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 comment
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.

Link to comment
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!

Link to comment
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 comment
  • 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:

 

Link to comment
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 comment
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. 

Link to comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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. 

Link to comment
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 comment

😊

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
Link to comment
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 comment
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 comment
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.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Fair Dinkum
      Biblical scholars have long known that the ending to the Book of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) is not found in the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses and therefore conclude that this long ending is a late addition to the book and not part of the original manuscript.
      This doesn't necessarily pose any problems for the Bible but can the same be said for the Book of Mormon?
       
      Take Mark 16:17-18 a late addition to the Book of Mark, words that were never uttered by Jesus but added centuries after by perhaps a well meaning scribe.
      And yet we find Book of Mormon Jesus proclaiming these of same words through Mormon, words that had been added to the Book of Mark by a scribe. Words that were never uttered by Jesus in Jerusalem but were so important to Jesus that He decided to quote some random scribe and tell Mormon to pass them along to everyone reading the Book of Mormon.
      See Mormon 9:24
      But why would Jesus quote some random scribe and deem their words so important that He needed to tell Mormon to include them in the Book of Mormon?
    • By Fair Dinkum
      In 3 Nephi 22:9 we read of Jesus speaking to the surviving populations in the America's upon His appearance in America.  While most of his comments are merely a duplication of his ministry in the Holy Land one bizarre remark stands out in that it confirms the reality of the Universal Flood Myth.
      Why does Jesus mislead His Nephite audience by propagating the flood myth? 
    • By Metis_LDS
      I am not a conspiracy kind of person.  I had a thought the other day that if you really believe the Book of Mormon you cannot state the following:                    All conspiracy theories are false.
    • By Fair Dinkum
      Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?  How could an uneducated farm boy produce this book on his own without God's hand?  This new book provides an answer to that question.
      Quoted liberally from his Amazon reviews: In a fascinating new book Dr. William L. Davis draws on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.
      Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone.  Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true, that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.
      If you approach this book without a preconceived axe to grind, you will find solid research explaining how the oral sermon culture of the 19th century either crept into the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated it (from a believer's perspective) or explains how Joseph could have constructed the narrative himself (from a skeptic's). Davis does not take sides and leaves room for both believing and skeptical perspectives.
      Judging the truth of the books claims is not Davis's interest. Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.
      In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis adroitly restores for the modern reader aspects of the now-forgotten sermon culture of Joseph Smith’s 19th-century, burnt over district, world and the well-established rhetorical performance techniques of its preachers. Davis then demonstrates that this oratorical praxis—in which Joseph Smith himself was a participant—illuminates not only Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as a dictated performance bearing the indicia of these sermon preparation and delivery techniques, but it also illuminates the very text of this LDS scripture itself, both its narrative events and sermon contents.

      Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

      Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

      Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

      One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors (and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

       
      Davis has identified tell-tale signs within the Book of Mormon that give hints of Smith processes.  He also offers historical reference to Smith's becoming a trained Methodist orator.
      This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and would share your thoughts.
      <-------- Not King Benjamin

    • 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.
       
×
×
  • Create New...