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

[Katzpur]

I'm a noob. I'm horrible at debate. Im close minded. I dont want to listen to anything you have to say. etc etc... These are all attacks on me and have nothing to do with you proving Joseph talked to an angel, dug a hole, found gold plates that noone else could see or read. That he then translated these plates and presented us with the book of mormons. No evidence. 0.

The evidence is The Book of Mormon, Balance. If it's not compelling to you, may I suggest that you move on to another topic. I have already told you that I have no interest whatsoever in trying to prove anything to you. Is there something about that statement you don't understand?

 

[Sententia]

The evidence is The Book of Mormon, Balance. If it's not compelling to you, may I suggest that you move on to another topic. I have already told you that I have no interest whatsoever in trying to prove anything to you. Is there something about that statement you don't understand?

The OP asked we not debate the numerous errors in the book itself. He asked to explain how Joseph Smith could have authored the book. The best theory to date is he made it up along the lines of the spalding enigma.

If you want to offer the book of mormons as proof of Joseph smith I have offered you several links notably: What is Mormonism? | Book of Mormon Origin | Theology which would refute your statements. Lots of other links in last post, I avoided wikiepedia since you seem to dislike that.

 

[DeepShadow]

Do you have ANY references what so ever to back up anything you believe?

What about the wordprint studies I cited? Why have you ignored those? They were performed by non-LDS scientists using a peer-reviewed method. On what grounds do you challenge their conclusion that the book had many authors, none of whom were Joseph Smith?

 

[Sententia]

What about the wordprint studies I cited? Why have you ignored those? They were performed by non-LDS scientists using a peer-reviewed method. On what grounds do you challenge their conclusion that the book had many authors, none of whom were Joseph Smith?

There are much better debunkers than I in this case and the Spalding Enigma theory gets into it better then I can explain.

But... Joseph was using many references to put together a believable story. He was paraphrasing other sources into a single text dubbed the Book of Mormons.

The argument has been made many times that Joe wasn't smart enough to make this stuff up on his own so how did he do it? The spalding engma explores that.

 

[DeepShadow]

To be clear. You are arguing Joe Smith dug in the ground and found some gold plates that were not authored by humans and that only he could read and understand them and dictated them so that we could read another testement of jesus christ.

That wasn't MY argument. I'm arguing that the Book of Mormon could not have been written by anyone in America at the time of Joseph Smith. My argument includes nothing of God or miracles. If we're going to "be clear" with each other, don't set up a straw man.

You are then quoting word print analyses done by some scholars not of LDS origin while ignoring or discounting any scholar who argues against.

I'm not ignoring or discounting anyone. If you have any peer-reviewed data to add to the mix, bring it forward. To date, all direct criticism of the Book of Mormon I have seen has been non-peer-reviewed data by people who don't cite sources or footnote properly. The scholarship of our critics could certainly use your help.

The question of whether the Book of Mormon is an actual historical work or a work of fiction has long been a source of contention between members of the Latter Day Saint movement and non-LDS scholars. For many Mormons, Book of Mormon historicity is a matter of faith. For scholars, on the other hand, its historicity has been questioned from a number of different perspectives. (Historicity of the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I agree with all of this, but lets be clear, you have not yet cited scholars. Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed, though many of its sources are; it's a mixed bag.

While you are entitled to your opinion there is no evidence for such claims.

Except all that pesky stuff like corroborating stories from an Aztec prince. And the discovery of roads, wooden forts, and complex city-state arrangements, all of which the Book of Mormon predicted.

You know that thing you were talking about, where people ignore evidence against? Its called confirmation bias, and it goes both ways. Problem is, I'm not trying to prove the Book of Mormon true. That's impossible. I'm only trying to refute claims that it's a obvious hoax. In order to do that, I don't need to explain why it talks about horses. I only need to show that it contains elements unknown to anyone in the Americas at the time of Joseph Smith.

To paraphrase a great philosopher, if I wanted to prove that not all crows were black, I wouldn't have to search all the crows in the world. I'd only have to search until I found a white one.

