I am arguing for trials to work the rigor of the judicial process. I support the rigorous process. Yet as you and I both know, the trial is not the first stage of rigor. Accusations of guilt should be supported to some extent before arrest and before a trial.

So it would not be a miscarriage of justice to dismiss a claim that a person born in 1900 killed President Lincoln. Such a rejection of an idea is indeed dismissiveness, but legitimately and scientifically dismissive. 

In other words, it would not be illegitimate or unscientific to dismiss the claim of Book of Mormon historicity based on a shallow understanding of its claims.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

.............................

In other words, it would not be illegitimate or unscientific to dismiss the claim of Book of Mormon historicity based on a shallow understanding of its claims.

Anybody can dismiss anything they darn well please, and I won't be arguing with them about it.  My objection to Coe was his unscientific dismissal under the guise of science.  As several observers, including Dan Vogel, have noted on this board, Coe's lack of knowledge about the BofM was embarrassing.  He pretended to dismiss it based on science, which was irresponsible.  He should have simply said, "I don't have time for that preposterous book.  No one in his right mind would spend a minute examining it.  It doesn't deserve to be given a scientific examination."  That would have been an honest response.  It was clearly "unscientific" to dismiss it "based on a shallow understanding of its claims."

[CA Steve]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A prime example would be his ability to reproduce Early Modern English in the BofM.  Could he have done so?  Is it reasonable to suggest that he could?  There is nothing apriori about Stanford Carmack's careful research on that

This is exactly the kind of question that I am talking about.  Whether or not EMoD is in the Book of Mormon is a question Skousan is addressing. But this question of Joseph ability to reproduce it, if it is actually in there, is one not addressed by any scholarship I have seen and as such is not useful other than to score unsupported rhetorical points. If you have evidence to show he could not of placed it there, accidentally or otherwise, I am interested in seeing it.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This is exactly the kind of question that I am talking about.  Whether or not EMoD is in the Book of Mormon is a question Skousan is addressing. But this question of Joseph ability to reproduce it, if it is actually in there, is one not addressed by any scholarship I have seen and as such is not useful other than to score unsupported rhetorical points. If you have evidence to show he could not of placed it there, accidentally or otherwise, I am interested in seeing it.

There is zero evidence of EModE being available to anybody in the 19th century, Steve, except in old books from the 16th century, and no scholar could have duplicated that 16th century mode of speech, even if he realized how it could be done.  Using the KJV wouldn't duplicate it.  The language was fully extinct.  No one else in the 19th century used that style of writing.  The conclusion is direct:  The English BofM had to have been rendered by someone in the 16th century.  That still accommodates it being a pseudepigraphon, and those who think it a piece of fiction merely have to place it in the 16th century.  Then you could theorize that Luman Walters the Magician was the one who conveyed it to Joseph, having obtained it on a trip to London where he obtained the manuscript from the remnants of the estate of Dr John Dee the Magus (I'm just throwing names around here, you understand).

Dr Stanford Carmack has spent years making his case through systematic evidence.  It was as much a surprise to him as to everyone else.  It is not a ploy, but merely an example of what happens when real research is allowed to lead the scholar wherever it takes him.  Carmack even summarized some of the high points on this board for us:

Quote

     The language of the Book of Mormon is very different in form and structure from pseudo-biblical writings of the late 1700s and early 1800s, in a number of linguistic domains. The influence of pseudo-biblical style on the earliest text of the Book of Mormon is thus contra-indicated. Of course there are some similarities, but there are many fundamental, structural differences in morphology and syntax. These differences rule out classifying the Book of Mormon as a pseudo-biblical effort. That the earliest text also matches a wide variety of Early Modern English usage also means that it is not a pseudo-archaic text either.

Findings

-  Agentive of: The Book of Mormon is broadly archaic in this regard, approaching King James usage levels; pseudo-biblical writings have very little agentive of usage.

-  Relative pronoun usage with personal antecedents: The Book of Mormon’s pattern is archaic but neither biblical, pseudo-biblical, or modern; this solid authorship marker argues strongly against Joseph Smith wording the earliest text.

- Periphrastic did: Joseph Smith was extremely unlikely to have produced the ubiquitous past-tense syntax of the Book of Mormon; its high rate and syntactic distribution are 16th-century in character, not pseudo-biblical, biblical, or modern.

