Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[I Have Questions]

You're quite right. The book was written in the 1830’s and there is zero evidence that it’s any more ancient than that.

That’s just it, isn’t it? There is no need to describe every detail about the book’s origins if there is no there, there.

I just think it’s a fascinating hobby.

People look at The Book of Mormon to find evidence that it isn’t ancient. That’s the wrong way round as the burden on proof is on the people making the claim that it is ancient to provide evidence of that. All it takes is one thing in it to be demonstrably modern (the plagiarised Isaiah content for example) and the claim as to its origins is sunk below the waterline.

It’s a 19th Century production and there is no credible evidence within it to suggest it was written 1,500 years earlier.

[Limnor]

That’s just it, isn’t it? There is no need to describe every detail about the book’s origins if there is no there, there.

I just think it’s a fascinating hobby.

People look at The Book of Mormon to find evidence that it isn’t ancient. That’s the wrong way round as the burden on proof is on the people making the claim that it is ancient to provide evidence of that. All it takes is one thing in it to be demonstrably modern (the plagiarised Isaiah content for example) and the claim as to its origins is sunk below the waterline.

It’s a 19th Century production and there is no credible evidence within it to suggest it was written 1,500 years earlier.

Thank you IHQ. Your points actually help me more than you probably realize.

Since being asked by someone I respected, I’ve felt this weird responsibility to explain every detail of the book’s origins, like I somehow owed a defense or an explanation for what it really is. It was confusing to me that someone who seemed so reasonable could believe in claims like Kolob, the problems with the book of Abraham, “translating” via a rock in a hat without the “plates” even being near, and other claims that are obvious to me on their face as hallmarks of falsehood.

But you’re right—the burden of proof isn’t on me. If someone is claiming it’s ancient, they need to show that, not the other way around.

Honestly, the book doesn’t even hold much personal meaning for me beyond the challenge of figuring it out, and almost a sense of duty I took on without noticing. I’ve said it is a hobby, but there is probably more to it than that.

I think I need to let go of that a bit. It’s not my job to carry the weight of explaining it for everyone else.

I’ve left and come back several times, and even this “go-round” I’ve felt the urge to just give up, as it doesn’t seem to matter. But that sense of “duty” draws me back.

The truth is it has been a struggle that I haven’t been able to clearly define (or was even aware of), and your points have provided a sense of liberation from that.

I think an MG-type would define that struggle as proof that the book is true from his understanding of what that truth means and implies. I suppose we could explore that, though frankly I think the logical flow in the believer’s mind is “if the book is an ancient revelation, that confirms my faith that everything that followed is also true. Joseph is a prophet and etc.”

Aside from discussions about confirmation bias and epistemology that won’t be sincerely considered, proceeding with unpacking those thoughts is not something I am much interested in doing. At the end of the day, people can believe whatever they want without having to justify it to me.

I did find the Alma 32 discussion interesting.

At any rate, thank you again.

[I Have Questions]

But you’re right—the burden of proof isn’t on me. If someone is claiming it’s ancient, they need to show that, not the other way around.

Exactly. It’s an extraordinary assertion that requires extraordinary proof. 11 of Joseph’s family and close friends agreeing to a statement that Joseph wrote himself about them seeing “something” does not meet that burden. Not even close. All a critic need do is show that something about the book isn’t ancient, and the whole claim fails. The plagiarised KJV Bible content sinks the claim, and puts the books origins firmly in the 19th Century. Who dreamt it up, who wrote it, when they wrote it, who was involved, why…all of these questions are secondary. We don’t need the answers. We’ve already found non ancient content in the book. So it isn’t ancient. And that’s an end to it unless or until the Church can show it to be ancient - and if they could, they would have done so already.

As the President of Interpreter said himself - the best evidence for the credibility of the Book of Mormon’s claim of ancientness is a statement that Joseph coerced 11 of his family and close friends into agreeing with. The best evidence against it, is that KJV Bible plagiarised content, because it’s irrefutable.

[malkie]

But you’re right—the burden of proof isn’t on me. If someone is claiming it’s ancient, they need to show that, not the other way around.