On the other hand, if you want to complain that the BoM is an obvious hoax, you DO have to contend with the wordprint analysis. That's peer-reviewed scholarship, and it's not going away. Merely pointing at steel references means the authorship is in question, but that's not the same as saying it's a hoax. "Hoax" is a positive statement. Burden of proof on you.

It seems obvious to many to be a hoax but those people are not LDS and therefore are not to be trusted UNLESS they argue for your cause.

It seems obvious to many to be a hoax but those people are not PEER-REVIEWED SCHOLARSHIP and therefore are not to be trusted EVEN IF they argue for your cause.

I fixed your post. If you find it in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (or any other scholastic journal), then it's supported by the scientific community. How many critics of the Book of Mormon even cite these journals in their research?

Give me $10,000 and I'll start a post arguing for it as well based on my thourough and complete investigation.

Why do we need you? You've got angry ex-Mormons. We've got peer-reviewed research. On what grounds do you pass yourself off as the voice of scholarly reason and ignore established scholarship?

 

[DeepShadow]

There are much better debunkers than I in this case and the Spalding Enigma theory gets into it better then I can explain.

ROTFL! You do realize that Spaulding's manuscript has been published, and bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon? And how did Solomon Spaulding discover Arab poetry? All twelve points of a Hebrew farewell speech? The proper way to avoid bandits in the desert?

How did Solomon Spaulding--or any other 19th century American--use names that would only be discovered on the Elephantine Papyri, which would not be dug up until after the Book of Mormon waqs printed?!

But... Joseph was using many references to put together a believable story.

Some of which, like the Amarna Letters and Elephantine Papyri, had not yet been discovered. Neat trick!

He was paraphrasing other sources into a single text dubbed the Book of Mormons.

Paraphrasing shows up in wordprint analyses as a single author. Do your homework.

 

[Sententia]

That wasn't MY argument. I'm arguing that the Book of Mormon could not have been written by anyone in America at the time of Joseph Smith. My argument includes nothing of God or miracles. If we're going to "be clear" with each other, don't set up a straw man.

You may need to define your argument in a more rigorous manner. Considering I believe Joey made up key points in the book and derived the rest from plagarizing many other sources it would seem you and I are in agreement. Joe wasn't smart enough to write the book of mormons.

I'm not ignoring or discounting anyone. If you have any peer-reviewed data to add to the mix, bring it forward. To date, all direct criticism of the Book of Mormon I have seen has been non-peer-reviewed data by people who don't cite sources or footnote properly. The scholarship of our critics could certainly use your help.

There are more then enough books on the subject. Do some analysis on your own personal beliefs. They mean a lot more to you than to me.

Except all that pesky stuff like corroborating stories from an Aztec prince. And the discovery of roads, wooden forts, and complex city-state arrangements, all of which the Book of Mormon predicted.

Superstition again. You can derive whatever you want from the book of mormons. People have used Nostradamus's Quatrains to predict everything and anything. I can predict that soon we will have flying cars, near light speed travel and will be teleporting objects. If it turns out that I'm right am I now a prophet of god?

You know that thing you were talking about, where people ignore evidence against? Its called confirmation bias, and it goes both ways. Problem is, I'm not trying to prove the Book of Mormon true. That's impossible. I'm only trying to refute claims that it's a obvious hoax. In order to do that, I don't need to explain why it talks about horses. I only need to show that it contains elements unknown to anyone in the Americas at the time of Joseph Smith.

To paraphrase a great philosopher, if I wanted to prove that not all crows were black, I wouldn't have to search all the crows in the world. I'd only have to search until I found a white one.

On the other hand, if you want to complain that the BoM is an obvious hoax, you DO have to contend with the wordprint analysis. That's peer-reviewed scholarship, and it's not going away. Merely pointing at steel references means the authorship is in question, but that's not the same as saying it's a hoax. "Hoax" is a positive statement. Burden of proof on you.

So... ok... I would think the burden of proof is on you for asserting a book that was derived from 200 pound gold tablets that angels helped find that now can't be found is true. hehe

However... I will look for a white crow as you put it.... the book of mormons refers to animals and technology that could not have existed during the said time period and is proven to be so. No archelogical evidence has ever been found to support the ridiculous claims in the book and furthermore there is no DNA evidence for anyone floating to an uninhabited meso-america on little boats from overseas. In short, the story is utterly ridiculous and baseless. A work of fabrication.

