does it read like metal plates?

[_Buffalo]

I think if all of your training came from the Church, then its a not much of a wonder why you are no longer in Church.

That doesn't really follow.

I think you got my point then. Ad hoc hypotheses with no evidence don't mean a lot, in terms of criticism either. I'm glad we finally agree.

Sure. Point out an ad hoc critical hypothesis not backed by by evidence in this thread.

[_Darth J]

I think if all of your training came from the Church, then its a not much of a wonder why you are no longer in Church.

That doesn't really follow.

Disagree. It precisely follows.

[_stemelbow]

That rather depends what you mean by a possibility.

To be seriously considered as a way of avoiding a proposed criticism, you have to show that the possibility you put forward has at least some degree of likelihood.

I think you're wrong here. The likelihood of the plates being translated by the gift and power of God is extremely low afterall. To go the route you propose we must assume Joseph Smith was a fraud before we even consider anything.

Your suggestion that the original text of the Book of Mormon was extraordinarily compressed to the degree you mention will seem highly unlikely to anyone who has even a superficial acquaintance with languages and writing systems other than the one I am now using.

That's not what I proposed as the possibility. More like the engravings did not contain all that was rendered in the translation.

Prove me wrong by finding an ancient language with anything like the density you have mentioned above in comparison with English.

Well that's pretty ad hoc. Since we know the engravings were supposed to be in a language we have no record of, no evidence of, there is no reason to assume any other language carried teh same amount of "density". But again, this is missing my point.

Of course if you think it was all God whispering in Joseph Smith's ear, the gold plates were completely irrelevant anyway, and why was God so inelegantly repetitious?

you may note, I do not think God whispered words into Joseph Smith' ear. Also, the evidence points to the plates not really being used in translation. I'm not sure exactly what that tells you.

[_Buffalo]

That doesn't really follow.

Disagree. It precisely follows.

[_Darth J]

I take it, then, that speculating about what might be contained in the hypothetical ontology of what "we just don't know" is not a valid rebuttal to pointing out problems in the things that we do know, and in claims of fact that have actually been made by proponents of certain belief systems.

Right?

Sure. But offering possibilities that remain to respond to criticisms that rely on one of the possibilities as fact, helps bring some amount of perspective, no?

Or maybe the Book of Mormon narrative happened on another planet, and the Jaredite barges and Nephi's ship were really spacecraft that the Lord showed them how to build, and Moroni was an extraterrestrial visitor, and that's why we can't find any evidence of a Nephite civilization.

Or maybe all the artifacts from the Nephites were taken into heaven, just like the Ark of the Covenant, Moses, and the City of Enoch.

Or maybe we are really up to our eyeballs in proof that the Nephites were real, but a worldwide conspiracy of archaeologists, linguists, historians, geneticists, and anthropologists is hiding all this proof because they don't want to admit the Church is true.

Or maybe you are plugged into a computer simulation like in The Matrix, and none of this is real, anyway.

After all, anything is possible!

(I doubt I'll get such forthright and honest answers from you, but we'll try).

Oh, see, I though we already agreed that making crap up off the top of your head is not especially persuasive or meaningful.

P.S. Reasoning based on observable facts and claims that Joseph Smith and/or the LDS Church really have made, and then comparing those things to general human knowledge and concluding that the claims of Joseph Smith and/or the Church are highly implausible, is not ad hoc reasoning, nor is it argument by assertion.

The latter two would involve making things up as you go while being divorced from an evidentiary basis for your assertions and lacking the ability to articulate why your assertions are reasonable or probable.

[_Darth J]

That rather depends what you mean by a possibility.

To be seriously considered as a way of avoiding a proposed criticism, you have to show that the possibility you put forward has at least some degree of likelihood.

I think you're wrong here. The likelihood of the plates being translated by the gift and power of God is extremely low afterall. To go the route you propose we must assume Joseph Smith was a fraud before we even consider anything.

I don't want to rain on your parade or anything, but comparing the claims one makes to the existing evidence is not making an assumption.

Your suggestion that the original text of the Book of Mormon was extraordinarily compressed to the degree you mention will seem highly unlikely to anyone who has even a superficial acquaintance with languages and writing systems other than the one I am now using.

That's not what I proposed as the possibility. More like the engravings did not contain all that was rendered in the translation.

In other words, it was not a translation.

Prove me wrong by finding an ancient language with anything like the density you have mentioned above in comparison with English.

Well that's pretty ad hoc. Since we know the engravings were supposed to be in a language we have no record of, no evidence of, there is no reason to assume any other language carried the same amount of "density". But again, this is missing my point.

Actually, there is no reason to bring in the self-serving assumption of a super-language with a ludicrously high amount of word density in a visual character that goes against all common human experience with how written languages work.

Of course if you think it was all God whispering in Joseph Smith's ear, the gold plates were completely irrelevant anyway, and why was God so inelegantly repetitious?

you may note, I do not think God whispered words into Joseph Smith' ear. Also, the evidence points to the plates not really being used in translation. I'm not sure exactly what that tells you.

It very strongly suggests that the golden plates in Joseph Smith's possession served a similar purpose to the international reply coupons in Charles Ponzi's possession.

[_Buffalo]

Stem, can you see Darth's point? You can make up anything you want about the Book of Mormon (including attributing it to aliens), but where does the evidence lead? What do we KNOW?

[_stemelbow]

P.S. Reasoning based on observable facts and claims that Joseph Smith and/or the LDS Church really have made, and then comparing those things to general human knowledge and concluding that the claims of Joseph Smith and/or the Church are highly implausible, is not ad hoc reasoning, nor is it argument by assertion.

Do you agree or disagree that the plates were used in "translation"? Granted there will alwasy be ideas about how it happened, but unless we have some amount of information directing us to a more clear concept, then all we're doing is speculating.

The latter two would involve making things up as you go while being divorced from an evidentiary basis for your assertions and lacking the ability to articulate why your assertions are reasonable or probable.

But since neither of the two have much to do with evidentiary basis at all, one must wonder what your point would be?

[_stemelbow]

I don't want to rain on your parade or anything, but comparing the claims one makes to the existing evidence is not making an assumption.

I gots no parade going, DJ, and your off the mark here.

In other words, it was not a translation.

Indeed. I don't even see how it can be really a translation, as much as a transcription. Joseph Smith "read" words out loud and a scribe wrote them down.

Actually, there is no reason to bring in the self-serving assumption of a super-language with a ludicrously high amount of word density in a visual character that goes against all common human experience with how written languages work.

Good. I didn't do that.

It very strongly suggests that the golden plates in Joseph Smith's possession served a similar purpose to the international reply coupons in Charles Ponzi's possession.

interesting view of the evidence--and you're getting after me.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, can you see Darth's point?

Yes. I see his point, no matter if it relates here, applies here, or has much force behind it. I see it.

You can make up anything you want about the Book of Mormon (including attributing it to aliens), but where does the evidence lead?

Nowheresville, probably. But I ain't just making anything I want. He's surely mischaracterizing. no doubt folks won't see it that way, though. The evidence suggests a few things--JS somehow "read" words that he spoke out loud for a scribe to record. The plates weren't consulted. So we have no reason to assume what was on the plates themselves were the translations of the english words that were recorded. Do we?

What do we KNOW?

very little, unfortunately. But let's not let that stop us from going all sorts of crazy in claiming we know more than we do.