Daniel Peterson's Article on Book of Mormon in Deseret News

[_stemelbow]

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.

I don't' know if you'll listen if I do, but i will anyway.

The critics task is to prove the Church false. Its the wrong approach to argue, in their attempts to prove, to create some theoretical possibilities with no argument or support and then have the believer disprove the possibility. The burden to prove false is not achieved by stating possibilities.

On the other hand, if the critic wishes to prove the Church false and presents his/her argument, then its very reasonable that a believer present possibilities that render the attempted proof to be nothing more than an incomplete hypothesis.

As you can see, you're trying to equate apples to oranges.

[Guest]

Here is an example of remarkable consistency from the Book of Mormon.

It can be found in 2nd Nephi Chapter 15.

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land,

You're missing the obvious point here, which is that to a country bumpkin like joe, wood, iron, copper, brass, steel, gold, silver, and precious ores are not necessarily precious.

(ow ow ow... I just got a brain freeze trying to do bad mopologetics too quickly... it hurt so much, I just redundantly described mopologetics as bad...)

That's quite the Buffalo Chip schmo, who suffers from Fortigurn's Lazy Research, stepped in. What's that reference again?
lol

[_stemelbow]

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.

Then go ahead and offer a better possibility taking as the assumption of course that Joseph Smith dictated it in the short amount of time, and all the little pieces of information we know in that he continued right where he left off without having to review, or stop to think about it.

I mean his conclusion may be a little hasty, but go ahead and offer something.

[_bcspace]

Here is an example of remarkable consistency from the Book of Mormon.

It can be found in 2nd Nephi Chapter 15.

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land,

You're missing the obvious point here, which is that to a country bumpkin like joe, wood, iron, copper, brass, steel, gold, silver, and precious ores are not necessarily precious.

(ow ow ow... I just got a brain freeze trying to do bad mopologetics too quickly... it hurt so much, I just redundantly described mopologetics as bad...)

That's quite the Buffalo Chip schmo, who suffers from Fortigurn's Lazy Research, stepped in. What's that reference again?
lol

[_stemelbow]

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.

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.

[_Simon Belmont]

Does it blow DCP's mind that the vast majority of people in the world do not see the complexity he sees in the Book of Mormon?

And I am sure you believe that the "vast majority of the world" has read the Book of Mormon, right?

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. Here it is, all spelled out for you:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... chapid=767

[_Themis]

That's already been explained, Themis.

Could you show where. As I have said if you want to assume Joseph made it up, then you cannot keep the assumption that Joseph had only a small time frame to create the Book of Mormon.

[_Themis]

The critics task is to prove the Church false.

This is actually backwards. It is the responsibility of the church to prove it is true. They make the claims about the Book of Mormon, so they are the ones who have to back it up.

Its the wrong approach to argue, in their attempts to prove, to create some theoretical possibilities with no argument or support and then have the believer disprove the possibility. The burden to prove false is not achieved by stating possibilities.

On the other hand, if the critic wishes to prove the Church false and presents his/her argument, then its very reasonable that a believer present possibilities that render the attempted proof to be nothing more than an incomplete hypothesis.

As you can see, you're trying to equate apples to oranges.

You are trying to justify your game of possibilities while saying those on the other side of an argument cannot do the same. This is hypocritical. Again burden of proof is not really on the critic. I don't mind defenders coming up with possibilities as long as they are plausible. Most of what you have done do not meet that. Now this is what he said

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?

He asked a question, and yes it is a possibility. Now evidence to support this hypothesis is lacking so it can only remain as a possibility. This is no different then what you have been doing, but in some bizarre way you think it is ok for you and not others.

The burden to prove false is not achieved by stating possibilities.

The burden of proving true is not achieved by stating possibilities. true or false depend on how you want to phrase your statement. Perhaps you should take this to heart. Scientific hypothesis are not accepted or rejected by possibilities, even though they may be created as avenues to research. If you want a present a possibility you should also attempt to find evidence that will support or reject the possibility. Neither side gets some pass.

[_Themis]

Then go ahead and offer a better possibility taking as the assumption of course that Joseph Smith dictated it in the short amount of time, and all the little pieces of information we know in that he continued right where he left off without having to review, or stop to think about it.

I mean his conclusion may be a little hasty, but go ahead and offer something.

Why assume a short time frame if you are going to view it from the perspective that Joseph made it up. Remember that eye witnesses also said that the Bible was never referenced, but we see many quotes from the KJV with mistakes and all.

[_ludwigm]

...
That's quite the Buffalo Chip schmo, who suffers from Fortigurn's Lazy Research, stepped in. What's that reference again?
lol

Please enlighten us about Fortigurn. Is he/she/it doctrinal?
And/or about his (her, its?) Research. Lazy or laborious.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20830&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

______________________________
Sometimes I am Little Red Riding Hood, lost in the forest. Trees everywhere around me.
And there is the wolf.


I read and understand every word of the sentences. The sentences are syntactically correct. All the subjective, predicate, object, subject, adverb, attribute, tenses are correct.

And the sentence makes no sense, at any rate for me.

Stepped in.