-  Verbal complementation after high-frequency verbs: One cannot generate the Book of Mormon’s heavy finite rates from biblical, pseudo-biblical, or modern syntactic patterns; only thorough knowledge of Early Modern English possibilities generates its archaic auxiliary usage, heavy doses of dual-object syntax, and principled variation.

-  The more part: Book of Mormon usage is similar to what we see in some chronicles from the first half of the Early Modern English era; we don’t find this obsolete phrase in pseudo-biblical writings; scant King James usage left no impression on them in this regard.

-  Had spake: This leveled past-participial form is absent from the King James Bible and pseudo-biblical writings; the Book of Mormon’s use of related “had been spake” and “of which hath been spoken”—both rare and attested in the 17th century—inform us that “had spake” is best classified as an Early Modern English form.

-  The { th} plural: The Book of Mormon gives us a nearly complete view of the diverse possibilities of { th} inflection in earlier English; neither the King James Bible nor pseudo-biblical writings do.  champatsch, April 25, 2017, http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68793-kjv-in-the-book-of-mormon/?page=2#comment-1209715457  

Stanford Carmack, “ The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 14 (2015):119-186, pdf online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/carmack-v14-2015-pp119-186-PDF.pdf , but abstract online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/ . 

Quote

119, abstract: “The 1829 Book of Mormon contains nearly 2,000 instances of this particular syntax, using it 27% of the time in past-tense contexts. The 1611 King James Bible —which borrowed heavily from Tyndale’s biblical translations of the 1520s and ’30s — employs this syntax less than 2% of the time.”

Skousen, Royal J., and Stanford Carmack, “Editing Out the ‘Bad Grammar’ in the Book of Mormon,” BYU lecture, April 6, 2016, formal transcript published by Interpreter, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/grammatical- variation.pdf .

Carmack, Stanford, “Is the Book of Mormon a Pseudo-Archaic Text?” Interpreter, 28 (2018):177-232, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/is-the-book-of-mormon-a-pseudo-archaic-text/#more-12401 .

Skousen, Royal J., and Stanford Carmack, “The Nature of the Original Language of the Book of Mormon,” lecture at BYU Alumni Center, Sept 25, 2018, online at https://interpreterfoundation.org/presentation-on-the-nature-of-the-original-language-of-the-book-of-mormon/ .

This is merely a sampling of the detailed bibliography which is available.

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anybody can dismiss anything they darn well please, and I won't be arguing with them about it.  My objection to Coe was his unscientific dismissal under the guise of science.  As several observers, including Dan Vogel, have noted on this board, Coe's lack of knowledge about the BofM was embarrassing.  He pretended to dismiss it based on science, which was irresponsible.  He should have simply said, "I don't have time for that preposterous book.  No one in his right mind would spend a minute examining it.  It doesn't deserve to be given a scientific examination."  That would have been an honest response.  It was clearly "unscientific" to dismiss it "based on a shallow understanding of its claims."

Given enough accuracy, a shallow understanding can be enough in some cases to scientifically dismiss a proposition. Dismissal can be based on a scientific algorithm.

Neither of us can speak for Coe, but, listening to him in both interviews about his view of the Book of Mormon, he not only disagrees with the overall picture of indigenous populations created by the BOM, but he does point out inconsistencies critical to him as a researcher, like with the Mayan language and other languages. He takes an overall view that there is going to be significant, visible artifacts of Lamanites and Nephites if they existed, artifacts including economic infrastructure,  linguistic influence, etc... So, given his deep knowledge of his area of research, I'd say he could be able to say the match is totally wrong even if he gets some details wrong. Some details are not going to compensate for the critical inconsistencies.

Edited October 13, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Given enough accuracy, a shallow understanding can be enough in some cases to scientifically dismiss a proposition. Dismissal can be based on a scientific algorithm.

That is simply false.  No scientist believes that, and no student of science would get anything but an "F" on a paper taking that approach.  Scientists and students of science are expected to marshal their sources and to apply them in a logical way.  Once again, you seem to miss the point that I have no problem with someone (including any scientist) dismissing the BofM without doing a scientific examination.  But it is anti-science to claim that one has applied science when one has not -- it's called lying and hypocrisy.  Dr Coe knew better.

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Neither of us can speak for Coe, but, listening to him in both interviews about his view of the Book of Mormon, he not only disagrees with the overall picture of indigenous populations created by the BOM, but he does point out inconsistencies critical to him as a researcher, like with the Mayan language and other languages.