The word print analysis shows a plagarization of multiple sources including the bible and nothing more. Not much there for me to contend with since I already said Joe didn't write it himself. Some examples from the link I sent:

• The preface to the King James Bible
• 21 chapters of Isaiah
• The Apocrypha (These are the books in the Catholic Bible which are between the Old and New Testament. Machabees is an example.)
• James Adair's History of the American Indians (This contains 23 arguments that American Indians are descendants of Hebrews. It also tells of buried plates (5 copper and 2 brass) kept by an Indian tribe.) (London: E.&C. Dilly, 1775)
• Josephus' War of the Jews
• Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (1823, Poultney, Vermont, Smith & Shute, particularly p. 150). Ethan Smith preached in Poultney, Vermont from 1821 to 1826. Poultney, Vermont is near the location of many of the families who founded Mormonism.
• Shakespeare's Macbeth
• Shakespeare's Hamlet
• The October 22, 1823 Wayne Sentinel story by Asa Wilds of a vision with "Great Jehovah" which said, "...every denomination was corrupt."
• Manuscript Found (a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding)

Speaking of Joe... Was this an honorable and noble man? A man of great character? A man of honesty? No on all accounts.

Why do we need you? You've got angry ex-Mormons. We've got peer-reviewed research. On what grounds do you pass yourself off as the voice of scholarly reason and ignore established scholarship?

Hey! Don't inflate my offer. I said I would start a post supporting mormonism. That is all. Money talks!

 

[DeepShadow]

Superstition again. You can derive whatever you want from the book of mormons.

Do you have any substantial basis for this claim? There are over thirty proper names in the BoM that were discovered by NON-Mormon scientists after the book was published. On what grounds do you refute these peer-reviewed claims?

So... ok... I would think the burden of proof is on you for asserting a book that was derived from 200 pound gold tablets that angels helped find that now can't be found is true. hehe

If that were my assertion, I'd support it, as it's a positive statement. I'm not asserting it. That's the second time you've tried to prop up a straw man in my place.

I'm making a negative assertion, that the evidence for fraud is insufficient.

However... I will look for a white crow as you put it.... the book of mormons refers to animals and technology that could not have existed during the said time period and is proven to be so. No archelogical evidence has ever been found to support the ridiculous claims in the book and furthermore there is no DNA evidence for anyone floating to an uninhabited meso-america on little boats from overseas. In short, the story is utterly ridiculous and baseless. A work of fabrication.

Wow, that's like, repeating yourself and claiming you answered my criteria.

The word print analysis shows a plagarization of multiple sources including the bible and nothing more.

Okay, so you believe that word print would reveal plagiarism as belonging to the original authors? Is that what your saying? Do you realize that this flies in the face of what we are currently using stylometry for--detecting forgeries? It's the position of the scientific community (ask for my sources, I dare you) that a plagiarism or other fraudulent work would contain the wordprint of the forger, and through that could be matched to his or her writing style.

I'll ask you again, on what grounds do you flatly contradict the position of a peer-reviewed study? Do you have any scholars who will support your claim that a plagiarism doesn't take on the wordprint of the author? Do you suppose someone ought to tell the Berkeley Group that, before they go on with their studies?

Not much there for me to contend with since I already said Joe didn't write it himself. Some examples from the link I sent:

• The preface to the King James Bible
• 21 chapters of Isaiah
• The Apocrypha (These are the books in the Catholic Bible which are between the Old and New Testament. Machabees is an example.)
• James Adair's History of the American Indians (This contains 23 arguments that American Indians are descendants of Hebrews. It also tells of buried plates (5 copper and 2 brass) kept by an Indian tribe.) (London: E.&C. Dilly, 1775)
• Josephus' War of the Jews
• Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (1823, Poultney, Vermont, Smith & Shute, particularly p. 150). Ethan Smith preached in Poultney, Vermont from 1821 to 1826. Poultney, Vermont is near the location of many of the families who founded Mormonism.
• Shakespeare's Macbeth
• Shakespeare's Hamlet
• The October 22, 1823 Wayne Sentinel story by Asa Wilds of a vision with "Great Jehovah" which said, "...every denomination was corrupt."
• Manuscript Found (a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding)

None of these texts contains a megachiasmus. That form of poetry was discovered after the Book of Mormon was printed.

