DCP Puts Odd Parameters on Evidence for Book of Mormon

[_Doctor Scratch]

Elsewhere in the Internet Universe, Doctor Peterson has been holding forth on a variety of subjects. Indeed, somewhat recently, our dear friend and moderator Scottie posed quite an interesting question:

According to many believers, Dr Peterson and Astyanax, the Book or Mormon hasn't even come close to being debunked.

I quite enjoyed the recent Mormon Expression podcast about the top 10 anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. These alone should be enough to persuade most people that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be... an ancient text written by Jews in the Americas between 600bc and 400ad. Instead, it appears to have all the tell-tale signs of a story written in the early 19th century.

The only people I see that refute this claim are those with a vested interest in the Book of Mormon as a literal record of ancient Americans.

So, my question to those believers, what would it take to debunk the Book of Mormon? Is there anything that would make you believe that it is a 19th century work?

It's an important, oft-visited question. (I should add in the disclaimer that I have not yet listened to the latest ME podcast, though I am currently enjoying the co-podcast of Larsen and Dehlin, esp. the phone call they got from the guy who was apparently a troll.) Here is Dr. Peterson's dogmatic reply to Scottie:

It would take very serious evidence and analysis.

Not a quick Google search and a prima facie acceptance of the first anti-Mormon Website it turned up.

Now, I don't really think this is quite what Scottie (nor any other serious critic) had in mind.

I didn't ask what it wouldn't take.

There is serious evidence out there currently. What evidence more would it take?

And at last a real answer:

An authenticated letter from Joseph Smith confessing the book a fraud would do it.

An authenticated Spalding manuscript that was substantially similar to the Book of Mormon would also do the trick.

Things like that would be decisive.

Short of such things, it's a matter of probabilities. And I plainly weigh those probabilities very differently than you do.

There is evidence for, and evidence against. None of it decisive.

Some of it, though -- such as the testimony of the Witnesses -- awfully good.

Now, this just seems extreme. A letter from Joseph Smith? Seriously? How is that one apparently small thing enough to serve as the tipping point? Wouldn't some apologists figure out some means of explaining it away--e.g., Joseph Smith was drunk when he wrote it, or he was only joking? And why would the one letter be more persuasive than the huge array of nonexistent archaeological evidence? Scottie specifically listed the anachronisms, and yet Dr. Peterson apparently feels comfortable waving all of these away. Scottie could have just as easily referred readers to the "Mormon Stories" podcast with Michael Coe, which is incredibly devastating to the Book of Mormon. (And it's worth noting that, so far, no one has stepped up to the plate in response to John Dehlin's request for rebuttal to Coe.)

It is a sad day indeed when this is the very best that the "Kingpin" of Mopologetics has to offer. Now, I cannot supply a link to the above (or, in any event, I won't), but I can say without hesitation that this is a location where Dr. Peterson feels comfortable "letting it all hang out," so to speak. So you can consider this to be the definitive statement on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and the ability of anyone to debunk it in the eyes of the MI apologists. Furthermore, I cannot help but doff my cap in the direction of Dr. Robbers. In a roundabout kind of way, this helps to further confirm that the LGT is indeed dead. After all, if *only* a letter from Joseph Smith will suffice, then all the archaeological digging down in Chiapas has been a huge waste of time.

[_DarkHelmet]

The fact that the Book of Abraham source material surfaced and was not even close to what Joaeph Smith claimed it was, yet apologists still defend it as scripture is proof that NOTHING will debunk the Book of Mormon in the eyes of the true believers like Petersen. The fact that the Book of Mormon was thoroughly debunked in the eyes of the non-Mormon world long ago tells us that TBMs and their apologists are simply in denial by thinking it has not yet been debunked.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The fact that the Book of Abraham source material surfaced and was not even close to what Joaeph Smith claimed it was, yet apologists still defend it as scripture is proof that NOTHING will debunk the Book of Mormon in the eyes of the true believers like Petersen. The fact that the Book of Mormon was thoroughly debunked in the eyes of the non-Mormon world long ago tells us that TBMs and their apologists are simply in denial by thinking it has not yet been debunked.