Exactly. It’s an extraordinary assertion that requires extraordinary proof. 11 of Joseph’s family and close friends agreeing to a statement that Joseph wrote himself about them seeing “something” does not meet that burden. Not even close. All a critic need do is show that something about the book isn’t ancient, and the whole claim fails. The plagiarised KJV Bible content sinks the claim, and puts the books origins firmly in the 19th Century. Who dreamt it up, who wrote it, when they wrote it, who was involved, why…all of these questions are secondary. We don’t need the answers. We’ve already found non ancient content in the book. So it isn’t ancient. And that’s an end to it unless or until the Church can show it to be ancient - and if they could, they would have done so already.

As the President of Interpreter said himself - the best evidence for the credibility of the Book of Mormon’s claim of ancientness is a statement that Joseph coerced 11 of his family and close friends into agreeing with. The best evidence against it, is that KJV Bible plagiarised content, because it’s irrefutable.

Remind me - I've forgotten: which of the 11 "best evidence" witnesses was qualified to testify about anything significant with respect to the Book of Mormon? For example, that it was ancient, or that the engraved "caractors" were Reformed Egyptian? Anything that would tell us that the nature of the plates indicated that they could not have been produced in the 19th century?

[Limnor]

Exactly. It’s an extraordinary assertion that requires extraordinary proof. 11 of Joseph’s family and close friends agreeing to a statement that Joseph wrote himself about them seeing “something” does not meet that burden. Not even close. All a critic need do is show that something about the book isn’t ancient, and the whole claim fails. The plagiarised KJV Bible content sinks the claim, and puts the books origins firmly in the 19th Century. Who dreamt it up, who wrote it, when they wrote it, who was involved, why…all of these questions are secondary. We don’t need the answers. We’ve already found non ancient content in the book. So it isn’t ancient. And that’s an end to it unless or until the Church can show it to be ancient - and if they could, they would have done so already.

As the President of Interpreter said himself - the best evidence for the credibility of the Book of Mormon’s claim of ancientness is a statement that Joseph coerced 11 of his family and close friends into agreeing with. The best evidence against it, is that KJV Bible plagiarised content, because it’s irrefutable.

Remind me - I've forgotten: which of the 11 "best evidence" witnesses was qualified to testify about anything significant with respect to the Book of Mormon? For example, that it was ancient, or that the engraved "caractors" were Reformed Egyptian? Anything that would tell us that the nature of the plates indicated that they could not have been produced in the 19th century?

As an aside, if I’m sitting in the jury box, I’m reading the description provided by the witnesses as that of copper or brass printing plates, the same sort of material used by local engravers and printers in the 1820s.

[MG 2.0]

Exactly. It’s an extraordinary assertion that requires extraordinary proof. 11 of Joseph’s family and close friends agreeing to a statement that Joseph wrote himself about them seeing “something” does not meet that burden. Not even close. All a critic need do is show that something about the book isn’t ancient, and the whole claim fails. The plagiarised KJV Bible content sinks the claim, and puts the books origins firmly in the 19th Century. Who dreamt it up, who wrote it, when they wrote it, who was involved, why…all of these questions are secondary. We don’t need the answers. We’ve already found non ancient content in the book. So it isn’t ancient. And that’s an end to it unless or until the Church can show it to be ancient - and if they could, they would have done so already.

As the President of Interpreter said himself - the best evidence for the credibility of the Book of Mormon’s claim of ancientness is a statement that Joseph coerced 11 of his family and close friends into agreeing with. The best evidence against it, is that KJV Bible plagiarised content, because it’s irrefutable.

Remind me - I've forgotten: which of the 11 "best evidence" witnesses was qualified to testify about anything significant with respect to the Book of Mormon? For example, that it was ancient, or that the engraved "caractors" were Reformed Egyptian? Anything that would tell us that the nature of the plates indicated that they could not have been produced in the 19th century?

