A 'Book of Mormon Evidence' implodes at a touch

[_The Dude]

The rhetorical coup de grace "how could Joseph have known?" is nothing more than an attempt to skyhook a piece of flimsy evidence to a level it doesn't merit. Direct evidence built from the ground-up on solid logic doesn't need that kind of help to drive the point home.

[_Chap]

I wonder what would happen if someone brought this issue up on MAD in a polite way, so as to give DCP a chance to comment in his own defence? Someone as clever as he is must have met such objections before

It's not a place I like to go myself, however.

[_beastie]

There’s no need to post it at MAD to see what his defense would be. It would be something like this:

Of course, I know I’m nothing but a complete ignoramus who likes to stuff himself with donuts. How could it be otherwise? Certainly no university would want to hire me as a scholar of any sort, nor would any other scholarly organization publish my material or invite me to present my material at conferences. Everyone knows I’m a buffoon!

And then various MADdites would chime in analyzing the lack of credentials in DCP’s critics.

We’ve all seen the same story, over and over.

[Analytics]

Do a bunch of weak evidences add up to stronger evidence? For example, while there is a 90% chance that any random integer from 1-1000 I pick will not end in a 5, there is only an 81% chance that neither of 2 random integers from that interval will end in a 5 or a 35% chance that none of 10 random integers from that interval will end in a 5.

Does it matter that two of those constructs appear together: dream and dream and see a vision? Looking for "seen a vision" I found references in Ezekiel, Luke, and Acts but none of them appear with "dreamed a dream". Is that actually evidence against the Book of Mormon by having too high a concentration of this in some places? I obviously couldn't say as I'm no expert.

[_Henry Jacobs]

There is this neurotic fear in many Mormons that they are all on a branch that is slowly being sawed off by reality. Little by little, year after year. They are literally starved for anything that suggests that the group is not on that branch, and the guys who provide that comfort become their heroes. So I think DP plays for the hero worship that he receives from filling that insatiable appetite for anything testimony affirming, no matter how flimsy it is to the outsider looking in.

Most of his worshippers will never question it and don't want to know if it's flimsy, he hopes. He's sort of playing "Junior GA" with an intellectual twist isn't he?

[_CaliforniaKid]

There’s no need to post it at MAD to see what his defense would be. It would be something like this:

Of course, I know I’m nothing but a complete ignoramus who likes to stuff himself with donuts. How could it be otherwise? Certainly no university would want to hire me as a scholar of any sort, nor would any other scholarly organization publish my material or invite me to present my material at conferences. Everyone knows I’m a buffoon!

And then various MADdites would chime in analyzing the lack of credentials in DCP’s critics.

We’ve all seen the same story, over and over.

Ugh... bad memories.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

On a side note, I've always found this statement by Lehi funny. I have dreamed a dream, or in other words I have seen a vision. I can imagine people back in the 19th century equated dreams with visions from god. Today we know better. Even if the Book of Mormon really was true history and there really was an ancient guy named Lehi, he is admitting that his visions are dreams he had. Why should we believe some guys dreams? Most guys dream about things they wish were reality, but are actually far from it.

[_Blixa]

I got a belly laugh out of "manis."

[_mms]

Seems fair to allow DCP a chance to respond without having to come over here, so I posted it at MADB.

[_The Dude]

Do a bunch of weak evidences add up to stronger evidence?

Maybe.

Unless there is a simple explanation that accounts for many of the weak evidences in one swoop. Why does the Book of Mormon text have Hebraisms, Egyptianisms, evidence of ancient influence, etc? Because Joseph read the KJ Bible, which has so many of the same elements. This also explains why the Book of Mormon is filled with King Jamesisms, incidentally.

For example, while there is a 90% chance that any random integer from 1-1000 I pick will not end in a 5, there is only an 81% chance that neither of 2 random integers from that interval will end in a 5 or a 35% chance that none of 10 random integers from that interval will not end in a 5.

In your example the random integers (weak evidences) are independent events, but the weak evidence in the Book of Mormon is all interconnected. There is one simple counter-explanation to explain the events together.