Emode as Proof Js Did Not Write Bom

[Stargazer]

On 8/3/2020 at 2:47 PM, stemelbow said:

That would be for you to explain not him.  Or are you saying God speaks in EModE?  DId God translate, Joseph translate, or some other random person do the actual translation?  The problem you are pushing Richard on is your problem.  If JOseph didn't do the translation as he claimed, then who did?  If God why would he use archaic language?  If you don't have an answer, then why do you think Richard should?  

This wasn't directed at me, but it's an interesting question.

Of course, God doesn't speak in EModE, but assuming for the sake of argument that the text of the Book of Mormon was given by God to Joseph Smith via dictation (which seems to me to be the case), what form of English do you think God should have used?  And why?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

To which famous skeptic Michael Shermer once said: "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God."

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

Yes, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins said much the same thing, which is why the finite and entirely naturalistic god of LDS theology is so engaging.

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If he says it was by the power of God are we forced to believe if we can’t provide an alternative explanation?

That's the rational explanation. Or is it?

Sorry, just kidding!

Not Kidding: No, of course not.

I expect confirmation from God Himself. Without that, it's no more than an interesting parlor trick. In that same vein, the Book of Mormon is an interesting parlor trick, but one that invites the observer to seek confirmation from God. Absent that confirmation, it remains as it appears.

The evidence of the book's apparent genesis and the content of the book itself provide an impetus to seek confirmation. That's why EModE is potentially important. Because some intellectually-oriented people are looking for independent intellectual evidence. Perhaps finding such may intrigue them to seek divine evidence. Which they may then discover.

You ask very interesting questions, by the way!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Without that, it's no more than an interesting parlor trick.

Too interesting not to look for trick. https://youtu.be/s_jI6g4Kcz8

Must have a machine to slide the glass up and down so quickly I am thinking given it is likely heavy. I am thinking seals around the bottom to avoid leaking and the gravel in a box that is slightly smaller that the glass so as to avoid disturbance and drag. 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Calm

[InCognitus]

I immediately thought of this thread when I watched comedian John Branyan tell the story of the Three Little Pigs in the language of William Shakespeare.  

The first minute of the video is on another topic, so if you only want to hear the lead up to and the Three Little Pigs part, forward to about the one minute mark.

The Three Little Pigs in Early Modern English:

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/2/2020 at 4:41 PM, cinepro said:

It's not Richard's job to explain who wrote the Book of Mormon. Even if we don't know who did it, that doesn't mean that "God did it" is the logically compelling argument. It simply means that we don't know who did it, or how Joseph did it. It is enough for Richard to simply say that the evidence doesn't support your theory about the origin of the book.

Sure, his "Joseph did it" theory may not satisfactorily explain what you present as evidence that there is "Early Modern English" in the book, but I'm pretty sure your "God did it" theory also doesn't satisfactorily explain it either.

I can't explain the phenomenon that people describe as "UFOs", but that doesn't mean I'm logically compelled to believe they exist, or accept someone else's theory about what they are and where they came from. Unless they can provide evidence that supports their specific theory, of course.

 

On 8/2/2020 at 6:57 PM, bdouglas said:

The BOM will never be "logically" proven and no one will ever be "compelled" to believe it——not in this life, at least. God gives us enough to support belief, but not more. "My grace is sufficient for the meek," the scripture says.

Richard's blithe assertion that "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon" is insupportable——this is what I was trying to show him.

That and the fact that there are no naturalistic BOM origin theories that make any sense. They require huge leaps of faith to accept——greater leaps of faith, in fact, than is required to believe the simple explanation JS gave.

It is more honest for one to say "I don't know where the BOM came from" than it is to say "Joseph Smith wrote it."

The point of my opening post is that the "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon" theory is dead. If it wasn't dead before, it is dead now with EModE findings.

Cinepro’s point would be valid if we held to the claim that the authenticity of the Book of Mormon could be definitively proven by physical or empirical means. But we don’t. We present it with the invitation to take it on faith and to have it verified in one’s heart by spiritual means. 
 

Ergo, the burden of proof is on those who claim it is a fraud. Whether or not he is willing to own up to it, Richard is obliged to prove his assertion that “Joseph wrote it.” Failing that, the question is still open for those who would avail themselves of Moroni’s promise that the truth of it will be established to them personally “by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

[Robert J Anderson]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Cinepro’s point would be valid if we held to the claim that the authenticity of the Book of Mormon could be definitively proven by physical or empirical means. But we don’t. We present it with the invitation to take it on faith and to have it verified in one’s heart by spiritual means. 
 

Ergo, the burden of proof is on those who claim it is a fraud. Whether or not he is willing to own up to it, Richard is obliged to prove his assertion that “Joseph wrote it.” Failing that, the question is still open for those who would avail themselves of Moroni’s promise that the truth of it will be established to them personally “by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

The above could be used to justify pretty much any belief as the spiritual experience is personal and subjective.  It then turns into a battle of the spiritual experiences that seems to not have a solution. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

The above could be used to justify pretty much any belief as the spiritual experience is personal and subjective.  It then turns into a battle of the spiritual experiences that seems to not have a solution. 

I’m not an apologist for nor an attacker of other belief systems. They can manage their theology and belief promulgation as they see fit. I will not oppose them. 
 

But the gospel of Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith is and always has been a matter of faith. We are in this mortal sphere to learn to walk by faith. It is not intended that we convert people through argumentation and debate. Our task is to invite and encourage others to “come and see” what we offer. 
 

To do that, we need only keep the question open by fending off attacks on our faith. It is our self-appointed adversaries who have set the onerous task for themselves of disproving our faith through the tools they have at their disposal: argumentation and attack. This they will never be able to do, because they cannot prove a negative. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert J Anderson]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not an apologist for nor an attacker of other belief systems. They can manage their theology and belief promulgation as they see fit. I will not oppose them. 
 