Their testimonies weren’t meant to establish/show academic credentials, they were meant to affirm a sacred experience. They saw and handled the plates, and in some cases testified to have heard the voice of God declaring their divine origin. God often chooses ordinary people to bear extraordinary witness.

The learned have a hard time accepting the possibility that this may be true. Pride enters into the picture.

In regard to the plates themselves...first, the physical descriptions given by multiple witnesses, including weight estimates of 30–60 pounds, metallic pages bound by rings, and engraved characters, suggest a level of craftsmanship and material access that would have been extremely difficult for someone like Joseph Smith to achieve in rural New York in the 1820's. A lot of ink has been spilled on this subject. Your question has had reams of paper published on the topic.

It's an interesting topic to be sure. Folks can scour the internet and find a whole lot of stuff on 'the plates' and whether or not they existed, when they may have been produced and from what, whether Joseph thought he actually had plates to take care of and hide from bad people, etc.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Remind me - I've forgotten: which of the 11 "best evidence" witnesses was qualified to testify about anything significant with respect to the Book of Mormon? For example, that it was ancient, or that the engraved "caractors" were Reformed Egyptian? Anything that would tell us that the nature of the plates indicated that they could not have been produced in the 19th century?

Their testimonies weren’t meant to establish/show academic credentials, they were meant to affirm a sacred experience. They saw and handled the plates, and in some cases testified to have heard the voice of God declaring their divine origin. God often chooses ordinary people to bear extraordinary witness.

The learned have a hard time accepting the possibility that this may be true. Pride enters into the picture.

In regard to the plates themselves...first, the physical descriptions given by multiple witnesses, including weight estimates of 30–60 pounds, metallic pages bound by rings, and engraved characters, suggest a level of craftsmanship and material access that would have been extremely difficult for someone like Joseph Smith to achieve in rural New York in the 1820's. A lot of ink has been spilled on this subject. Your question has had reams of paper published on the topic.

It's an interesting topic to be sure. Folks can scour the internet and find a whole lot of stuff on 'the plates' and whether or not they existed, when they may have been produced and from what, whether Joseph thought he actually had plates to take care of and hide from bad people, etc.

Regards,
MG

You cannot show anyone the plates, they don't exist. But people can see the KJV Bible plagiarism in the Book of Mormon, because it does exist.

[malkie]

Remind me - I've forgotten: which of the 11 "best evidence" witnesses was qualified to testify about anything significant with respect to the Book of Mormon? For example, that it was ancient, or that the engraved "caractors" were Reformed Egyptian? Anything that would tell us that the nature of the plates indicated that they could not have been produced in the 19th century?

Their testimonies weren’t meant to establish/show academic credentials, they were meant to affirm a sacred experience. They saw and handled the plates, and in some cases testified to have heard the voice of God declaring their divine origin. God often chooses ordinary people to bear extraordinary witness.

The learned have a hard time accepting the possibility that this may be true. Pride enters into the picture.

In regard to the plates themselves...first, the physical descriptions given by multiple witnesses, including weight estimates of 30–60 pounds, metallic pages bound by rings, and engraved characters, suggest a level of craftsmanship and material access that would have been extremely difficult for someone like Joseph Smith to achieve in rural New York in the 1820's. A lot of ink has been spilled on this subject. Your question has had reams of paper published on the topic.

It's an interesting topic to be sure. Folks can scour the internet and find a whole lot of stuff on 'the plates' and whether or not they existed, when they may have been produced and from what, whether Joseph thought he actually had plates to take care of and hide from bad people, etc.

Regards,
MG

What their testimonies were intended to show is not relevant to the question of whether they could credibly testify to the ancient origins of the plates.

So, the questions of suggested level of craftsmanship and access to material? I'm no expert, nor do I need to be. But here's my take, and I think that even your own description "In regard to the plates themselves..." would agree:

Difficult? OK.
Extremely difficult? Maybe.
Impossible? Hmmmm - I don't think so.

[MG 2.0]

Their testimonies weren’t meant to establish/show academic credentials, they were meant to affirm a sacred experience. They saw and handled the plates, and in some cases testified to have heard the voice of God declaring their divine origin. God often chooses ordinary people to bear extraordinary witness.