His claimed inconsistencies are largely nonsense.  I have read his articles and books about Mesoamerican cultures, and he does a good job on that.  His claims are careful and fact-based.  His assumptions about the BofM are not careful or fact-based, including his "overall picture of indigenous populations created by the BOM."  Had he compared his fact-based books and articles on the Maya with a careful reading of the BofM, his conclusions would have been far different and more respectful.

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

He takes an overall view that there is going to be significant, visible artifacts of Lamanites and Nephites if they existed, artifacts including economic infrastructure,  linguistic influence, etc...

Well, of course.  That is what I have been saying all along, and that is what such scholars as John Sorenson and Brant Gardner have also been saying -- and delivering the goods.  Coe didn't bother to make a systematic comparison based on his scientific knowledge.  Instead, he pretended to do so.

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So, given his deep knowledge of his area of research, I'd say he could be able to say the match is totally wrong even if he gets some details wrong. Some details are not going to compensate for the critical inconsistencies.

And you base this on which Coe interview or article?

[bdouglas]

14 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Given enough accuracy, a shallow understanding can be enough in some cases to scientifically dismiss a proposition. Dismissal can be based on a scientific algorithm.

Neither of us can speak for Coe, but, listening to him in both interviews about his view of the Book of Mormon, he not only disagrees with the overall picture of indigenous populations created by the BOM, but he does point out inconsistencies critical to him as a researcher, like with the Mayan language and other languages. He takes an overall view that there is going to be significant, visible artifacts of Lamanites and Nephites if they existed, artifacts including economic infrastructure,  linguistic influence, etc... So, given his deep knowledge of his area of research, I'd say he could be able to say the match is totally wrong even if he gets some details wrong. Some details are not going to compensate for the critical inconsistencies.

Sterling McMurrin said it best: “You don’t get books from angels.”

This appears to have been the starting position of Michael Coe when it came to the BOM, and it remains the starting position of every other materialist who happens to come across the BOM now.

“You don’t get books from angels.”

When this is your starting position, what is the point of engaging in a serious evaluation of the BOM?

Richard Bushman has asked why the American Studies/Literature departments of colleges and universities all across America have never even looked at the BOM.

“You don’t get books from angels.”

But this book, the BOM, did come from an angel: the only explanation that works, that fits the evidence, is the one Joseph Smith gave.

Edited October 13, 2019 by bdouglas

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is simply false.  No scientist believes that, and no student of science would get anything but an "F" on a paper taking that approach.  Scientists and students of science are expected to marshal their sources and to apply them in a logical way.  Once again, you seem to miss the point that I have no problem with someone (including any scientist) dismissing the BofM without doing a scientific examination.  But it is anti-science to claim that one has applied science when one has not -- it's called lying and hypocrisy.  Dr Coe knew better.

His claimed inconsistencies are largely nonsense.  I have read his articles and books about Mesoamerican cultures, and he does a good job on that.  His claims are careful and fact-based.  His assumptions about the BofM are not careful or fact-based, including his "overall picture of indigenous populations created by the BOM."  Had he compared his fact-based books and articles on the Maya with a careful reading of the BofM, his conclusions would have been far different and more respectful.

Well, of course.  That is what I have been saying all along, and that is what such scholars as John Sorenson and Brant Gardner have also been saying -- and delivering the goods.  Coe didn't bother to make a systematic comparison based on his scientific knowledge.  Instead, he pretended to do so.

And you base this on which Coe interview or article?

I'm not talking about a paper. I'm saying scientists can make objective, scientific decisions about what lines of deep research to pursue and what avenues to dismiss. Of course some can dismiss a question arbitrarily. But dismissal can also be scientific, given enough accuracy. 

Of course you should know that law enforcement can dismiss witness claims or hearsay or second hand accounts. They could do so arbitrarily, sure, but some can also make the choice to filter information and leads in an organised, reasonable way.

You're reading alot into Coe's motivations and intentions, and you're making personal assumptions about him. Perhaps step back and realise that your resentment could be based more on your own disappointment than a nontrivial error on Coe's part.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

Sterling McMurrin said it best: “You don’t get books from angels.”

This appears to have been the starting position of Michael Coe when it came to the BOM, and it remains the starting position of every other materialist who happens to come across the BOM now.

“You don’t get books from angels.”

When this is your starting position, what is the point of engaging in a serious evaluation of the BOM?

Richard Bushman has asked why the American Studies/Literature departments of colleges and universities all across America have never even looked at the BOM.

“You don’t get books from angels.”

