does it read like metal plates?

[_Buffalo]

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--Joseph Smith 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?

Well, all the evidence suggests Joseph didn't consult the plates while translating. However, Joseph and the Church itself claim that the Book of Mormon IS a translation of what was on the plates.

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.

We know that there is no archaeological evidence of a Nephite civilization anywhere in the Americas. Right?

[_stemelbow]

Well, all the evidence suggests Joseph didn't consult the plates while translating. However, Joseph and the Church itself claim that the Book of Mormon IS a translation of what was on the plates.

How would Joseph know? Of course the reasonable assumption was, if plates then what we have is a direct translation of what was on them. But perhaps as we look more and more we learn something else. But this is all just conjecture at this point.

We know that there is no archaeological evidence of a Nephite civilization anywhere in the Americas. Right?

Yes we know that. But what we don't know is if there really was a Nephite civilization anywhere in the Americas.

[_Darth J]

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"?

No, and that is even assuming for the sake of argument that the Book of Mormon is the ancient scripture believers purport it to be. Nobody involved with the alleged translation of the Book of Mormon said that the plates were involved.

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.

We do have information, we do have a clear concept, and it is not speculation. All of Joseph Smith's contemporaries indicated that Joseph Smith put a seer stone in a hat, put his face inside the hat, and the words written on the plates appeared on the seer stone.

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?

Tell me a reason why I should find any of the "possibilities" you suggest regarding things like the Book of Mormon being what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, or Joseph Smith violating the terms of D&C 132, to be persuasive, probable, or reasonable.

[_Buffalo]

Well, all the evidence suggests Joseph didn't consult the plates while translating. However, Joseph and the Church itself claim that the Book of Mormon IS a translation of what was on the plates.

How would Joseph know? Of course the reasonable assumption was, if plates then what we have is a direct translation of what was on them. But perhaps as we look more and more we learn something else. But this is all just conjecture at this point.

A better question is, how would Joseph NOT know it?

Yes we know that. But what we don't know is if there really was a Nephite civilization anywhere in the Americas.

Similarly, we don't know if there's a giant teacup made of chocolate orbiting Neptune. But so far it doesn't look promising.

[_stemelbow]

No, and that is even assuming for the sake of argument that the Book of Mormon is the ancient scripture believers purport it to be. Nobody involved with the alleged translation of the Book of Mormon said that the plates were involved.

Well then there ya go.

We do have information, we do have a clear concept, and it is not speculation. All of Joseph Smith's contemporaries indicated that Joseph Smith put a seer stone in a hat, put his face inside the hat, and the words written on the plates appeared on the seer stone.

So tell me. If the plates were not referenced, and were not looked at, how would they know the "words written" were the ones on the plates? All we really know is Joseph Smith "read" some words out loud and a scribe wrote them down. Your idea is based of an assumption--the scribe must have assumed what Joseph Smith saw were the wrods ont he plates, but we don't know that.

Tell me a reason why I should find any of the "possibilities" you suggest regarding things like the Book of Mormon being what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, or Joseph Smith violating the terms of D&C 132, to be persuasive, probable, or reasonable.

I'm not about to think any ideas regarding this topic will be persuasive, probable or reasonable to you.

[_Darth J]

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.

You consistently refer to examining the evidence and making reasonable inferences therefrom as "making assumptions."

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.

Which means a tight translation (since Joseph Smith had to be reading words from something), which begs the question of why passages from the Bible that had not yet been written (as of the alleged time when those passages are quoted) appear in the Book of Mormon, which indicates that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century work and not an ancient Hebrew scripture.

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.

Why did you bother to suggest that one character on the plates could represent 68 pages of English text?

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.

Just hypothetically:

If the Book of Mormon were a 19th-century hoax, in what way would its content, its provenance, and the evidence in favor of its authenticity be different than how they already are?

[_stemelbow]

Which means a tight translation (since Joseph Smith had to be reading words from something),

You mean a tight transcription, moreso than translation. The tightness is in whether the words Joseph "read" or spoke were the words that were recorded by the scribe. The witnesses didn't' see the words and do we really know if they were aware of what Joseph saw? They could very well assume he read the words, that they appeared to him, since they heard him speak words. How it worked, I don't htink we know.

which begs the question of why passages from the Bible that had not yet been written (as of the alleged time when those passages are quoted) appear in the Book of Mormon, which indicates that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century work and not an ancient Hebrew scripture.

You're so black and white, my friend. If we're not talking about a direct translation, then there is no reason to think the KJV couldn't have been used (not by Joseph, not by his scribed, but by others). I mean its pretty unreasonable to think that Joseph Smith just had the words quoted in his head, seeing as the evidence is clear that he picked up where he left off without reconciling anything. And, if he was reading something that was previously written from his hat, then the problem of having no light comes into play. You can't read something in pitch blackness.

Why did you bother to suggest that one character on the plates could represent 68 pages of English text?

my intent here was to suggest that the english text could be so expanded that in essence 68 pages of the Book of Mormon can be, proportionately the same as 1 character.