The learned have a hard time accepting the possibility that this may be true. Pride enters into the picture.

In regard to the plates themselves...first, the physical descriptions given by multiple witnesses, including weight estimates of 30–60 pounds, metallic pages bound by rings, and engraved characters, suggest a level of craftsmanship and material access that would have been extremely difficult for someone like Joseph Smith to achieve in rural New York in the 1820's. A lot of ink has been spilled on this subject. Your question has had reams of paper published on the topic.

It's an interesting topic to be sure. Folks can scour the internet and find a whole lot of stuff on 'the plates' and whether or not they existed, when they may have been produced and from what, whether Joseph thought he actually had plates to take care of and hide from bad people, etc.

Regards,
MG

What their testimonies were intended to show is not relevant to the question of whether they could credibly testify to the ancient origins of the plates.

So, the questions of suggested level of craftsmanship and access to material? I'm no expert, nor do I need to be. But here's my take, and I think that even your own description "In regard to the plates themselves..." would agree:

Difficult? OK.
Extremely difficult? Maybe.
Impossible? Hmmmm - I don't think so.

I can see that you're focusing on the material rather than the spiritual. Understood. I suppose in essence what you're saying is that even if the witnesses were honest, they might have been mistaken about what they were seeing. Group hallucination or something like that. The rest of your post seems to take a position that the plates may have been 'something' rather than nothing. I agree. The evidence seems to demonstrate that this is so.

You take the fabrication route. That's all critics can do, right? I agree, it wouldn't have been impossible to produce something that could have passed as plates. But I think the real puzzle is whether Joseph Smith had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off something that convincing, especially under the scrutiny and secrecy described. To me, having read the story of the coming forth of the plates, I don't see where he was 'pulling something off'. The account/narrative just doesn't support that.

One thing to keep in mind, I don’t think any of the witnesses were claiming to be metallurgists or ancient language scholars.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

What their testimonies were intended to show is not relevant to the question of whether they could credibly testify to the ancient origins of the plates.

So, the questions of suggested level of craftsmanship and access to material? I'm no expert, nor do I need to be. But here's my take, and I think that even your own description "In regard to the plates themselves..." would agree:

Difficult? OK.
Extremely difficult? Maybe.
Impossible? Hmmmm - I don't think so.

I can see that you're focusing on the material rather than the spiritual. Understood. I suppose in essence what you're saying is that even if the witnesses were honest, they might have been mistaken about what they were seeing. Group hallucination or something like that. The rest of your post seems to take a position that the plates may have been 'something' rather than nothing. I agree. The evidence seems to demonstrate that this is so.

You take the fabrication route. That's all critics can do, right? I agree, it wouldn't have been impossible to produce something that could have passed as plates. But I think the real puzzle is whether Joseph Smith had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off something that convincing, especially under the scrutiny and secrecy described. To me, having read the story of the coming forth of the plates, I don't see where he was 'pulling something off'. The account/narrative just doesn't support that.

One thing to keep in mind, I don’t think any of the witnesses were claiming to be metallurgists or ancient language scholars.

Regards,
MG

Of course I'm focusing on the material realm - if the witnesses were not making claims in the material realm I would find it less interesting, as well as easier to simply dismiss.

"You take the fabrication route. That's all critics can do, right? I agree, ..."

You shouldn't agree, because that's going beyond what I'm saying. I'm taking the "nothing significant that is demonstrably within the expertise of the witnesses" route. Your last para is spot on - the witnesses experienced something without being able to say that it consisted of a particular metal/alloy, or contained writings in any language, or that it was in any way definitively ancient. All the rest - Joseph's potential means, motive, and opportunity - or lack thereof - are matters for the defenders/claimants, not the doubters, to prove. At this point I'm not sure if it's even worthwhile considering the honesty of the witnesses.

I'm taking the position that there is not sufficient evidence to establish that whatever the witnesses experienced satisfies the claims of being ancient metal plates containing the text of the Book of Mormon.