That's a great point, DarkHelmet, and I like your analogy. If an "authenticated" letter from Joseph Smith were to surface, I imagine that we would see a subset of Mopologetics spring up in much the same way that one has surfaced for the Book of Abraham. And let's face it: Book of Abraham Mopologetics is an extremely large and significant subcategory of LDS apologetics. A huge amount of effort has been put into trying to explain away the KEP, the papyri, and so forth. I bet we'd see something just like that if this so-called "authenticated letter" were to surface.

[_jon]

I think Dr Peterson has a fair point.

To debunk the Book of Mormon we would need an authenticated original document from the author - which if it was a fraud would be Joseph Smith.

I think it's also fair to expect the same type of thing to be required as evidence of proof it is not a fraud.

So, all we need is an authenticated original document from one of the authors - Nephi, Mormon, Alma, Moroni, Ether...etc.
Just one will do.
Just one original document, plate etc that is authenticated and written by one of them will suffice.

Dr Peterson must have one.
After all, that's his specified method of authenticity and I don't think he would be two-faced about something so important...

[_Scottie]

Just curious why you feel this need to post from a private message board where you are not invited?

[_Buffalo]

The fact that the Book of Abraham source material surfaced and was not even close to what Joaeph Smith claimed it was, yet apologists still defend it as scripture is proof that NOTHING will debunk the Book of Mormon in the eyes of the true believers like Petersen. The fact that the Book of Mormon was thoroughly debunked in the eyes of the non-Mormon world long ago tells us that TBMs and their apologists are simply in denial by thinking it has not yet been debunked.

Yup. Dr. P just picked the most unlikely thing he could think of, but the fact is there's nothing that a true believer would accept in the future that would do it if the current mountain of evidence against isn't enough.

[_Some Schmo]

The fact that the Book of Abraham source material surfaced and was not even close to what Joaeph Smith claimed it was, yet apologists still defend it as scripture is proof that NOTHING will debunk the Book of Mormon in the eyes of the true believers like Petersen. The fact that the Book of Mormon was thoroughly debunked in the eyes of the non-Mormon world long ago tells us that TBMs and their apologists are simply in denial by thinking it has not yet been debunked.

Yup. Dr. P just picked the most unlikely thing he could think of, but the fact is there's nothing that a true believer would accept in the future that would do it if the current mountain of evidence against isn't enough.

Being impervious to reason and common sense is what real faith is all about. The faithful can (and do) take godly pride in their willful ignorance. What good is a sheep that stands up to its shepherd?

[_Equality]

A few years back there emerged an astonishing historical find: the diary of Jack the Ripper. It was subjected to a battery of tests and a number of experts, after extensive and intensive study, declared it authentic. Some time after that, the man who "discovered" the manuscript admitted, under oath, that he had, in fact, written it with the help of his wife. Case closed, right? Not so fast. There are still people--smart people, even--who believe the man's confession was coerced or procured through nefarious means, and that the diary is actually authentic. And maybe it is. The point is that if there are people who believe in something as mundane as the Ripper diary even after the man who produced it says he forged it, then I imagine there are many Mormons who would never accept a document from Joseph Smith saying he made the whole thing up. And, of course, DCP knows that his test can never be passed. How could such a confession from Smith, 160 years after his death, ever be "authenticated"? Hofmann's shenanigans sure don't help matters. Mormons don't believe because of evidence; they believe in spite of it. Faith is all about believing without evidence. The less evidence you have (or the more evidence you have against you), the greater the faith required to believe. That's why apologists are some of the most faithful members of the Mormon church--they are aware of the mountains of evidence against their beliefs but they believe anyway, in defiance of reason, common sense, facts, and evidence. Apologists are doubly deluded. Normal members are deluded in the sense that they believe fantastical things without evidentiary support for those beliefs. But they don't claim to believe based on evidence and reason, which they know are antithetical to faith. Apologists, on the other hand, not only believe fantastical things, they have also deluded themselves into believing that their beliefs are founded on reason and evidence.

[_Scottie]

It really is fascinating that apologists claim all the troublesome questions have been answered.

They most certainly HAVE NOT been answered. They may have been addresses (quite poorly, in my opinion), but not answered.

As I said over there, "we just haven't found the horse bones yet" doesn't hold as much weight to the general population as the apologists think it should.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Just curious why you feel this need to post from a private message board where you are not invited?

Hi, Scottie. Your post is totally off-topic. Since you're a moderator, would you mind splitting this off, or else deleting it? Thanks in advance.