DiscussMormonism.com

I'm clearly not explaining myself well. Maybe I should stop listing examples, because people keep assuming I am trying to argue in favor of those examples.

I am not wearing an apologist hat here. I am not arguing in favor of a particular Book of Mormon translation process. That would require more ability than I have. All I am saying is that the arguments against the Book of Mormon are not the 'slam dunk' many seem to believe.

Be it a short time or a long time, with manuscript or without, the Book of Mormon would have made me uncomfortable as an unbeliever. Maybe it is because I have written a book of fiction and understand how difficult it is to maintain coherency across the novel, especially while using inconspicuous references near the beginning of the book that become major themes near the end (as in the Book of Mormon). I mentioned that if I were to become an unbeliever, I would not be able to swallow a dictation from memory. I would also have a hard time with the idea that someone could be that talented of a con-artist to dupe that many people. Yes, I understand that maybe this just tells more about me than it does about the Book of Mormon. Ultimately It would have made me uncomfortable. It clearly does not make many of you uncomfortable. Maybe that is why we are on different sides of whatever line we have drawn between us.

For some reason, there exists this idea that if a person believes a divine origin of the Book of Mormon, it is only because they haven't yet heard about the KJV implications, or Spaulding, or the Late War, or Smith's character, etc. Believing in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is not the difficult part, believing in the Divine in the first place is.

Gorman wrote:Believing in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is not the difficult part, believing in the Divine in the first place is.

Do you, or do you not subscribe to Occam's razor?

DarkHelmet wrote:I think it makes believers feel better thinking that non-Mormons have difficulty sleeping at night because of the possibility that the Book of Mormon might be true. They have delusions of grandeur about the Book of Mormon being studied and analyzed by the great minds of the world, when in reality it's just a silly little curiosity that the vast majority of the world hasn't given a second thought to. It's a joke in the religious community outside of Mormonism. It's a joke among experts of American history. It's literally a joke on Broadway. Everyone else just ignores it.

Some folks just can't take a joke.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Do you, or do you not subscribe to Occam's razor?

Occam's razor is not a law, it is a guideline. I can subscribe to it and still ignore it when I have good reason to ignore it.

Wikipedia wrote:In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion . . . simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable.

We like to think nature is simple, so we chose the simplest answer whenever possible. Occam's razor officially states, "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity," or in other words, "Don't make things complicated unless there is good reason to."

The complicated answer is often the right answer.

Gorman wrote:The complicated answer is often the right answer.

Or, you know... Occam's razor:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37332

V/R
Doc

Gorman wrote:I'm clearly not explaining myself well. Maybe I should stop listing examples, because people keep assuming I am trying to argue in favor of those examples.

I am not wearing an apologist hat here. I am not arguing in favor of a particular Book of Mormon translation process. That would require more ability than I have. All I am saying is that the arguments against the Book of Mormon are not the 'slam dunk' many seem to believe.

Be it a short time or a long time, with manuscript or without, the Book of Mormon would have made me uncomfortable as an unbeliever. Maybe it is because I have written a book of fiction and understand how difficult it is to maintain coherency across the novel, especially while using inconspicuous references near the beginning of the book that become major themes near the end (as in the Book of Mormon). I mentioned that if I were to become an unbeliever, I would not be able to swallow a dictation from memory. I would also have a hard time with the idea that someone could be that talented of a con-artist to dupe that many people. Yes, I understand that maybe this just tells more about me than it does about the Book of Mormon. Ultimately It would have made me uncomfortable. It clearly does not make many of you uncomfortable. Maybe that is why we are on different sides of whatever line we have drawn between us.

For some reason, there exists this idea that if a person believes a divine origin of the Book of Mormon, it is only because they haven't yet heard about the KJV implications, or Spaulding, or the Late War, or Smith's character, etc. Believing in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is not the difficult part, believing in the Divine in the first place is.

There have been lots of con-artist that have dupes lots of smart people, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Bernie Madoff, etc. These guys duped people out of money and even got guys to give their wives to them (ok not sure about Madoff on that one). What makes what Joseph Smith did any more spectacular? Remember he wasn't doing it all by himself. He had lots of other con-artists helping him.

The Book of Mormon does not make uncomfortable. Except for the fact I feel foolish for having believed in it as long as I did. I don't get why people always talk about its message and what not. There is not one single new idea in the entire book that you can't find somewhere else and written before. The Book of Mormon is no more divine than my car's owner's manual.

What to read a divine book? Read the Tao of Pooh. Now that is a book with real life lessons

Gorman wrote:I'm clearly not explaining myself well... All I am saying is that the arguments against the Book of Mormon are not the 'slam dunk' many seem to believe.

You can make that assertion. But you are also then left explaining why 'rock in hat' makes a better case.

Gorman wrote:Be it a short time or a long time, with manuscript or without, the Book of Mormon would have made me uncomfortable as an unbeliever. Maybe it is because I have written a book of fiction and understand how difficult it is to maintain coherency across the novel, especially while using inconspicuous references near the beginning of the book that become major themes near the end (as in the Book of Mormon).