None of these texts contains a quellenlieder. That form of poetry was discovered after the Book of Mormon was printed.

None of these texts contains Egyptian names from the Elephantine Papyri. That was discovered after the book was printed.

So after falsely accusing us of confirmation bias, you commit it yourself AGAIN. Are you shooting for irony or just hypocrisy?

Speaking of Joe... Was this an honorable and noble man? A man of great character? A man of honesty? No on all accounts.

Ad hominim. Are you collecting fallacies?

 

[DeepShadow]

You may need to define your argument in a more rigorous manner. Considering I believe Joey made up key points in the book and derived the rest from plagarizing many other sources it would seem you and I are in agreement.

My argument was stated clearly in my first post on this thread, and almost every one afterward: I'm not trying to prove the BoM true. I'm trying to rebut claims that it's a fraud. Insofar as you believe it was cobbled together from extant works and I believe that the necessary works were not extant, we are NOT in agreement.

 

[Sententia]

Deepshadow...

Do you seriously want to debate the Book of Mormonism?

You claim the book of mormon can predict things that had not happened yet. This is a supersticious beleif that can not be proven. I gave an example of a prediction thought exercise. It is a pseudoscience and speaks to astrology which some of the bible actually has it roots in.

This is not some bogus hereto claim. I have debated many mormons who always end up in the end agreeing that believing in the book of mormons is a matter of FAITH and not one of scientific evidence. And I welcome them to it.

Your argument was for me to prove the book of mormonism false. You IGNORE blatent falsehoods and quote to me things that in spite of the outlandish tales in the book of mormons transcend these falsehoods and prove it to be true.

Your argument says... should I fail to prove the book of mormons as a hoax then it must be true. Yet you deny that you accept the book of mormons as true and simply want to debate as to whether or not it was a hoax.

My speaking of Joe Smith as not an honorable man and one of falsehood is not an ad hominem. It lends merit to such a debate. Were I to characterize you in such a manner then perhaps your argument would have merit but since I did not and hold you in the highest regard then you can not say its an ad hominom.

Thus if I were to say Kris Angel walked on water and were to point out that Kris Angel is known for tricking people and playing on their emotions beliefs such is not an ad hominom against Kris. I am simply stating that Kris was skilled in making people believe that he could do certain things.

Joe smith was of course trained in tricking people as well. Unless you debate history.

Suffice to say there is not much to debate here. You assert that the book of mormons which has changed a ridiculous amount of times and of which there was no less than 7 original versions all of which disagreed with each other on major matters is a major historical work that should be accepted world wide as accurate and fact.

This leads me to believe that your taking your faith too far. You cant prove the technology, animals or the majority of the BS in the book but because there is a new form of poetry that is argubly discovered in the book of mormons I should dump american history and incorporate the book of mormonism into my education.

Are you aware how ludicrous this sounds? I could repeat the whole tablets of GOLD discovered by some dishonest louse story but Southpark does it quite well. Ya'll believe in some CRAZY stuff.

They dont even touch PRELIFE.

Based on your arguments so far you have not convinced me that Mormonism is correct and true, that its followers are understanding of skeptism or accepting of outsiders.

You have consistently attacked me to provide evidence that supports the BOM as a hoax without ever acknowledging that what it discusses is essentially fabrication. There was no steel. Period. There were no sheep. The crap they imply is false and can be proven false.

You claim your wordprint study rules plagerism out of the question which seems to be you just overstating what the wordprint study was supposed to show. Plagerism in the BOM is appearant to me and I'm not even all that familiar with the text. There are websites and books written to that extant and thats from where I derive the BOM as being a hoax.