But this book, the BOM, did come from an angel: the only explanation that works, that fits the evidence, is the one Joseph Smith gave.

Of course the claimed provenance of the Book of Mormon is not scientific. It cannot be proven that the BOM came from an angel. Those who try to treat it scientifically have to ignore the scientifically-fatal blow of its origins. It was not found on an archaeological dig or on the shelves of an ancient library, but is a text very similar to others that came forth in the 1800s and it came from a young man who initially tried to sell it. It is an arrogant claim to state that an angel is "the only explanation that works." 

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It was not found on an archaeological dig or on the shelves of an ancient library, but is a text very similar to others that came forth in the 1800s and it came from a young man who initially tried to sell it. 

Only the BOM is not really like other books "that came forth in the 1800s". Not at all. However I will concede that to those who have a superficial acquaintance with it, it might appear so (some bits, at least).

As to its supernatural origins, there is not a single book or theory positing a materialist i.e. human origin for the BOM that makes any sense. These books and theories require huge leaps of faith to accept ... far more faith, in fact, than is required to accept the simple explanation Joseph Smith gave.

Could it be that Joseph Smith was telling truth? 

(Now, that's a dangerous proposition!)

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It is an arrogant claim to state that an angel is "the only explanation that works." 

Almost as arrogant as someone like Michael Coe opining on the BOM without ever having actually read it.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

far more faith, in fact, than is required to accept the simple explanation Joseph Smith gave.

Unless one does not believe angels exist.  If something is viewed as impossible, it can never be even slightly probable.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Calm

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It is an arrogant claim to state that an angel is "the only explanation that works." 

If you can point me to any theory that posits a materialist origin for the BOM that actually works, that makes sense, and doesn't require Joseph Smith to have possessed not just a level of genius that no other man in the history of the world has possessed but an evil genius (necessary for passing off as genuine what was in fact a deliberate fraud) ... if you can point me to any such theory that actually works, I would like to read it.

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless one does not believe angels exist. 

That is correct. And if you don't believe in angels, and that there is a God who can, and does from time to time, intervene in the affairs of men, then you are left with theories for a materialist origin — theories, however, that don't work, and require more faith to accept than the simple explanation Joseph Smith gave.

[Gervin]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is zero evidence of EModE being available to anybody in the 19th century, Steve, except in old books from the 16th century, and no scholar could have duplicated that 16th century mode of speech, even if he realized how it could be done.  Using the KJV wouldn't duplicate it.  The language was fully extinct. 

I think some Early Modern English might have slipped into the country without your knowledge.  

"In 1751, the London Company of Comedians , under the direction of Lewis Hallam, landed in Virginia where the ban on the immigration of actors had recently been lifted. Their first production was The Merchant of Venice , which played to mixed groups of settlers and Native Americans, and over the next ten years they added Richard III, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Othello and Hamlet to their repertory . By 1754, the company had toured prosperous cities like Fredericksburg, Williamsburg, and Annapolis. They spent four years in Jamaica and returned to Philadelphia and New York in 1758 with new productions of Cymbeline, The Taming of the Shrew, and Macbeth . Despite the continuing animosity towards anything British, citizens of the new nation continued to love Shakespeare who was now equally fashionable on both sides of the Atlantic. In the 19th century travelling companies spread the plays into every corner of the United States. The American public now had the opportunity to see most of the plays. Shakespeare served as a unifying force throughout the century: his works were one of the few things that were constant while the country and its people were expanding. No other writer was so quickly assimilated into the wilderness, perhaps because his works could be presented in the easily accessible form of drama. The blood and violence, passion and basic comedy must have had a strong appeal to frontiersmen. As early as 1810 there were theater companies established from Montreal to the Gulf of Mexico; from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the western tip of the Great Lakes; from the northern Ohio territory down the Ohio River, through Kentucky and St. Louis. These companies produced their own plays, as well as welcomed-primarily British-touring stars. Charles Kean began his tour in 1831 in New York and eventually returned 15 years later through the Mississippi Valley.

https://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/resources/shakespeare-and-america/

[Calm]

Bdouglas, Do they actually require more faith?  If one has never seen an angel, but has seen genius writers and experienced strange coincidences in one's life, does it take more faith to believe in something that approaches what one has experienced or more faith to believe in something totally unlike anything one has experienced?

