Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Runtu]

Wow. Just finished reading this thread. I don't have much hope for the intellectually dishonest apologists out there but this will certainly be the catalyst for many who are questioning to make their exit.

There's an essay over on RfM entitled "How Obvious Does It Have to Be?" (or something similar to that). Over the years, I've heard a lot of people saying they'd discovered the final nail in the coffin of Mormonism, but it never seems to make much difference. People are going to believe what they believe, no matter what.

To me, the evidence is overwhelmingly against Mormonism, but people tell me all the time they think the evidence points in its favor. It's not that we both can't be right. It's that we see things differently, and unless that changes, very little of what they say to me will make me change my mind, and vice versa.

I don't think Mormonism is true, and I think it's quite obviously not true, but I still leave out the slimmest of possibilities because I know I can't prove anything. And I also recognize that what other people believe is none of my business. It's not my job (or desire) to get anyone to stop believing; in fact, I wouldn't wish that painful experience on anyone. If Mormonism makes people happy, that's fine with me.

If, however, someone comes to me with issues about the church, of course I'll always answer their questions honestly.

[Guest]

Wow. Just finished reading this thread. I don't have much hope for the intellectually dishonest apologists out there but this will certainly be the catalyst for many who are questioning to make their exit.

There's an essay over on RfM entitled "How Obvious Does It Have to Be?" (or something similar to that). Over the years, I've heard a lot of people saying they'd discovered the final nail in the coffin of Mormonism, but it never seems to make much difference. People are going to believe what they believe, no matter what.

To me, the evidence is overwhelmingly against Mormonism, but people tell me all the time they think the evidence points in its favor. It's not that we both can't be right. It's that we see things differently, and unless that changes, very little of what they say to me will make me change my mind, and vice versa.

I don't think Mormonism is true, and I think it's quite obviously not true, but I still leave out the slimmest of possibilities because I know I can't prove anything. And I also recognize that what other people believe is none of my business. It's not my job (or desire) to get anyone to stop believing; in fact, I wouldn't wish that painful experience on anyone. If Mormonism makes people happy, that's fine with me.

If, however, someone comes to me with issues about the church, of course I'll always answer their questions honestly.

I have hesitated commenting on this thread, because I think that most of this is complete nonsense. The claims of the Book of Mormon and its translation, if they have a basis in fact, are not affected by these analyses in the slightest.

Why?

Let's suppose there really were Gold Plates and that God returns them and we somehow retranslate them into Modern English and find the retranslation pretty well lines up with the same narrative that we have (undoubtedly the wording would be different). This single event would instantly dispel in a puff of smoke these analyses and theories about the source of the Book of Mormon.

Now cries the critic, there were no Gold Plates!?! Well, that is the assumption they are operating under and it may not be true. If there are Gold Plates, all of these other notions are superfluous because of that.

[_Runtu]

I have hesitated commenting on this thread, because I think that most of this is complete nonsense. The claims of the Book of Mormon and its translation, if they have a basis in fact, are not affected by these analyses in the slightest.

Why?

Let's suppose there really were Gold Plates and that God returns them and we somehow retranslate them into Modern English and find the retranslation pretty well lines up with the same narrative that we have (undoubtedly the wording would be different). This single event would instantly dispel in a puff of smoke these analyses and theories about the source of the Book of Mormon.

Now cries the critic, there were no Gold Plates!?! Well, that is the assumption they are operating are under and it may not be true. If there are Gold Plates, all of these other notions are superfluous because of that one assumption is false.

Thank you for demonstrating my point perfectly.

Again, this has less to do with "proving" anything than it does with putting the Book of Mormon in context. For years, apologists have been asserting that the Book of Mormon is unique among books published in that part of the USA in the early nineteenth century. This may not be a "smoking gun," but it definitely shows that the Book of Mormon fits in quite nicely with other books and myths circulating at the time.

This doesn't mean it's not true or inspired. It just means it is about what you'd expect from a book of that period, both in content and style. That shouldn't be particularly controversial, as it's obvious.

[_palerobber]

Let's suppose there really were Gold Plates and that God returns them and we somehow retranslate them into Modern English and find the retranslation pretty well lines up with the same narrative that we have (undoubtedly the wording would be different). This single event would instantly dispel in a puff of smoke these analyses and theories about the source of the Book of Mormon.