Just hypothetically:

If the Book of Mormon were a 19th-century hoax, in what way would its content, its provenance, and the evidence in favor of its authenticity be different than how they already are?

I don't know.

[_Scottie]

How about this:

4th Nephi 1:6

And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away.

Maybe you could instead write, And thus did fifty nine years pass away

and again in verse 14:

And it came to pass that the seventy and first year passed away, and also the seventy and second year, yea, and in fine, till the seventy and ninth year had passed away...


You can't tell me that Joseph wasn't just having writers block right here. Trying to come up with something.

[_Darth J]

No, and that is even assuming for the sake of argument that the Book of Mormon is the ancient scripture believers purport it to be. Nobody involved with the alleged translation of the Book of Mormon said that the plates were involved.

Well then there ya go.

Therefore, the purpose of the plates and making sure that witnesses gave a testimonial as to their existence was.......

We do have information, we do have a clear concept, and it is not speculation. All of Joseph Smith's contemporaries indicated that Joseph Smith put a seer stone in a hat, put his face inside the hat, and the words written on the plates appeared on the seer stone.

So tell me. If the plates were not referenced, and were not looked at, how would they know the "words written" were the ones on the plates?

They would have no reason to draw any other conclusion.

by the way, do you understand the difference between an assumption, an inference, and a conclusion? I find myself forced to ask because you have never demonstrated such an understanding.

Maybe you have a point, though. After Joseph Smith affirmatively telling people that he was translating the golden plates that an angel had given him, why wouldn't we just as well assume that he was really translating words that had no relationship whatsoever to the golden plates that an undead pre-Columbian Hebrew had given him?

All we really know is Joseph Smith "read" some words out loud and a scribe wrote them down. Your idea is based of an assumption--the scribe must have assumed what Joseph Smith saw were the wrods ont he plates, but we don't know that.

Or, alternatively, they arrived at that conclusion because Joseph Smith actively led the people who were present during the translation to believe that that is what was happening.

David Whitmer:

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation"

Martin Harris:

By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

Michael Morse (Emma Smith's brother-in-law):

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes - Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down.

So let's be clear: when eyewitnesses describe what Joseph Smith did in their immediate presence, it's just an "assumption." Is that your position?

Tell me a reason why I should find any of the "possibilities" you suggest regarding things like the Book of Mormon being what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, or Joseph Smith violating the terms of D&C 132, to be persuasive, probable, or reasonable.

I'm not about to think any ideas regarding this topic will be persuasive, probable or reasonable to you.

I didn't say "ideas." I said a reason. Give me a factual, evidentiary basis to find a single one of your suggested "possibilities" to be persuasive or likely to have happened.

[_Darth J]

Which means a tight translation (since Joseph Smith had to be reading words from something),

You mean a tight transcription, moreso than translation. The tightness is in whether the words Joseph "read" or spoke were the words that were recorded by the scribe. The witnesses didn't' see the words and do we really know if they were aware of what Joseph saw? They could very well assume he read the words, that they appeared to him, since they heard him speak words. How it worked, I don't htink we know.

Nope. Martin Harris, for one, knew this was going on, because the translation could not continue unless Martin had correctly written what Joseph Smith saw. The eyewitnesses are unanimous as to what Joseph Smith was doing. Maybe their mistake was believing the show that Joseph Smith was putting on for them?

"Transcription" causes more problems than it solves, since you are now saying that God translated the record and any errors, anachronisms, or other problems with the text of the Book of Mormon are God's fault.

which begs the question of why passages from the Bible that had not yet been written (as of the alleged time when those passages are quoted) appear in the Book of Mormon, which indicates that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century work and not an ancient Hebrew scripture.

You're so black and white, my friend. If we're not talking about a direct translation, then there is no reason to think the KJV couldn't have been used (not by Joseph, not by his scribed, but by others).

Yes, it is entirely conceivable that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni used the King James Version of the Bible when composing the ancient Nephite record.

I mean its pretty unreasonable to think that Joseph Smith just had the words quoted in his head, seeing as the evidence is clear that he picked up where he left off without reconciling anything. And, if he was reading something that was previously written from his hat, then the problem of having no light comes into play. You can't read something in pitch blackness.

You can when the seer stone is shining and showing you the words that were written on the golden plates.

Why did you bother to suggest that one character on the plates could represent 68 pages of English text?

my intent here was to suggest that the english text could be so expanded that in essence 68 pages of the Book of Mormon can be, proportionately the same as 1 character.

I am aware you are suggesting that. On what factual basis are you suggesting that?

Just hypothetically:

If the Book of Mormon were a 19th-century hoax, in what way would its content, its provenance, and the evidence in favor of its authenticity be different than how they already are?

I don't know.

Huh.

How about that?

Since you don't know how you would tell the difference, which explanation---that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century hoax or an ancient Nephite record---is more likely?

See: Occam's razor