I believe what Joseph says.  I just don't see the "more faith" as a useful argument because I don't see it as that accurate.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Calm

[bdouglas]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course the claimed provenance of the Book of Mormon is not scientific. It cannot be proven that the BOM came from an angel. Those who try to treat it scientifically have to ignore the scientifically-fatal blow of its origins. It was not found on an archaeological dig or on the shelves of an ancient library, but is a text very similar to others that came forth in the 1800s and it came from a young man who initially tried to sell it. It is an arrogant claim to state that an angel is "the only explanation that works." 

But really, the BOM is just the beginning. You also have to account for the staggeringly original and profound Book of Moses, which JS produced shortly after the BOM was published ... not to mention over a hundred revelations, previous to the publication of the BOM and after, revelations produced on the fly, dictated in the presence of witnesses, revelations in which God speaks in the first person in language not seen outside of the Bible ...

One could go on an on. If there is such a thing as a prophet who speaks in the name of God, then Joseph Smith was such a prophet. If there is no God and therefore no prophets — well then, we must account for Joseph Smith in some other way.

Bottom line for me is: if there is a God and there are prophets, Joseph Smith was one of them. If there is no God ... well then, Joseph Smith is a huge anomaly in the history of the world, an anomaly that no materialist has even come close to accounting for.

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bdouglas, Do they actually require more faith?  If one has never seen an angel, but has seen genius writers and experienced strange coincidences in one's life, does it take more faith to believe in something that approaches what one has experienced or more faith to believe in something totally unlike anything one has experienced?

I believe what Joseph says.  I just don't see the "more faith" as a useful argument because I don't see it as that accurate.

I think of this in the same way I think of the arguments atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins make for the non-existence of God. To me, it takes for more faith to believe in  a creation (world) that has no creator — it takes a far greater leap of faith for me to believe the atheist's materialist faith than it does to accept the faith of my Grandmother — that there is a God and he is our Father and he made the world.

And so it is with the BOM. I find it much harder to believe, for example, Dan Vogel's theories for a human origin for the BOM ... it is harder for me to believe such theories than it is to believe Joseph Smith's simple explanation.

[bdouglas]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

does it take more faith to believe in something that approaches what one has experienced or more faith to believe in something totally unlike anything one has experienced?

This is interesting. It reminds me of Laman's and Lemuel's "The Lord maketh no such thing known unto us." If you are like Laman and Lemuel, what choice do you have but to look for a materialist origin for the BOM?

But if you have experienced God firsthand and know that he lives, know that he has intervened in your life in small ways and perhaps also in large ways——if you know this, then it is not hard to accept Joseph Smith's simple explanation for the origin of the BOM.

(Sorry if this comes across as rude. I'm not saying that critics and non-believers in the BOM are like Laman and Lemuel, only that it is a mistake to assume something doesn't exist because you haven't experienced it.)

Edited October 14, 2019 by bdouglas

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

I think of this in the same way I think of the arguments atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins make for the non-existence of God. To me, it takes for more faith to believe in  a creation (world) that has no creator — it takes a far greater leap of faith for me to believe the atheist's materialist faith than it does to accept the faith of my Grandmother — that there is a God and he is our Father and he made the world.

And so it is with the BOM. I find it much harder to believe, for example, Dan Vogel's theories for a human origin for the BOM ... it is harder for me to believe such theories than it is to believe Joseph Smith's simple explanation.

I am not surprised there are those who see it as more reasonable for their to be a Creator than none.  Just as there are those who see the reverse as more reasonable. 

It all depends on the assumptions we bring to the topic. 

My assumption is we don’t know enough about the universe to determine what is more reasonable.  So while I believe to the core of my being in God, I don’t see that as any more reasonable than to believe in no God. 

“I'm not saying that critics and non-believers in the BOM are like Laman and Lemuel, only that it is a mistake to assume something doesn't exist because you haven't experienced it.”

I agree. 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Calm

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

Only the BOM is not really like other books "that came forth in the 1800s". Not at all. However I will concede that to those who have a superficial acquaintance with it, it might appear so (some bits, at least).

As to its supernatural origins, there is not a single book or theory positing a materialist i.e. human origin for the BOM that makes any sense. These books and theories require huge leaps of faith to accept ... far more faith, in fact, than is required to accept the simple explanation Joseph Smith gave.

Could it be that Joseph Smith was telling truth? 

(Now, that's a dangerous proposition!)

At one time I would have completely agreed with this. Eventually I came to realize the Book of Mormon could be explained naturalistically. Joseph just needed to read a manuscript that was created by someone who did have the knowledge required to produce it. No great leaps of faith are required for this view.