Please Explain how Joseph Smith could have possibly authored the Book of Mormon.

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

No need, I trust you. I typed that post from memory, so I'm not surprised I got parts wrong. Still, as a non-believer and a person who doesn't ascribe any evidential validity to dreams or visions, the fact of Joseph's pre-BoM tales of the Nephites is telling.

Understood, but it's also perfectly consistent with the instructions Lucy Mack Smith recounts him gaining from Moroni.

Having no idea what an Arabic quellenlieder was/is I googled it, the only results I got were from Mormon or BoM-related websites. This suggests to me that the quellenlieder is extremely obscure and as such strikes me as most likely a product of Nibley's notorious parallelomania.

Nibley, for all his "parallelomania," properly cites peer-reviewed, non-Mormon sources for all six identifying points of a quellenleider. If you're interested, I could post them here and we could all look them up in databases that are far more reliable than google.

The problem with this is that Joseph claimed to have translated the BoM, God didn't dictate it. So, unless the language of the Nephites was KJV English and the translation process was actually transliteration, Joseph or his scribes would have had to rearrange and add to the translation to make it sensible to an English speaking audience.

Yes, but many distinctive patterns survive such a translation process and show up in a wordprint analysis.

The fact that we have 15 slightly different writing styles (according to BYU's "wordprint analysis")

It wasn't BYU, but rather a non-Mormon group.

is thus more suggestive of role-playing, i.e. as with many of today's authors of fiction, they pretend to be a character, get in their head, and then write as that character.

Actually, wordprint analysis sees through this kind of stuff regularly. The writing style lapses after only a few minutes, no matter how hard people try. They've used it to identify the original authors of forgeries. If Joseph and his compatriots managed to fool a wordprint analysis--which, I repeat, was performed by non-Mormons--they pulled off an unprecedented feat.

It's really not that difficult.

Every source I've read on it says that it's nigh impossible. Mind telling me where you're getting contrary indications from?

Or even simpler would be to emulate the writing style of one of their favourite authors, or even books from the OT.

Considering that wordprint is used to detect forgeries, one would think it can't be fooled by trying to imitate a favorite author. That is, after all, how most forgers do their work.

Getting back to the purpose of my original post, the OP asked a question, I answered it according to the explanation I find most likely.

Here, I have no argument. Pardon the caps, I want to make this extra clear:

LET'S BE CLEAR, THE BOOK OF MORMON CAN NEVER BE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE THE WORD OF GOD, AND IS UNLIKELY TO EVER BE PROVEN A FRAUD. BARRING EITHER OF THESE, EVERYONE IS MORE THAN WELCOME TO SELECT AS THEY WILL FROM THE MANY UNSCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE OFFERED.

I didn't answer to Mormon-bash, when was the last time you saw me in a Mormon-related thread where I wasn't defending you?

Never, and kudos for that. But just like the OP brought up a question and you answered, I'm just following up your answer with more info. Chewing the fat, as it were, insofar as the topic has been brought up yet again.

As far as this particular question goes I can see several possibilities;
a) Everything Joseph Smith said and did was true.
b) Satan inspired the writing of the BoM.
c) It's a case of automatic writing.
d) The religion and BoM is entirely man-made.

If I accepted "a" I would already be a Mormon.
I don't accept "b" because I don't believe in the existence of Satan.
I don't accept "c" because as a skeptic and materialist automatic writing seems as far fetched to me as "b".
This leaves me with "d", and while I may not be able to prove my opinion to be reality, I do see related evidence supporting it.

I sympathize with your situation. From a reasoning standpoint, though, it appears you have had to eliminate "a," "b" and "c" strictly because you don't believe in them, which leaves you looking for data to support "d." Under such circumstances, I would imagine it would be impossible to avoid confirmation bias--you fit the data to the only explanation you'll accept. Are there any circumstances under which you'd even consider one of the other three explanations?

And no, I don't need to account for all the data, just enough to make the alternatives seem less likely than my explanation.

But this is only begging the original question. You think it's more likely because you've already eliminated the alternatives as impossible. Under those circumstances, ANY amount of evidence, no matter how flimsy, would make your alternative more likely, because it's the only one still on the table.

If--as you say above--you only look at data that supports your hypothesis, and refuse to look at data that refutes your hypothesis, that's confirmation bias. As I said above, you are entitled to pick as you wish from the myriad unsupported explanations for the Book of Mormon, but I just thought we might discuss them, since we are in the thread, after all.

If you'd rather not continue, that's fine. I think you've answered the OP exceptionally well.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Originally Posted by Starfish
Here are the facts:

He had the equivalent of approximately a 4th grade education.
His family was very poor and lived in a small, rural community in the early 1800's, lacking many resources and exposure to the world.
He was age 22-23 when he translated the BoM. Age 24 when it was published.
He and his family had to work hard to exist. They were farmers. His time to write was very limited.
There are eyewitesses to the translation. His wife said that he only worked on it for a few months, approx. 3 months.
There are eyewitnesses (11) who testified of seeing the gold plates. Some later left the Church but never refuted what they saw.
There are eyewitnesses who worked as scribes while he translated, describing the process.

