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

[DeepShadow]

Your scientific evidence is a word print study. Heres another word print study: Vernal Holley's "Book of Mormon Authorship" -- annotated --

This is not a wordprint study. Wordprint is a statistical analysis, better known as stylometry. Vernal Holley did not use statistical tools to verify that his hypothesis exceeded the .95% t-score required for social sciences. As far as I can tell, he didn't use any statistical tools at all, nor is his method peer-reviewed.

Passing this off as wordprint study only further confirms that you don't understand wordprint.

 

[McBell]

I do not know these people to whom you are referring. To say that Mohammed, or Joseph Smith for that matter, was uneducated, that he couldn't read and write, that he was a simple man, etc. is not saying that he was stupid. I've never heard any supporter of Mohammed (or Smith) claim that they were stupid.

Well that settles it then.
Since YOU have never seen or heard anyone do as such, it could not have possibly happened, right?

I really do wish the Yahoo Group called The Pagan Way was still up.
I could link you to tons of posts doing just as I said they did.

The OP specifically cites lack of education, not stupidity. Moreover, all my points have been directed at things that had not yet been discovered, hence even a well-read scholar would not have known to include them.

Can you point to a post that makes Joseph "as stupid as possible?"

A bit sensitive are we?
Fact is that I have seen and heard both Mohammad and Joseph Smith presented in such a manner as to make them as stupid as possible.

In this forum?
Can't say that I can.
I really do wish the Yahoo Group called The Pagan Way was still up.
I could link you to tons of posts doing just as I said they did.

 

[Sententia]

This is not a wordprint study. Wordprint is a statistical analysis, better known as stylometry. Vernal Holley did not use statistical tools to verify that his hypothesis exceeded the .95% t-score required for social sciences. As far as I can tell, he didn't use any statistical tools at all, nor is his method peer-reviewed.

Passing this off as wordprint study only further confirms that you don't understand wordprint.

Actually it doesn't say that at all.

I still dont see how your word print study is going to produce steel in america during the mormon dictacted time frame nor many other technological advances cited.

In short... What is the purpose of this word print study? To find the gold plates and prove Joseph Didn't make the whole thing up?

 

[DeepShadow]

A bit sensitive are we?

Not at all, just trying to stay on topic. What you have heard other Mormons say about Joseph Smith on other forums is not related to the OP, nor to any post on this thread. Dragging flimsy arguments in from another forum just so you can attack them is a straw-man fallacy.

 

[DeepShadow]

Actually it doesn't say that at all.

Doesn't say what at all?

In short... What is the purpose of this word print study?

It shows--past a 99.99% confidence interval--that the Book of Mormon had many authors, none of whom were Joseph Smith.

If you want to argue about the method, I recommend you learn about statistics and t-scores.

 

[McBell]

Not at all, just trying to stay on topic. What you have heard other Mormons say about Joseph Smith on other forums is not related to the OP, nor to any post on this thread. Dragging flimsy arguments in from another forum just so you can attack them is a straw-man fallacy.

Now you are being an arse.
Perhaps you should go back to my post you have problems with and read it IN CONTEXT with the post it was in reply to instead of trying to make mountains out of mole hills.

If you do that (read it in context) you will see that I was not making ANY sort of argument what so ever.
Merely making an observation and relating some personal past experience.

If you are unable to handle that, well bully for you.

 

[Sententia]

It shows--past a 99.99% confidence interval--that the Book of Mormon had many authors, none of whom were Joseph Smith.

Don't we already agree on this? Why would you argue this point with me?

 

[DeepShadow]

No, we didn't agree. The word-print isn't identifying "authors" as in the sources of the material. It's identifying "authors" as a matter of word choice. What you would call plagiarizers.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon had ten or more plagiarizers, none of whom were Joseph Smith? Because by agreeing with this wordprint study, that's what you are saying.

 

[Sententia]

No, we didn't agree. The word-print isn't identifying "authors" as in the sources of the material. It's identifying "authors" as a matter of word choice. What you would call plagiarizers.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon had ten or more plagiarizers, none of whom were Joseph Smith? Because by agreeing with this wordprint study, that's what you are saying.

Are you disputing that Joe Smith translated something by reading aloud and warned that he may make some errors?

