Jump to content

Emode as Proof Js Did Not Write Bom


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 by Calm
Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

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:

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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.”

Link to post
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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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 by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
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?

Link to post
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 by mfbukowski
Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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 by Bob Crockett
Link to post

😊

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 by bdouglas
  • Like 1
Link to post
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  

 

Link to post
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.  

Link to post
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Robert F. Smith
      A symposium on "EGYPT AND THE OLD TESTAMENT" will be held at the Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, Gabelsbergerstr. 35, Munich/München, Germany, on 6-7 Dec 2019.
      The proceedings will be published as ÄAT (AEGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT) volume 100.
      More on the symposium can be found at https://www.freunde-abrahams.de/aegypten-und-altes-testament/  .
      ÄAT's spectrum covers the philological, art historical, and archaeological branches of Egyptology, as well as Old Testament exegesis, the archaeology, glyptics and epigraphy of Israel/Palestine and neighboring regions such as Sinai and Transjordan, literature and history of religions, from the Bronze Ages up to Greco-Roman and early Christian periods, as well as relevant aspects of research history.
       
    • By Bernard Gui
      At the end of Alma 37, Alma gives his final instructions to his faithful young son Helaman. After encouraging him always to be obedient to God’s commandments and to pray to God continually, Alma uses the Liahona as an object lesson to teach Helaman how to obtain eternal life through following the words of Christ. Using analogy, Alma compares the Liahona, the temporal compass provided by God to Lehi, with the words of Christ, the spiritual guide provided to all by God. In this remarkable passage, Alma, like all good teachers, repeats this image three times, and like a good Nephite teacher, he uses a parallelism to increase the impact.
      Alma employs the alternate parallel form, one of the most common and effective forms of poetic parallelism in the Book of Mormon. It appears hundreds of times. An alternate consists of two or more lines that are repeated in parallel order. The simple alternate form is outlined ABAB. Extended alternates are outlined ABCABC, etc. 
       Alma uses three extended alternates in rapid sequence to instruct his son. 
       A   For behold, it is as easy to give heed to the word of Christ, 
          B   which will point to you 
              C   a straight course to eternal bliss, 
      A   as it was for our fathers to give heed to this compass, 
           B   which would point unto them 
               C   a straight course to the promised land.
      The A phrase compares the ease of heeding the words of Christ with the ease of looking at the Liahona. The B phrase describes the purpose of A which is to point the course. The C phrase declares the final destination of those who follow A, salvation and arrival at the promised land.
       A   For just as surely as this director did bring our fathers, 
         B   by following its course, 
             C   to the promised land, 
      A   shall the words of Christ, 
         B   if we follow their course,
             C  carry us beyond this vale of sorrow into a far better land of promise.
      The A phrase again compares the words of Christ with the Liahona, but in reversed order. The B phrase indicates what we should do with A – follow their directions, and the C phrase gives the destination of those who do B – the promised land and a far better place, eternal life. 
       A   for so was it with our fathers; 
         B    for so was it prepared for them,
            C   that if they would look they might live; 
      A   even so it is with us.
         B   The way is prepared, 
            C   and if we will look we may live forever.
      In this last alternate, Alma personalizes the analogies of the first two. The A phrase compares the Nephite fathers (Lehi and Nephi) with Alma and his son Helaman. The B phrase indicates that God prepared the ways of direction for all of them. The C phrase compares the physical salvation of the Nephite fathers by following the Liahona with the spiritual salvation promised to all of us who will look upon Christ.
      Alma concludes his instructions with another impassioned fatherly plea that his son rise to the greatness of his calling.
      This passage indicates deliberate logical planning on the part of Alma in giving crucial instructions to his son prior to his death. This is what Alma thought would be of most worth to his son - look to Christ. It gives us insight into the Nephite mind, especially that of a powerful and gifted leader. I am so grateful for the Book of Mormon and the beautiful intricacies that await in its pages for us to discover. (Thanks to Donald Parry for his marvelous edition of the Book of Mormon. Poetic Parallelism in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted. Maxwell Institute, 2007).
       Your comments are welcomed. 
       Here is the passage in context.
       
    • By Five Solas
      1. Read the Book of Mormon
      2.  Ask God
      3. With a sincere heart
      4. With real intent
      5. Having faith in Christ
      Failure is not an option, if you believe Moroni.  First, you must read.  Next, you must follow with prayer while meeting his remaining 3 prerequisites.  Then the truth of the Book of Mormon will be manifested to you.  Full stop.
      Therefore if the truth is not manifested, the reason is as plain as the nose on your face: One or more of the prerequisites were not met.  There is no alternate possibility.  "It’s very simple"—as President Trump is fond of saying in his press conferences.
      5 possible ways to fail, and only 5.  So here is a question:  With LDS Church growth stalling and 70+% of millennials going inactive/leaving the LDS Church by age 20 (courtesy of Mormonleaks), which of the 5 do you think represents the greatest challenge?  Or are they all equally challenging?  Or do you think it's some combination of them that present difficulty?
      And while we’re on the question, how exactly does one go about achieving the last three prerequisites?  Would any LDS seriously admonish an investigator to read the Bible first in order to attain “faith in Christ” prior to attempting the Book of Mormon?
      --Erik
      _____________________________________________
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
      --H.L. Mencken
    • By hope_for_things
      Where did the Book of Mormon come from.  I constantly hear this idea argued from both apologetic and critical sides.  All in an attempt to explain how Joseph could have produced the Book of Mormon.  Yet, when it comes right down to it, both sides should be able to agree on some pretty basic historical facts from the evidence.  
      Joseph Smith dictated the content of the BoM to some scribes Nearly everyone should be able to agree on that statement, and I think that really explains it in a nutshell.  I was thinking about other figures in history that are revered for things they produced.  Newton, Einstein, Beethoven, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc.  Do anyone else spend so much time asking where they came up with their masterpiece works?  Where did Einstein get that amazing theory of relativity?  Where did Michelangelo get that amazing statue of David.  How could they have possibly produced these things?  Where did they come from?  
      I think we spend so much time looking for evidence, trying to find parallels, seeking to understand where the BoM came from, that we are missing the answer right in front of our faces and we should all be able to agree on.  The BoM came from Joseph Smith.  This is the clear and straightforward answer that both believers and nonbelievers should be able to agree on, and its the simple answer to a highly debated question.  
    • By Robert F. Smith
      Annalee Newitz, “Most scientists now reject the idea that the first Americans came by land,” Ars Technica, Nov 4, 2017, online at https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/majority-of-scientists-now-agree-that-humans-came-to-the-americas-by-boat/ , with map,
      Todd J. Braje, et al., “Finding the first Americans,” Science, 358/6363 (3 Nov 2017):592-594, online at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/592 ,
      It now appears that coming to America by boat was normal even from earliest times.  There is no longer any reason to credit the Beringia Land Bridge hypothesis, except in a much later period.
×
×
  • Create New...