Occams' Razor supports Mormonism?

[_The Nehor]

To be honest I'm not sure which way Occam's Razor would swing on the Book of Mormon. While it seems an improbable book to be created in the 1800's to others it seems inherently improbable that it came about through angelic intervention.

How is it so improbable that it was created in the 1800's? A lot of it is borrowed from the Bible, and the other parts use words that people in the 1800s were familiar with. Sure, they've done an authorship attribution analysis of the Book of Mormon at BYU. Of course, they had no conflict of interest over there at BYU; what are you talking about? :)

But when similar techniques were used by D.I. Holmes from the Association of History and Computing, he found no evidence of multiple authorship within the Book of Mormon. His findings are summarized here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsbom1.htm

I've read a lot of literature from the 1800's. Nothing, even religious texts, compares to a comfortable level. It seemed alien then too or there wouldn't have been such a stir about it. I'm not surprised the words used were common to the era. That's the whole point of translation.

[_Zoidberg]

I've read a lot of literature from the 1800's. Nothing, even religious texts, compares to a comfortable level. It seemed alien then too or there wouldn't have been such a stir about it. I'm not surprised the words used were common to the era. That's the whole point of translation.

If someone who was familiar with the style of writing in the KJV wanted to write a book that sounded like an ancient record from around the same time and the same ethnicity as the events described therein, wouldn't they use archaic words? What's alien about the Book of Mormon is not the words common to the era. It's the bizarre combination of English words commonly used in the XIXth century and those used in the XVIIth century. It would be more logical for a translation made in XIXth century to only include XIXth century words. Unless God somehow has a weakness for XVIIth century English.

Holmes also found that, while non-scriptural writings of Joseph Smith were very distinct from the Book of Mormon text of questionable authorship, the original text in the Book of Mormon is indistinguishable from the text of the Book of Abraham and the text of D&C.

So seems pretty probable, still.

But even if we still had the gold plates, the existence of the plates themselves would not be evidence of them being discovered with the help of a supernatural being who happens to be an angel of God.

All of it inevitably comes back to the existence of God. Would Mormonism even exist without the assumption of there being a God?

[_Nephi]

All of it inevitably comes back to the existence of God. Would Mormonism even exist without the assumption of there being a God?

I'm sorry, maybe I've missed your point, but the question here is rather stupid. Any religion implies an assumption in the existence of a Supreme Being. Its like asking if bread has flour in it. What exactly is your point with this question that I have so densely missed here?

[_beastie]

To be honest I'm not sure which way Occam's Razor would swing on the Book of Mormon. While it seems an improbable book to be created in the 1800's to others it seems inherently improbable that it came about through angelic intervention.

What are you talking about, Nehor? The Book of Mormon echoes commonly held beliefs about ancient Americans from that time period and area. Have you read Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews?

[_Zoidberg]

All of it inevitably comes back to the existence of God. Would Mormonism even exist without the assumption of there being a God?

I'm sorry, maybe I've missed your point, but the question here is rather stupid. Any religion implies an assumption in the existence of a Supreme Being. Its like asking if bread has flour in it. What exactly is your point with this question that I have so densely missed here?

To illustrate that Occam's Razor doesn't support any religion, including Mormonism. Hence, I don't see how juliann can remain in the state of blissful ignorance she is currently in.

[_Zoidberg]

To be honest I'm not sure which way Occam's Razor would swing on the Book of Mormon. While it seems an improbable book to be created in the 1800's to others it seems inherently improbable that it came about through angelic intervention.

What are you talking about, Nehor? The Book of Mormon echoes commonly held beliefs about ancient Americans from that time period and area. Have you read Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews?

You know, when I was younger and not as free of confirmation bias as I now am (yeah right), I read about this book in a totally unrelated article in a totally non-mormon newspaper. And thought: surely this means that the Book of Mormon is true. That the Book of Mormon could be plagiarized from Ethan's book didn't even occur to me.

[_The Nehor]

To be honest I'm not sure which way Occam's Razor would swing on the Book of Mormon. While it seems an improbable book to be created in the 1800's to others it seems inherently improbable that it came about through angelic intervention.

What are you talking about, Nehor? The Book of Mormon echoes commonly held beliefs about ancient Americans from that time period and area. Have you read Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews?

No. Did Joseph?

[_Scottie]

I honestly don't get her sometimes.

They found barley in Florida. Occam's razor clearly pointed out that the critics were wrong in saying that there was no grains. The critics accepted the evidence and crossed this off the list.
Same with concrete.

I don't think the critics are on this hell-bent rampage to make sure the Book of Mormon stays false. If the evidence presents itself, we adjust accordingly.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I've read a lot of literature from the 1800's. Nothing, even religious texts, compares to a comfortable level. It seemed alien then too or there wouldn't have been such a stir about it. I'm not surprised the words used were common to the era. That's the whole point of translation.

Funny, the contemporary reviews I've read on it find it to be a porrly written imitation of scripture. Of course you're probably comparing the 1981 polished up version with literature from the 1800s. Compare the 1830 Book of Mormon with something like View of the Hebrews, or Emmanuel Swedenborg. If it really was revolutionary for its time why was it dismissed as crap by readers in the 19th century?

[_Scottie]

To be honest I'm not sure which way Occam's Razor would swing on the Book of Mormon. While it seems an improbable book to be created in the 1800's to others it seems inherently improbable that it came about through angelic intervention.

How is it so improbable that it was created in the 1800's? A lot of it is borrowed from the Bible, and the other parts use words that people in the 1800s were familiar with. Sure, they've done an authorship attribution analysis of the Book of Mormon at BYU. Of course, they had no conflict of interest over there at BYU; what are you talking about? :)

But when similar techniques were used by D.I. Holmes from the Association of History and Computing, he found no evidence of multiple authorship within the Book of Mormon. His findings are summarized here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsbom1.htm

It's a no win battle here.

If it is proven to be written by one person, well, it was Mormon that abridged the plates.
If it is proven to be written by multiple people, well, of course! It was written by Nephi, Alma, Moroni, etc.