I don't think you can see it. You see the BOM as a reinforcement of the bible. As an additional testament. Similar passages are that way not because they were subtly copied and changed but because they are true and serve to reinforce each other in every instance except where they differ.

Simply put. You have no ground to stand on. That is why you have resorted to Word Print studies. You cant debate DNA because you lose. You cant explain little ships floating to an empty meso-america or how such passengers would live in the first place. You cant produce the technology or animals refered to in the BOM. All you can point to is a word print study.

The book is false. Get over it. You want to believe it then so be it but dont debate its scientific relavance because the last time I picked up my sons history book it didnt mention Joe Smith.

 

[DeepShadow]

Do you seriously want to debate the Book of Mormonism?

I'm in this thread, aren't I?

You claim the book of mormon can predict things that had not happened yet.

Where did I claim this?

This is not some bogus hereto claim. I have debated many mormons who always end up in the end agreeing that believing in the book of mormons is a matter of FAITH and not one of scientific evidence. And I welcome them to it.

"End up"? I've claimed from the beginning that my belief in the BoM is a matter of faith. My use of scientific evidence is strictly to rebut your claims that the book is a proven fraud. It's not. Scientifically speaking, the book is a mystery, and that's that.

Your argument was for me to prove the book of mormonism false.

Wrong again. You can't prove a universal negative, that's a logical impossibility. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

You IGNORE blatent falsehoods and quote to me things that in spite of the outlandish tales in the book of mormons transcend these falsehoods and prove it to be true.

First, I did not ignore your so-called falsehoods. From the beginning, I've pointed out that these would prevent the book from being PROVEN TRUE. The problem is, failure to prove a work true is not the same as success in proving it a fraud.

Your argument says... should I fail to prove the book of mormons as a hoax then it must be true.

What the!? That's an either-or fallacy that I would never maintain! THIS IS THE THIRD TIME YOU HAVE MISREPRESENTED MY POSITION WITH A STRAW-MAN FALLACY. If you want to be taken seriously, read my posts, learn my position and stop setting up straw men.

Yet you deny that you accept the book of mormons as true and simply want to debate as to whether or not it was a hoax.

I never denied my testimony of the book through faith, but I can't and won't claim that my testimony is scientifically testable. I'm simply sticking to what's testable, so I don't get stuck with the stupid either-or fallacy you keep trying to foist on me.

My speaking of Joe Smith as not an honorable man and one of falsehood is not an ad hominem. It lends merit to such a debate.

Hogwash. Whether Joseph Smith was honorable or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether megachiasmus was known in the 1800's in the Western Hemisphere. If it was, then you might have a case for fraud. As it wasn't, it's impossible to contend that any 19th century American--or group of Americans--could fabricate a megachiasmus.

Were I to characterize you in such a manner then perhaps your argument would have merit but since I did not and hold you in the highest regard then you can not say its an ad hominom.

Ad hominim applies to much more than merely attacking me. Joseph, in this case, is a messenger, and ad hominim is a matter of attacking the messenger and not the message. If you brought up a scientist and I said your scientist cheated on his taxes, that's an ad hominim. Look it up.

Joe smith was of course trained in tricking people as well. Unless you debate history.

Save it for another thread, and stop trying to derail this one from the fact that you are pitting your opinion against peer-reviewed science.

Suffice to say there is not much to debate here. You assert that the book of mormons which has changed a ridiculous amount of times and of which there was no less than 7 original versions all of which disagreed with each other on major matters is a major historical work that should be accepted world wide as accurate and fact.

I said nothing of the sort. This is straw man #4. Anyone want to buy a scarecrow? It's getting crowded in here.

This leads me to believe that your taking your faith too far. You cant prove the technology, animals or the majority of the BS in the book but because there is a new form of poetry that is argubly discovered in the book of mormons I should dump american history and incorporate the book of mormonism into my education.

Never said it, and would never. Stop putting words in my mouth!

Are you aware how ludicrous this sounds?

Well, yeah, that's kinda why I'm asking you to stop saying I'm saying it. You wanna make yourself look stupid, go ahead, but stop putting words in my mouth.