But the gospel of Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith is and always has been a matter of faith. We are in this mortal sphere to learn to walk by faith. It is not intended that we convert people through argumentation and debate. Our task is to invite and encourage others to “come and see” what we offer. 
 

To do that, we need only keep the question open by fending off attacks on our faith. It is our self-appointed adversaries who have set the onerous task for themselves of disproving our faith through the tools they have at their disposal: argumentation and attack. This they will never be able to do, because they cannot prove a negative. 

My brother who recently left the church says he just wants to be left alone and will leave others alone if they do the same.  Do you think these supposed enemies are that way because they feel constant pressure from family to return?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

The above could be used to justify pretty much any belief as the spiritual experience is personal and subjective.  It then turns into a battle of the spiritual experiences that seems to not have a solution. 

Yes and those who held that belief would remain nonmembers as they already do.    I am afraid that there will always be differences in religion and politics, while everyone knows that their position is the "truth" without anyone able to prove it.

It's a distinction without a difference!

What remains is the status quo, but with a reason to be charitable to others whose beliefs differ from yours, because yours are just as "subjective" as his- but at least as important to him as yours are to you, without need for argument or rancor since no one can prove they are right- or others are wrong- anyway.

It's called "diversity"    It's the same way you pick a political party based on feelings, or find a mate or decide your occupation, or how you raise your kids.

The theory that objective evidence is needed to take up a religion, or any of these others has itself no objective evidence.  

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

My brother who recently left the church says he just wants to be left alone and will leave others alone if they do the same.  Do you think these supposed enemies are that way because they feel constant pressure from family to return?

I think there are some that feel that way.  Attacking as a form of self defense. 
 

I think there are a myriad of reasons for aggressive criticism and many who engage in it have combinations of reasons.  I have heard of one who expressed it as the Church wasted his life up to that point, he wasn’t going to let it continue to do so...I assume his interpretation of that was to try and prevent it from wasting others’ lives or perhaps by criticizing the Church he was asserting control over it to some degree.  I have read others are angry, feeling betrayed and they desire to damage it. Still others seem to be the aggressive type and when believers would attack nonbelievers and now do the reverse. I think it likely a great many are criticizing the Church as a way to put emotional distance between it and them. And it seems likely others are attacking the church as part of their need to justify their choice to leave.   Simple dislike is probably a motivator for some. Some fear that the Church will harm others or believe there is another path that needs to be taken and members will only take it once they realize the Church path is wrong. 
 

 Doubt that is a complete list. 

[Bob Crockett]

On 10/17/2020 at 7:38 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Ergo, the burden of proof is on those who claim it is a fraud. 

That is an absurd statement. 

Thus, when Scientology claims the existence of thetans, the burden of proof is whose?  Whose burden is it to prove that Mithras was born from a rock?  That Mary was immaculately conceived?  That Catholic saints do not move of their own volition? 

There is no burden of proof as ultimate proof is unavailing.  The burden of persuasion is upon the person advocating the position of improbability. 

The theory of Ye Olde English is one of desperation.  

The Book of Mormon is a question of faith.  It is not to be analyzed by the false theoretical constructs of unbelievers. 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[bdouglas]

😊

11 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

That is an absurd statement. 

Thus, when Scientology claims the existence of thetans, the burden of proof is whose?  Whose burden is it to prove that Mithras was born from a rock?  That Mary was immaculately conceived?  That Catholic saints do not move of their own volition? 

There is no burden of proof as ultimate proof is unavailing.  The burden of persuasion is upon the person advocating the position of improbability. 

The theory of Ye Olde English is one of desperation.  

The Book of Mormon is a question of faith.  It is not to be analyzed by the false theoretical constructs of unbelievers. 

When I read your posts, I say to myself, "Well I guess I am not the only cross-grained, ill-tempered curmudgeon on this board." 🙂

Edited October 18, 2020 by bdouglas

[Bob Crockett]

44 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

😊

When I read your posts, I say to myself, "Well I guess I am not the only cross-grained, ill-tempered curmudgeon on this board." 🙂

I oppose an ad hominem.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I oppose an ad hominem.

The irony here is killing me.   

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

The irony here is killing me.   

Hah.  

Please don't tear into me.  It isn't worth it. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/18/2020 at 4:20 AM, Bob Crockett said:

That is an absurd statement. 

Thus, when Scientology claims the existence of thetans, the burden of proof is whose?  Whose burden is it to prove that Mithras was born from a rock?  That Mary was immaculately conceived?  That Catholic saints do not move of their own volition? 

There is no burden of proof as ultimate proof is unavailing.  The burden of persuasion is upon the person advocating the position of improbability. 

The theory of Ye Olde English is one of desperation.  

The Book of Mormon is a question of faith.  It is not to be analyzed by the false theoretical constructs of unbelievers. 

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. 
 

First you say I’m absurd because I say that the Book of Mormon is a question of faith, not empirical proof. Then you yourself say the Book of Mormon is a question of faith. 
 

You’re not making sense, Bob  

 

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. 
 

First you say I’m absurd because I say that the Book of Mormon is a question of faith, not empirical proof. Then you yourself say the Book of Mormon is a question of faith. 
 

You’re not making sense, Bob  

 

The content I quote is absurd.  

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The content I quote is absurd.  

My impression is that you are both getting at the same thing. The way I'd say it is that believing in the Book of Mormon is a matter of faith--it is a matter of choosing to believe because of spiritual, psychological, and/or sociological reasons. If somebody has faith that it is true, it is up to the critic (whether within your own mind or elsewhere), to convince you that the faith isn't tenable.