But that does not seem to be how the Book of Mormon was written out. Check out this page for a detailed timeline, which explains that this was not accomplished in a linear fashion. Any inconspicuous references could have easily been added as required given that the first portion of the Book was completed after the major mid- and end portions:

http://www.eldenwatson.net/XoM.htm

(please replace the 'X' with a 'B' as the link will not publish accurately in this forum when inserted as it actually is)

From a BYU.edu source, we have the following:

"Most evidence supports the idea that Joseph and Oliver began their work in April 1829 with the speech of Benjamin (Mosiah 1-6), translated to the end of the book of Moroni in May, then translated the Title Page, and finally translated the small plates of Nephi (1 Nephi-Omni) and the Words of Mormon before the end of June (Welch and Rathbone). The text of the Title Page, "the last leaf" of the plates of Mormon (HC 1:71), was used as the book's description on the copyright form filed on June 11, 1829."

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mo ... seph_Smith

As well, an outline is not a difficult thing to set up beforehand to aid the writing process.

Gorman wrote:I mentioned that if I were to become an unbeliever, I would not be able to swallow a dictation from memory.

A 'dictation from memory' isn't required. Joseph was rarely under third-party observation except for very limited and infrequent periods of time.

But even believing that it must have been dictated from memory, remember - 7 pages a day, and with very little actual new content within that stretch of pages, would be all that was required to either dictate from memory, or embellish an existing outline, or to create content extemporaneously as required, whenever a third party did step in to see the 'translation'. Drop the requirement that creation of the Book must be dictation by memory and things get even easier.

And we aren't even considering that whatever Joseph 'translated' does not necessarily have to be whatever was eventually presented to the printer. There is no verifiable chain of custody of any transcript. A substitution is the easiest scenario of all to set up.

Gorman wrote:I would also have a hard time with the idea that someone could be that talented of a con-artist to dupe that many people.

Are you a member of Islam or Catholicism? If not, would you consider adherents to either to be duped? There's a few billion folks right there, if so.

Have you considered what happens with the population of North Korea? There's another 25 million folks 'duped' into thinking that their leader is a god, along with a large number of other ridiculous things.

All that this takes is one or a few earnest-sounding story-tellers, and building a base after that point is completely doable, especially given the time at when this occurred.

Gorman wrote:Yes, I understand that maybe this just tells more about me than it does about the Book of Mormon. Ultimately It would have made me uncomfortable. It clearly does not make many of you uncomfortable. Maybe that is why we are on different sides of whatever line we have drawn between us.

I cannot put myself into your shoes to comprehend what makes a fabrication scenario uncomfortable, when every option related to it seems so easily accomplished.

Gorman wrote:For some reason, there exists this idea that if a person believes a divine origin of the Book of Mormon, it is only because they haven't yet heard about the KJV implications, or Spaulding, or the Late War, or Smith's character, etc. Believing in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is not the difficult part, believing in the Divine in the first place is.

Fair enough. But for most, the existence of divine entity of some sort is much more comprehensible than to claim what Smith produced had a divine origin. Otherwise, LDS missionary efforts would see much more success.

Gorman wrote:All I am saying is that the arguments against the Book of Mormon are not the 'slam dunk' many seem to believe.

The arguments you are bringing up are not related to most of the evidence showing the Book of Mormon to be made up. I don't conclude much about the production method since little is really known. It's others things that tell us whether is was made up. I don't need to know how a fake bill was made to know it is fake.

Be it a short time or a long time, with manuscript or without, the Book of Mormon would have made me uncomfortable as an unbeliever.

I am not sure you can know this, and since it doesn't make other un-believer uncomfortable, maybe you are still seeing things from a biased believing pov.

Maybe it is because I have written a book of fiction and understand how difficult it is to maintain coherency across the novel, especially while using inconspicuous references near the beginning of the book that become major themes near the end (as in the Book of Mormon).

I haven't seen anything that would be that hard for anyone to do. Perhaps you have something specific.

I mentioned that if I were to become an unbeliever, I would not be able to swallow a dictation from memory.

Since there are a number of other good possibilities it's not really an issue. Especially since we have little information on what happened. I doubt many could do it simply from memory.

I would also have a hard time with the idea that someone could be that talented of a con-artist to dupe that many people.

I think you are guilty again of huge assumptions you don't really know, and naïve of the history an ease of duping people. Watch some magic shows.

For some reason, there exists this idea that if a person believes a divine origin of the Book of Mormon, it is only because they haven't yet heard about the KJV implications, or Spaulding, or the Late War, or Smith's character, etc.

Maybe some, but I don't. I know some who know the evidence for the age of the earth and still believe in a young earth and global flood.

Believing in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon is not the difficult part, believing in the Divine in the first place is.

Most here started with beliefs in the divine, and many still do.

I find it ironic Gorman can't comprehend being duped by a scam when he was just promoting the fabricated narrative of the Book of Mormon's origin story. ??

- Doc

canpakes wrote:And we aren't even considering that whatever Joseph 'translated' does not necessarily have to be whatever was eventually presented to the printer. There is no verifiable chain of custody of any transcript. A substitution is the easiest scenario of all to set up.

This is a really important point here. This is such a huge assumption that even many non-believers can be guilty of making this assumption. I did for sometime.