I could repeat the whole tablets of GOLD discovered by some dishonest louse story but Southpark does it quite well. Ya'll believe in some CRAZY stuff.

They dont even touch PRELIFE.

Gee, I've got peer-reviewed scholarship, you've got South Park. Maybe I should reconsider?

Based on your arguments so far you have not convinced me that Mormonism is correct and true, that its followers are understanding of skeptism or accepting of outsiders.

Not that I was trying to prove either of these things, but I've got scores of outsiders on this forum who know otherwise. The fact that you fail to see my acceptance has to do with your superior tone and your pseudoscientific arguments.

You have consistently attacked me to provide evidence that supports the BOM as a hoax without ever acknowledging that what it discusses is essentially fabrication.

Have you even read my posts? I doubt it, or you wouldn't be claiming that I didn't acknowledge these things. I'm aware of the difficulty in proving the book true, even more than you realize. That's why I don't try to prove it true.

There was no steel. Period. There were no sheep.

These are universal negatives, and hence cannot be proven.

You claim your wordprint study rules plagerism out of the question which seems to be you just overstating what the wordprint study was supposed to show.

This isn't my statement! This is from peer-reviewed scholars of stylometry! People are using wordprint studies right now to show that certain works are forgeries. You are claiming that a forger can imitate the style of the person he/she is forging, which would mean this technique would not be useful in finding forgeries. Yet it's being used that way!

What scholar can you cite to support the idea that wordprint is being used incorrectly right now, by legitimate scientists?

Plagerism in the BOM is appearant to me and I'm not even all that familiar with the text. There are websites and books written to that extant and thats from where I derive the BOM as being a hoax.

Any of them peer-reviewed?

Didn't think so.

And you claim to be the voice of scholarship here, but you flatly deny scholarly research data with a flimsy, untested hypothesis. You have nothing to back up your claim that wordprint/stylometry can't detect a single author plagiarizing multiple sources.

Simply put. You have no ground to stand on. That is why you have resorted to Word Print studies. You cant debate DNA because you lose.

You wanna debate DNA? Sure, we can debate DNA. What do you think of the discovery of haplogroup X in America? What does this mean for the critics who claimed there was no Semetic DNA?

I "resort" to wordprint studies for the same reason I "resort" to megachiasmus, Bonampak, the Popol Vuh, DNA studies, and the Works of Ixtlilxochitl, among others. They all support my claim that the Book of Mormon could not have been written by any 19th century American.

You apparently think I was backed into a corner, but I wasn't. I was harping on this one detail because YOU kept trying to duck it. I won't let you duck. This is science, legitimate science, not your ex-Mormon pseudo-scholars playing Six Degrees of Separation with Joseph Smith to connect him to Solomon Spaulding.

You cant explain little ships floating to an empty meso-america or how such passengers would live in the first place. You cant produce the technology or animals refered to in the BOM. All you can point to is a word print study.

A brief search of this site would reveal otherwise. I refuse to let wordprint drop only because you, our self-proclaimed voice of scholarship, fail to acknowledge the conclusion of a peer-reviewed journal.

The book is false. Get over it. You want to believe it then so be it but dont debate its scientific relavance because the last time I picked up my sons history book it didnt mention Joe Smith. (PUBLIC schools, not home schools)

What's this crap? Irrelevant AND false. Are you trying for a record here?

 

[Sententia]

Ok... You just want to debate the notion that the BOM was presented to us as a hoax. Your scientific evidence is a word print study. Heres another word print study: Vernal Holley's "Book of Mormon Authorship" -- annotated --

Me be back later. I will keep posts brief.

Joe smith known for digging holes claimed an angel told him to dig a hole and he found some gold plates which only he could translate. Neither the gold plates can be proven nor the fact that only he could translate them. Angels have also never been proven. Thus his story has no credence and is presented to as a hoax.

Denying that you seek scientific evidence in the book of mormons to prove that it is not a hoax.

 

[Apex]

Deepshadow...

Do you seriously want to debate the Book of Mormonism?