 

[DeepShadow]

I agree.
Now please go and explain it to the ones who go out of their way to make him as stupid as possible in order to "prove" that he could not of written what he wrote.

For it is they who do not know the difference.
Or perhaps in their passion to ratify their beliefs they do not recognize the line that separates the two. Either way, it is them who needs your explanation, not me.

Mestemia, you are correct. Upon rereading your post, I realize you were directing us outside of this thread to talk to others, not back earlier in the thread.

 

[DeepShadow]

Are you disputing that Joe Smith translated something by reading aloud and warned that he may make some errors?

No. What does that have to do with stylometry?

For that matter, are you disputing that your so-called "wordprint study" is actual stylometry, in proper statistical form?

 

[Sententia]

No. What does that have to do with stylometry?

For that matter, are you disputing that your so-called "wordprint study" is actual stylometry, in proper statistical form?

Yeah... Lets get to the core of this disagreement. So your saying Joe did translate something... according to my friend who is a mormon he didn't even have the plates with him, just two tranlation devices and was divinely inspired and spoke off the top of his head.

So Joe... over somewhere between 60-90 days dictacted the book of mormons and it was faithfully written down until we had 500 pages that comprised the original.

If you suggest that this word print study PROVES that Joe did not write this book and I am highly skeptical of Word Print studies knowing the subjectivity of it is based on the material analyzed... nonetheless... lets say it proves that. I already agree Joe didn't write the book alone. No argument there. Why even bring it up?

Whereever he got his content for this book, it should be clearly noted that they were wrong. People did not float to america across the ocean on little boats to an abandoned mesoamerica. Indians were not white. Many of the animals and technology did note exist and there is no archeological evidence to support any of it.

Again I ask how does your word print study prove anything?

Whats the point? 10x9,10x11 chance joe was not the author etc etc. Have you ever done a google search on "Word Print Study"?

Which version of the mormon book did they use? What did they compare it to? What relavance does it have to joe not making up the story? He obviously spoke and people wrote down what he said. Where he got his material to me is irrelavant. I know where he said he got it... From plates he cant produce nor did he require the plates to tell his story.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, you are correct. Upon rereading your post, I realize you were directing us outside of this thread to talk to others, not back earlier in the thread.

No worries mate.
And I apologize if my reply(s) were a bit snippy.

 

[Autodidact]

LOL! I don't know, Auto. I guess I'm just doing it to bug the hell out of you. How am I doing?

It takes more than that to annoy me; I have children.

 

[lilithu]

Well that settles it then.
Since YOU have never seen or heard anyone do as such, it could not have possibly happened, right?

:areyoucra Did I say that it could not possibly have happened?

I said that I personally have not experienced it. You can be offended that I don't choose to just take your word for it. whatever.

 

[opuntia]

If one were to accept the concept of an intelligent being being able to fortify or strengthen a human being into writing or doing things which seem beyond the capabilities of human endurance or strength, then it is possible to take an unlearned individual and make him fit for a vessel of God.

God sometimes takes people whom others would look down upon and make him or her magnificent in His eyes to humble the proud. Human beings are too proud or self-righteous too many times. So God usually takes someone you probably would not approve of and make them His messengers. Said Paul the Apostle to his hearers in the first century of the early Church:

"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

"And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

"That no flesh should glory in his presence." (1 Corinthians 1:26-29; KJV).

 

[madhatter85]

Considering now that there is substantial evidence found in south and central america as well as plates and papyri found in egypt in recent archeological expeditions; Most ancient text scholars are willing to accept that Joseph Smith did in fact translate the Book of Mormon from ancient Text, but they still don't believe the story of how he got them.

example, they found bones of elephant-like creatures in central america which they thought never existed in that region.

 

[DeepShadow]

Considering now that there is substantial evidence found in south and central america as well as plates and papyri found in egypt in recent archeological expeditions; Most ancient text scholars are willing to accept that Joseph Smith did in fact translate the Book of Mormon from ancient Text, but they still don't believe the story of how he got them.

example, they found bones of elephant-like creatures in central america which they thought never existed in that region.

What's your source on all this?

 

[Apex]

Dont believe in God so this Book also must be false.

Wow, that is just awesome reasoning. Did you go to college to be able to think like that?

 

[Perfect Circle]

I'm with deep shadow in this one MadHatter... Can you produce a source for these claims?