This is not a thread for listing "errors" in the book. That's not the point. Please explain to me how it is possible, in light of the facts, that he could make up such a book and pass it off as scripture, fooling millions, including scholars, for nearly 180 years?
----------------------------------------
However, statistically speaking many more of millions including scholars would say they were never fooled by the claims because they never accepted those claims. If you are trying to pump up a ride on the bandwagon, you should understand there are TWO bandwagons beside each other, and both seem to b e hawking for ridersw.

Regards,
Scott

heh. Good point. I have a mormon friend who believes in the book of mormons because he doesnt believe in the bible. Essentially. He thinks the bible is useful but not very accurate but the book of mormons is the true word.

We talk religion a lot. Its fun really. I would never disresect his religion or beliefs in front of his family etc... but when its just him and I we have ourselves some grand discussions.

Suffice to say I think Joe Smith was a pretty obvious fraud. I do get a kick out of south park still though: YouTube - South Park- Mormonism

Pretty accurate really.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Suffice to say I think Joe Smith was a pretty obvious fraud. I do get a kick out of south park still though: YouTube - South Park- Mormonism

Pretty accurate really.

I love South Park, but it would be extremely “dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb” to consider South Park to be an authoritative source on what Mormons believe or the history of the LDS.

What I did really like about that episode is that the end where Stan looks like a complete jerk. I don’t have a handy youtube clip but here is the transcript.

Gary (the Mormon kid): Listen, I just wanted to let you know you don't have to worry about me tryin' to be your friend anymore.

Stan: I don't?

Gary: Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. {edit** [turns around and walks off. All four boys just look at him in wonder, even Cartman.]

Cartman: Damn, that kid is cool, huh?

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

I love South Park, but it would be extremely “dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb” to consider South Park to be an authoritative source on what Mormons believe or the history of the LDS.

What I did really like about that episode is that the end where Stan looks like a complete jerk. I don’t have a handy youtube clip but here is the transcript.

I agree with you there. If it makes them happy and it works and there is no harm to other people then why not?

Unfortunately there are sects of mormonism, not true mormon, where their beliefs do cause harm to others. My one mormon friend agrees with me on that.

He doesn't agree that Jospeh Smith was a fraud though and believes him to be a true prophet and messenger of God. I have debated that point from several different angles but the bottom line is it is what he believes. He said he is happy and has a very good life. He is always in good spirits, helpful to others and even accepting and understanding of an atheistic outlook. He does invite me to church occasionally just so I could see what its like... but thats about the extent of it. He doesnt actively try to convert me.

Hes repressed in several areas and that may cause problems for him later but who knows. He has lots of kids and is a great dad to them all so it doesn't really seem to harm him now and the moralistic teachings of some religions can actually be quite beneficial when a child is growing up. (So long as you dont go overboard and scare the bejesus out of your kids with stories of flaming pits, the devil and the like)

Overall I don't have a problem at all with his beliefs except one. I think he would be much happier if he knew the power of Coffee and Coca-Cola. The fact that he is not allowed to partake of two of my most favorite beverages annoys me.

Ahh well... His loss. More coffee for me!

[Apex]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Overall I don't have a problem at all with his beliefs except one. I think he would be much happier if he knew the power of Coffee and Coca-Cola. The fact that he is not allowed to partake of two of my most favorite beverages annoys me.

Ahh well... His loss. More coffee for me!

Nothing in the Word of Wisdom denies drinking pop. Some LDS simply choose not drink caffeine. I my self need my occasional Mt. Dew.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Apex

Nothing in the Word of Wisdom denies drinking pop. Some LDS simply choose not drink caffeine. I my self need my occasional Mt. Dew.

Seriously? Then why won't he drink caffiene? I heard some vague story about being denied temple rights or something like that.

Why won't his LDS church allow coffee? (He was born in Utah if that matters... but he doesn't live there anymore)

I need to build a case to get him to try caffiene. hehe

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Seriously? Then why won't he drink caffiene? I heard some vague story about being denied temple rights or something like that.

Why won't his LDS church allow coffee? (He was born in Utah if that matters... but he doesn't live there anymore)

I need to build a case to get him to try caffiene. hehe

I doubt if you'll have any luck.
It isn't the caffeine. (Otherwise we'd abstain from chocolate also, which has small amounts.) We don't drink coffee, tea, alcohol, nor do we smoke. Many think caffeine is the reason, but we don't really know. When the commandment was first given through Joseph Smith, I don't think anyone had heard of caffeine. Nor did anyone know of the health risks of tabacco.

Today, those who abstain from caffinated pop, do so for their own reasons. Any form of caffeine can be addictive, so that's usually why.