You claim the book of mormon can predict things that had not happened yet. This is a supersticious beleif that can not be proven. I gave an example of a prediction thought exercise. It is a pseudoscience and speaks to astrology which some of the bible actually has it roots in.

This is not some bogus hereto claim. I have debated many mormons who always end up in the end agreeing that believing in the book of mormons is a matter of FAITH and not one of scientific evidence. And I welcome them to it.

snip...

LOL:biglaugh::biglaugh: Dude, you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole with this.

 

[Sententia]

LOL:biglaugh::biglaugh: Dude, you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole with this.

I personally don't see how someone can accept the whole an angel told me to dig here and I found some gold tablets which collectively probably weighed around 800 pounds and they had ancient text which only I could translate. Then no one sees the said tablets and they vanish and we are then left with a book of mormon.

For validation I get word print studies and poetry in the book of mormons and I need to address that but can not address obvious falsehoods.

 

[Autodidact]

How on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that the writings on the plates were not authored by humans?

I haven't ignored scholars whose wordprint analyses concluded the opposite. I'm actually not aware of any. Perhaps you could provide me with some.

Actually, there is. I'm just not inclined to argue the point with people who aren't willing to examine the evidence with an open mind.

It may seem like a hoax to a lot of people. Unfortunately, none of them has ever been able to prove that it is.

Forget it. Why would I want to pay you to do something so many other people are willing to do free of charg?.

I'll tell you what I will do, though. I'll give you $1,000 to write a history about an ancient civilization. Your narrative must exceed 500 pages in length with roughly 150 words per page. The deadline for completion of this assignment will be ninety days from when you begin. You must use a vocabulary of not more than 3500 words and yet must introduce into the English language 180 new proper nouns. The chronological time frame for this history must be from about 2150 B.C. to 400 A.D. (with most of it covering the period from 600 B.C. on). The portion of the narrative covering the last 1000 years may not contain any large, unaccounted for gaps of time. A number of interrelated local histories must be going on at once. You will not be able to travel to the place where this history is to have taken place or even have access to research material of any kind. Integrated into the history of two separate and distinct great nations must be accurate accounts their warfare, their religious beliefs, and their economic, social and political cultures and institutions. Cultural and technical details must be lavish and extensive. You must bring into the account a discussion of Gospel of Jesus Christ and the pattern of Christian living. Your statements must not contradict the Bible but must instead strengthen accepted scripture. Your statements and claims regarding cities, culture, architecture, building materials, tools, weapons, etc. must be verified when these things are unearthed by archeologists of the future. You must zero in on things you could not possibly know anything about or have ever experienced in his lifetime – such things as ancient Semitic literary forms, a discussion of the Middle-Eastern olive culture, and an unbelievably accurate description of volcanic activity. Let me know when you're ready to get started.

On the plus side, it doesn't have to resemble reality in any way, and there doesn't need to be an iota of evidence that any of it actually happened. And if you manage to, by sheer coincidence, write any passages that resemble any ancient literary forms, Mormon apologists whose entire way of life depends on the veracity of your text will find them for you. Does that help?

Katzpur: Why are you imposing requirement that the actual BoM did not come close to fulfilling? Or are you claiming that BoM "claims regarding cities, culture, architecture, building materials, tools, weapons, etc. must be verified when these things are unearthed by archeologists..." when the opposite is the case? If this were the case, we would all be accepting the BoM as good history, wouldn't we? In fact no BoM regarding cities, culture, etc. or even specific battles and occurences have been verified by archeologists, and the America that archeologists have discovered does not resemble the BoM in any way.

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur: Why are you imposing requirement that the actual BoM did not come close to fulfilling? Or are you claiming that BoM "claims regarding cities, culture, architecture, building materials, tools, weapons, etc. must be verified when these things are unearthed by archeologists..." when the opposite is the case?

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

 

[lilithu]

I have seen and heard many a Muslim go on and on about how stupid Mohammed was in an attempt to use it as proof that the Quran could not have come from Mohammed, but instead from some divine source.

Not stupid. Uneducated. There is a big difference.

 

[McBell]

Not stupid. Uneducated. There is a big difference.

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.

 

[lilithu]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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?"