stemelbow wrote: I'm not surprised you are unable to see the mistake in your reasoning, Themis. you see possiblity for me means that the effort to prove wrong can be wrong itself. To use a possibility to attack for criticism is going about it all wrong.
Please clarify how it's ok for you, but not for the critic. All I see is that you are getting on someone for bringing up a possibility of how Joseph may have created the Book of Mormon, but then you do the same thing all the time in creating possibilities on how it could still be true.
Themis wrote: All I see is that you are getting on someone for bringing up a possibility of how Joseph may have created the Book of Mormon, ...
Excellent point and for that reason alone people should allow Dr. Peterson leeway in expressing such possible ideas for the creation of the Book of Mormon.
why me wrote:.... In fact the problems with Book of Mormon syntax tend to confirm its time span and its origins.
Um, you mean the problems in the Book of Mormon are due to it being engraved on metal plates by a Mayan-speaking, Christian Jew who wrote in Egyptian somewhere in Seventh Century North America--then said document was translated into Elizabethan English by a Nineteenth Century American frontiersman using a stone in a hat?
I'm with you. No wonder it has problems. And twisted syntax is the least of them.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cardinal Biggles wrote:Oliver Cowdery was a learned man. He acted as scribe. Is there good reason to believe that he didn't help Smith invent the story?
Yes, didn't you read the article?
"It is too complex," says Dr. Thorne of the Book of Mormon, "to have been written by Joseph in the manner and in the amount of time described by witnesses. Indeed, it is too complex to have been written by Joseph in the manner hypothesized by his enemies or critics.Ultimately, it 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 other than the one Joseph describes — the translation by miraculous means of an authentically ancient document."
Last edited by Guest on Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
moksha wrote:Excellent point and for that reason alone people should allow Dr. Peterson leeway in expressing such possible ideas for the creation of the Book of Mormon.
My comments were to just call stem out on his hypocritical behavior. Dan has the right to say what ever he wants. I think much of it is incorrect, and he tends to make false claims about what the critics are arguing.
As an example is the speed in which the Book of Mormon is produced. Dan calls it impressive. Is it? Not at all. He assumes it was translated by God to Joseph, so 10-11 pages a day is not really impressive, especially if we go by the evidence which tells us that he was getting the translation from God word for word. Really the impressive bit has to be with the assumption that Joseph made it up, and that he did so within the time frame they claim, which is odd that with an assumption that he made it up, that you would still go with the assumption that he did it in this time frame, especially with all the Bible quotes borrowed even though some claimed the Bible was never used. If your going to assume Joseph made it up, then you logically would need to abandon the time frame.
"It is too complex," says Dr. Thorne of the Book of Mormon, "to have been written by Joseph in the manner and in the amount of time described by witnesses. Indeed, it is too complex to have been written by Joseph in the manner hypothesized by his enemies or critics.Ultimately, it 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 other than the one Joseph describes — the translation by miraculous means of an authentically ancient document."
Bull-crap
Obviously, it is pretty easy to conceive of a set of circumstances where somebody in the early 19th century could produce the Book of Mormon. Every critic can do it [conceive the necessary circumstances]. What is Dr. Thorne's problem? His brain is in a straighjacket.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
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.
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.
C: Therefore, the Book of Mormon is probably an authentic ancient document translated into English by miraculous means.
It's 2 that needs supporting, and here's what Daniel Peterson offers in that article:
1. It's doctrinally rich
2. Its vitally important as a second witness for the Savior Jesus Christ
3. It features hundreds of individual characters, many of them bearing quite uncommon names, who belong to a multitude of groups, subgroups and small factions.
4. It describes three migrations from the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere.
5. It employs at least three distinct dating systems.
6. It was dictated within a remarkably short time, at high speed (roughly nine to 11 pages of the English printed edition per day)
7. It's internally consistent.
8. It doesn't contradict itself.
9. It both presupposes and reflects a complicated geographical backdrop to its stories, involving scores of place names and topographical indicators.
10. Places maintain their proper relationships to each other even when they're mentioned only a few times over hundreds of pages.
11. Many important sections of the book are prefaced by statements that give readers a forecast of what's coming — and are then followed by summaries of what has just been read.
12. There are extended chiasms throughout the book.
13. The purported ancient authors sometimes quote from each other (e.g. in 1 Nephi 1:8 and Alma 36:22, passages dictated orally many days apart).
14. It was published without significant revision.
15. The person who published the book was a semiliterate young farmer with only a few weeks of formal education.
Madison54 wrote:I read through Peterson's article today in the Deseret News where he argues that the complexity and consistency of the Book of Mormon means that it must be true. Here's the link: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7001 ... amaze.html
I am kind of blown away that apologists are still using the same old arguments (ie. the short amount of time it took Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon).
Somehow I expected more from him.
Has anyone else read this? (It's also interesting to read through the comments.)
Christianity Today has picked up this article from the Deseret News and included it to its on-line version as well as committed to including it in it's December issue. KUDOS to Peterson to finally getting recognition for this Book of Mormon historicity argument from a very significant and credible Christian publication outside of Provo! This is HUGE for the Mormon Church and HUGE for the scholars at BYU! Game changer folks - and I want to be on record to be the first to admit it! Time for me, and perhaps many, to pay more attention to these Provo publications.
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
Themis wrote:I agree that it was fairly unique to him, but then the same could be said of the many great things others have done.
Good. We're in agreement then.
We know he was a good orator, which would be a valuable skill for what they did. He was also skilled with the rock in a hat which is what he used here as well. This also does not mean others may have been involved like Oliver. The rock in a hat may have been a just a prop. We don't need to know this information though. We can look at the text and see it is much more likely a 19th century fiction. Is there anything that would be considered impossible or extremely unlikely for Joseph and others to do in regards to the Book of Mormon?
That's already been explained, Themis.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.