DiscussMormonism.com

stemelbow wrote:
I think your missing the point. Its not that the book couldn't have been written by Joseph and/or others under any conceivable set of circumstances, but it is that considering the witnesses testimonies of how it occurred, there is very little other conceivable means to produce the book considering its amount of complexity and consistency.

Again your missing a very pertinent portion of the argument. Its more along the lines of its very complex and consistent and considering how the witnesses describe the process, its very hard, if not impossible, to determine how else the book could have come about, if not in the way Joseph claims.

It's not really that hard to conceive of other ways, and many have. Many do not see the consistency or complexity and see many mistakes, anachronisms, etc. While eye witness testimony is important, one needs to be very careful here. So many problems can show that it is not as accurate as we like, and that does not even get into whether a witness is being totally honest. A number of apologist have concluded that Joseph must have referenced the KJV in the parts that it quotes, yet eye witness testimony says this did not happen.

With regard to DCP's article, one need only select the best among the following two hypotheses:

H1: The archeology, history, language, culture, genetics, and technology of Mesoamerica from approximately 2500 BCE to approximately 600 ACE is best described by the qualified historians, archeologists, linguists, geneticists, ethnologists, geologists and other professionals who have spend hundreds of thousands of hours working onsite in Mesoamerica and who have published their findings in hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers published over the last century.

H2: The archeology, history, language, culture, genetics, and technology of Mesoamerica from approximately 2500 BCE to approximately 600 ACE is best described by writings of an uneducated glass looker and treasure hunter who lived in New England in the early 19th century, never set foot in Mesoamerica, claimed that he magically received golden plates that contained this history and published this history (which showed remarkable similarity to popular fiction of time) in the Book of Mormon, said history of the Mesoamerican inhabitants having been first ascribed to native North American peoples by his followers until it became abundantly clear that no evidence for the North American version of the story could be found.

According to the article, DCP would select the second hypothesis (H2), and would encourage others to select this as the best hypothesis as well.

Simon Belmont wrote:

Madison54 wrote:the short amount of time it took Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon.

That is a very powerful evidence for the Book of Mormon.

No, it's very powerful evidence that Joseph simply dictated from the Spalding Manuscript.

The Book of Mormon is clearly a plagiarism, and a shoddy piece of 19th century American literature. Bottom line it sucks. It really does. It's terrible. It's the American equivalent of the Quran. Total crap. You know it. We know it. Everone knows it. If it were as ******* (<- **** you Liz) wonderful as Mopologists claim it is more people would embrace it, but they don't and it is what it is.

[Mod Scottie: Why don't you take a couple of days off.]

stemelbow wrote:

brade wrote:So, here's the argument:

P1: If the Book of Mormon appears to be too complex to have been written by Joseph or any of his contemporaries in the early nineteenth century under any conceivable set of circumstances than the one Joseph describes, then the Book of Mormon is probably an authentic ancient document translated into English by miraculous means.

I think your missing the point. Its not that the book couldn't have been written by Joseph and/or others under any conceivable set of circumstances, but it is that considering the witnesses testimonies of how it occurred, there is very little other conceivable means to produce the book considering its amount of complexity and consistency.

Is that not essentially what that premise says? Also, that premise is nearly word-for-word from DCP's article. You don't want the premises of an argument to be unwieldy - considerations of witness testimony and other matters that lend to the complexity of the Book of Mormon would be offered as support of the premise and not put in the premise itself.

P2: The Book of Mormon appears to be too complex to have been written by Joseph or any of his contemporaries in the early nineteenth century under any conceivable set of circumstances than the one Joseph describes.

Again your missing a very pertinent portion of the argument. Its more along the lines of its very complex and consistent and considering how the witnesses describe the process, its very hard, if not impossible, to determine how else the book could have come about, if not in the way Joseph claims.

And again, that is a word-for-word assertion by Dr. Thorne which is apparently endorsed by Dr. Peterson. And again, considerations of witnesses and the rest of it would be offered as support for the premise and not entered into the premise itself - we want to avoid unwieldy premises.

If it is true Joseph Smith seldom if ever preached from or about the Book of Mormon, then it would seem that he was unfamiliar with the material. Being unfamiliar with the material says to me Joseph Smith either channeled directly from God without passing Go to comprehend what he was dictating OR there was a script he was mainlly using and adding to as he went along. I choose to believe the latter.

why else would he not preach the Book of Mormon to his followers or would be followers?

seems he knew a little but not much about the material thus Joseph Smith was part of the scam/deception of a script prepared by someone else.

just asking!

kairos wrote:why else would he not preach the Book of Mormon to his followers or would be followers?

seems he knew a little but not much about the material thus Joseph Smith was part of the scam/deception of a script prepared by someone else.

I think how simplistic the Book of Mormon teachings are compared to the bizarreness of the BoAbr suggests that the Book of Mormon was basically either (a) a fanciful blend of sources in the young mind of JSJr (Spaulding, View of the Hebrews, Isaiah, the Gospels), or (b) the fabrications when he was younger and had not time to sophisticate up a theology. By the time he was authoring the BoAbr, he had some pretty odd ball ideas floating around in his cranium.

Dr. Shades wrote:No, it's very powerful evidence that Joseph simply dictated from the Spalding Manuscript.

Then you'd have to prove he had access to the Spaulding manuscript, and was capable of dictation.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:The Book of Mormon is clearly a plagiarism, and a shoddy piece of 19th century American literature. Bottom line it sucks. It really does. It's terrible. It's the American equivalent of the Quran. Total crap. You know it. We know it. Everone knows it. If it were as ******* (<- **** you Liz) wonderful as Mopologists claim it is more people would embrace it, but they don't and it is what it is.

The above was said by a representative and full professor of Cassius University.

Simon B wrote:The above was said by a representative and full professor of Cassius University

I haven't read the exchange so I can't comment, it's on a topic that doesn't interest me personally.

However, I can tell you that the opinions of any particular faculty member at Cassius University do not necessarily reflect the opinions of myself, other faculty, or the University. Just like it is at FARMS. Do you have a problem with the FARMS Review, Simon? If you are willing to say that contra FARMS administration that that any given article in the Review or any particular reviewer is representative of FARMS, then I will acknowledge that your criticism of Cassius is at least consistent, whether or not I agree with it.