Now cries the critic, there were no Gold Plates!?! Well, that is the assumption they are operating are under and it may not be true. If there are Gold Plates, all of these other notions are superfluous because of that.

also too, monkeys could fly out of your butt, despite people here operating under the assumption that this would be impossible.

[_Darth J]

I have hesitated commenting on this thread, because I think that most of this is complete nonsense. The claims of the Book of Mormon and its translation, if they have a basis in fact, are not affected by these analyses in the slightest.

Why?

Let's suppose there really were Gold Plates and that God returns them and we somehow retranslate them into Modern English and find the retranslation pretty well lines up with the same narrative that we have (undoubtedly the wording would be different). This single event would instantly dispel in a puff of smoke these analyses and theories about the source of the Book of Mormon.

Now cries the critic, there were no Gold Plates!?! Well, that is the assumption they are operating are under and it may not be true. If there are Gold Plates, all of these other notions are superfluous because of that.

Wishful Thinking

Psychologically, "wishful thinking" is believing something because of a desire—"wish"—that it be true. As a logical fallacy, Wishful Thinking is an argument whose premiss expresses a desire for the conclusion to be true.

Of course, this type of thinking seldom takes the explicit form of an argument from a premiss about one's belief to the conclusion that one's wish is true. Such bald wishful thinking would be patently fallacious even to the wishful thinker. Rather, wishful thinking usually takes the form of a bias towards the belief in P, which leads to the overestimating of the weight of evidence in favor of P, as well as the underestimating of the weight against.

[_Tobin]

also too, monkeys could fly out of your butt, despite people here operating under the assumption that this would be impossible.

The difference is that is patently absurd. Engaging in hyperbole does not help your argument and demonstrates how truly tenuous and desperate you are in clinging to your assumptions. If that is the best you can do, then I have little to worry about. In fact, the existence of these Gold Plates, as claimed, would not be an absurd outcome at all and would explain a great deal about the Book of Mormon.

[_cognitiveharmony]

I have hesitated commenting on this thread, because I think that most of this is complete nonsense. The claims of the Book of Mormon and its translation, if they have a basis in fact, are not affected by these analyses in the slightest.

Why?

Let's suppose there really were Gold Plates and that God returns them and we somehow retranslate them into Modern English and find the retranslation pretty well lines up with the same narrative that we have (undoubtedly the wording would be different). This single event would instantly dispel in a puff of smoke these analyses and theories about the source of the Book of Mormon.

Now cries the critic, there were no Gold Plates!?! Well, that is the assumption they are operating are under and it may not be true. If there are Gold Plates, all of these other notions are superfluous because of that.

This reminds me of the old adage "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his a** when he jumped". Let's just all assume that the gold plates existed because that's a much more plausible and logical explanation than the whole, he made it all up thing. In all seriousness, no matter what angle I take on Joseph's story, it always appears not only unlikely, but borderline impossible. Whether I looked at it from a historical context or a philosophical context, I always arrived at the same conclusion. If the explanations provided by apologists are actually true ( I chuckled a little bit as I typed that ) and this is the way that God interacts with men, I could NEVER worship a God like this.

[_Runtu]

This reminds me of the old adage "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his a** when he jumped". Let's just all assume that the gold plates existed because that's a much more plausible and logical explanation than the whole, he made it all up thing. In all seriousness, no matter what angle I take on Joseph's story, it always appears not only unlikely, but borderline impossible. Whether I looked at it from a historical context or a philosophical context, I always arrived at the same conclusion. If the explanations provided by apologists are actually true ( I chuckled a little bit as I typed that ) and this is the way that God interacts with men, I could NEVER worship a God like this.

I've always said that if Mormonism turns out to be true, I'd like to ask just one question at the judgment: Why did God make His true church look like such a clumsy hoax?

by the way, I sent you a PM.

[_Tobin]

I've always said that if Mormonism turns out to be true, I'd like to ask just one question at the judgment: Why did God make His true church look like such a clumsy hoax?

And, this is just a guess, but perhaps the answer is that this is an invitation by God to speak with him about it.

[_Runtu]

And, this is just a guess, but perhaps the answer is that this is an invitation by God to speak with him about it.

I've spoken to Him, thanks.