Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

There you go again with that logical fallacy, putting your own burden of proof on us. This was already addressed previously in the thread. I am not trying to prove the Book of Mormon true, whereas you are in fact trying to do just the opposite. Why should I reject my faith with the same dubious claims and evidence with which you expect me to at the same time accept yours? Mormon's Codex isn't a proof of the Book of Mormon, it's a critical analysis rejecting the evidence you put forth in support of your argument that we (LDS) should convert to your religion.

No, Water Dog. You are the one who has this wrong. I am saying that I have no obligation to prove wrong that which was never reasonably established in the first place. The burden of proof is not on me because there is no need for me to show that it is not ancient. There is insufficient reason to think that it is. A testimony does not substitute for the sciences.

[_Bazooka]

I am not trying to prove the Book of Mormon true....

Why not?
What better way to convert people to the Gospel than proving the Book of Mormon true...

[_sunstoned]

No, Water Dog. You are the one who has this wrong. I am saying that I have no obligation to prove wrong that which was never reasonably established in the first place. The burden of proof is not on me because there is no need for me to show that it is not ancient. There is insufficient reason to think that it is. A testimony does not substitute for the sciences.

As I understand it from other threads you are a professor of the classics, a thoroughly liberal arts field of study. With respect, perhaps the finer nuances of "the sciences" escapes you.

You said it was true, so therefore you must prove that it is! No, you said it wasn't true, so you must prove that it isn't! We can argue about who bears the burden of proof from the perspective of who started the conversation, and there is some truth to that, but it's a silly road to go down. The burden of proof lies with the critics for the very simple reason that the LDS have never sought to prove matters of faith with physical evidence. Moreover, in the opposite vein, your religion is one that does! The [LDS] message is always pray and receive revelation. Responding to a message about faith with demands for physical evidence is no different than an atheist proselytizing people door to door, trying to prove that a god doesn't exist. He is preaching a similar message of faith, however placed in different things, like himself. And in this case, those other things, are the physical evidence. How can you expect me to have faith in your religion, your "science," when you are incapable of proving your own assertions true, namely that the Book of Mormon is false?

How old are you?

[_Kishkumen]

As I understand it from other threads you are a professor of the classics, a thoroughly liberal arts field of study. With respect, perhaps the finer nuances of "the sciences" escapes you.

You said it was true, so therefore you must prove that it is! No, you said it wasn't true, so you must prove that it isn't! We can argue about who bears the burden of proof from the perspective of who started the conversation, and there is some truth to that, but it's a silly road to go down. The burden of proof lies with the critics for the very simple reason that the LDS have never sought to prove matters of faith with physical evidence. Moreover, in the opposite vein, your religion is one that does! The [LDS] message is always pray and receive revelation. Responding to a message about faith with demands for physical evidence is no different than an atheist proselytizing people door to door, trying to prove that a god doesn't exist. He is preaching a similar message of faith, however placed in different things, like himself. And in this case, those other things, are the physical evidence. How can you expect me to have faith in your religion, your "science," when you are incapable of proving your own assertions true, namely that the Book of Mormon is false?

That's pretty funny stuff, there, Will/Simon Belmont/Whoever. There are some "sciences" that I understand well enough. Archaeology would be one. Show me an ancient American artifact like Smith's purported gold plates inscribed in Reformed Egyptian. Show me one legitimate authority in ancient American archaeology/anthropology/art history who authenticated Smith's gold plates by autopsy. Since no such thing/person exists, LDS scholars necessarily prop up the general reliability of cranks like Martin Harris, the farmer whose great credibility was also lent to such artifacts as the Shakers' sacred scroll.

As I said, from a secular perspective, there is zero reason to consider the Book of Mormon an ancient text. ZERO. We have no reason to believe that there was an ancient American artifact of gold plates inscribed with Reformed Egyptian characters. The plates are gone; the witnesses were incapable of authenticating anything of the sort. What we have is a 19th century English text that purports to be the translation of a missing and unconfirmed artifact.

I have no interest in arguing the question of whether God exists or the Book of Mormon is "true" in some sense or other. All I am saying is that, from the perspective of secular scholarship, there is zero reason to consider the Book of Mormon an ancient text. And, the LW confirms that the Book of Mormon in fact fits very nicely in its early 19th-century context. Period.

And that is what this thread was always about for me. It had nothing to do with your spiritual anxieties.

[_ControlFreak]

C = Critic, A = Apologist

Summary of our conversation

C: The Book of Mormon is a fraud! Joseph Smith was a fraud, he made it all up, yeah, and he was a child molester too don't ya know?

A: Ok, what makes you say it's a fraud?

C: Countless examples. Take elephants, cows, sheep, horses, steel, coins, swords, wheat, windows, wheels, Babel, global flood, cursed jews, journals from preyed upon 16yo orphaned foster daughters, court sworn affidavits of sex with said orphans, multiple books with similar content and style, egyptian papyri, and more where that came from. The Book of Mormon says there were elephants in ancient America. There were never any elephants in America!

A: How do you know, were you ever there? Maybe modern science simply hasn't found any of these countless examples, which were the most important plants, animals and technology in allowing civilized life to develop?.

C: Unless you can prove to me that even a few of these things including elephants existed in ancient America, right now, they could not have existed - period!

A: Ok.

C: So? So? Where's the proof, where is it? Uh huh, just what I thought, nothing, BAM!

A: I have found proof that elephants existed in ancient America, dating to time periods, and locations, that fit with the Book of Mormon. Oh wait, just kidding that's a lie.

There, fixed it for you.

[_Bret Ripley]

C = Critic, A = Apologist

Summary of our conversation

C: The Book of Mormon is

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

[quote="Water Dog"]

A: I have found proof that elephants existed in ancient America, dating to time periods, and locations, that fit with the Book of Mormon. I now present you with a list of references from peer-reviewed sources, independent researchers, which discuss these findings, elephant remains which have been found, where they were found, in which manner they were found, and what time period they dated to.

quote]

CFR.

[Guest]

You said it was true, so therefore you must prove that it is! No, you said it wasn't true, so you must prove that it isn't! We can argue about who bears the burden of proof from the perspective of who started the conversation, and there is some truth to that, but it's a silly road to go down. The burden of proof lies with the critics for the very simple reason that the LDS have never sought to prove matters of faith with physical evidence.

Excellent.
The very first claim(s) about the Book of Mormon date back to Joseph Smith and it is repeated in the front of the book.
The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.
It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

So, let's break that down and for each claim Water Dog, you tell us (specifically and clearly) how we go about verifying each claim:

Claim 1 - The people in the book are real people and real civilisations who lived in the America's.
So here, we need you to tell us how we establish that the humanity referred to in the book actually existed in the time and place referred to and that the events related in the book actually happened and aren't fictional.

Claim 2 - It contains the fulness of the everlasting Gospel.
Here we need you to tell us how we can establish first, what the fulness of the Gospel is and also why some parts of the current 'Gospel' as practiced by the LDS are not contained within a book claiming to contain the fulness of the Gospel. Then you need to show us what Gospel principle is contained within it that cannot be found in any other book.

Claim 3 - It's the most correct book.
On this one Joseph is referring to the edition of the book he had 'translated' so we need to know how to establish that it is indeed the most correct book. Your job has been made harder because there is a follow up of: Why has the LDS changed significant parts of the most correct book that is the cornerstone of the religion?

Claim 4 - By following its precepts a man will get closer to God than by any other book.
What specifically are the precepts that are contained within the book that will get us closer to God, rather than following precepts that are contained within other books? How, specifically do they get us closer to God than if we don't follow those precepts but choose to follow precepts from other books, such as the Bible?

I look forward to your speedy obfuscation and avoidance.
Best regards and seasonal greetings,
Bazooka.
(You can call me Baz)

[_Runtu]

As I understand it from other threads you are a professor of the classics, a thoroughly liberal arts field of study. With respect, perhaps the finer nuances of "the sciences" escapes you.

You said it was true, so therefore you must prove that it is! No, you said it wasn't true, so you must prove that it isn't! We can argue about who bears the burden of proof from the perspective of who started the conversation, and there is some truth to that, but it's a silly road to go down. The burden of proof lies with the critics for the very simple reason that the LDS have never sought to prove matters of faith with physical evidence. Moreover, in the opposite vein, your religion is one that does! The [LDS] message is always pray and receive revelation. Responding to a message about faith with demands for physical evidence is no different than an atheist proselytizing people door to door, trying to prove that a god doesn't exist. He is preaching a similar message of faith, however placed in different things, like himself. And in this case, those other things, are the physical evidence. How can you expect me to have faith in your religion, your "science," when you are incapable of proving your own assertions true, namely that the Book of Mormon is false?

Tobin, is that you?

[_Chap]

As I understand it from other threads you are a professor of the classics, a thoroughly liberal arts field of study. With respect, perhaps the finer nuances of "the sciences" escapes you.

You said it was true, so therefore you must prove that it is! No, you said it wasn't true, so you must prove that it isn't! We can argue about who bears the burden of proof from the perspective of who started the conversation, and there is some truth to that, but it's a silly road to go down. The burden of proof lies with the critics for the very simple reason that the LDS have never sought to prove matters of faith with physical evidence. Moreover, in the opposite vein, your religion is one that does! The [LDS] message is always pray and receive revelation. Responding to a message about faith with demands for physical evidence is no different than an atheist proselytizing people door to door, trying to prove that a god doesn't exist. He is preaching a similar message of faith, however placed in different things, like himself. And in this case, those other things, are the physical evidence. How can you expect me to have faith in your religion, your "science," when you are incapable of proving your own assertions true, namely that the Book of Mormon is false?

Tobin, is that you?

Hmm. The prose, the increasingly enraged tone, the persistently incorrigible misunderstandings about what his interlocutors are saying ...

See what you mean.