Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Darth J]

I've been keeping up, off and on, with this thread...so forgive me if this concern of mine has already been addressed adequately on pages I may not have read. How does all this stuff with The Late War and Joseph's purported plagiarism of word groups from that book, in detail and with a significant (purported) degree of reliance, dovetail with the translation accounts we have of Joseph having his head in a hat reading off of a seer stone? And the short translation time window?

Regards,
MG

Likewise, how does Uri Heller's failure to bend spoons on The Tonight Show dovetail with his claim to have telekinetic powers?

How does Sylvia Brown's consistent failure to make a correct prediction dovetail with her claim to have psychic powers?

If only there were some kind of way we could make sense of claims and evidence being inconsistent with each other!

[_Darth J]

And mentalgymnast, if you're characterizing the issue as "plagiarism," you have been a whole lot more off than on in keeping up with this thread. Like the page immediately before this one, for example.

[_mentalgymnast]

I've been keeping up, off and on, with this thread...so forgive me if this concern of mine has already been addressed adequately on pages I may not have read. How does all this stuff with The Late War and Joseph's purported plagiarism of word groups from that book, in detail and with a significant (purported) degree of reliance, dovetail with the translation accounts we have of Joseph having his head in a hat reading off of a seer stone? And the short translation time window?

Regards,
MG

Likewise, how does Uri Heller's failure to bend spoons on The Tonight Show dovetail with his claim to have telekinetic powers?

How does Sylvia Brown's consistent failure to make a correct prediction dovetail with her claim to have psychic powers?

If only there were some kind of way we could make sense of claims and evidence being inconsistent with each other!

Personally, I am much more interested in the answers to my two questions than I am in yours. Would you care to answer them directly?

I'm sure there may be a number of others that would have a greater interest in the questions I asked, rather than the answers to yours. I'm asking for their benefit also. We would all be interested in your thoughts Darth.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

Likewise, how does Uri Heller's failure to bend spoons on The Tonight Show dovetail with his claim to have telekinetic powers?

How does Sylvia Brown's consistent failure to make a correct prediction dovetail with her claim to have psychic powers?

If only there were some kind of way we could make sense of claims and evidence being inconsistent with each other!

Personally, I am much more interested in the answers to my two questions than I am in yours. Would you care to answer them directly?

I'm sure there may be a number of others that would have a greater interest in the questions I asked, rather than the answers to yours. I'm asking for their benefit also. We would all be interested in your thoughts Darth.

Regards,
MG

The substance of my questions is the same as yours. When objective evidence is inconsistent with an implausible claim, what you do as a thinking adult is recognize that the evidence shows that the implausible claim is false.

Joseph Smith wasn't really reading the words of an ancient Nephite record off a magic rock. He was pretending to do this for the benefit of his credulous audience, just like mentalists continue to do today. We also have nothing but Joseph Smith's say-so that the Book of Mormon narrative did not substantially exist prior to the timeframe he claims. You have to believe the faith-promoting narrative to accept the alleged timeframe. That just begs the question.

If you think your reasoning is solid, and that it's not special pleading for your cherished beliefs, then you answer my questions.

[_Uncle Ed]

...
Joseph Smith wasn't really reading the words of an ancient Nephite record off a magic rock. He was pretending to do this for the benefit of his credulous audience, just like mentalists continue to do today. We also have nothing but Joseph Smith's say-so that the Book of Mormon narrative did not substantially exist prior to the timeframe he claims. You have to believe the faith-promoting narrative to accept the alleged timeframe. That just begs the question.

If you think your reasoning is solid, and that it's not special pleading for your cherished beliefs, then you answer my questions.

Joseph Smith wasn't pretending, he was convinced in his own mind that God was putting thoughts into it. He thought for a time that he had a well-acknowledged gift for scrying treasure; it was a commonly held folk belief of the day. He believed that the story of the Book of Mormon came directly through divine revelation. He might have had a prodigious gift for recall and dreamed up the whole thing almost entire before dictating, such that he could leave off and take it up at will after interruption. That would have impressed people, it sure made an impression on his wife.

You say "fraud", or might even allow "pious fraud", but you will not allow the possibility that Joseph Smith actually believed in himself as a prophet. That would allow him to do things and say things that are offensive to the world but not to those who believe. That would allow Joseph Smith to be obedient to a higher authority that I gather you do not even believe exists....

[_mentalgymnast]

Joseph Smith wasn't really reading the words of an ancient Nephite record off a magic rock. He was pretending to do this for the benefit of his credulous audience, just like mentalists continue to do today. We also have nothing but Joseph Smith's say-so that the Book of Mormon narrative did not substantially exist prior to the timeframe he claims. You have to believe the faith-promoting narrative to accept the alleged timeframe.

That's it? Whatever.

I'd be interested in how others do a work around in regards to my two questions. How does The Late War influence theory dovetail with the rock in the hat and the limited time window for translation? Something other than a one paragraph 'shrug it off' answer.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

...
Joseph Smith wasn't really reading the words of an ancient Nephite record off a magic rock. He was pretending to do this for the benefit of his credulous audience, just like mentalists continue to do today. We also have nothing but Joseph Smith's say-so that the Book of Mormon narrative did not substantially exist prior to the timeframe he claims. You have to believe the faith-promoting narrative to accept the alleged timeframe. That just begs the question.

If you think your reasoning is solid, and that it's not special pleading for your cherished beliefs, then you answer my questions.

Joseph Smith wasn't pretending, he was convinced in his own mind that God was putting thoughts into it. He thought for a time that he had a well-acknowledged gift for scrying treasure; it was a commonly held folk belief of the day. He believed that the story of the Book of Mormon came directly through divine revelation. He might have had a prodigious gift for recall and dreamed up the whole thing almost entire before dictating, such that he could leave off and take it up at will after interruption. That would have impressed people, it sure made an impression on his wife.

You say "fraud", or might even allow "pious fraud", but you will not allow the possibility that Joseph Smith actually believed in himself as a prophet. That would allow him to do things and say things that are offensive to the world but not to those who believe. That would allow Joseph Smith to be obedient to a higher authority that I gather you do not even believe exists....

Yes, I remember saying I'm an atheist during our discussion where you admitted you like to have sex with goats.

All you're doing is saying Joseph Smith was delusional instead of a fraud. That has nothing to do with the objective truth value of his claim to be reading the words of a Nephite record as he saw them on a magic rock.

[_Darth J]

Joseph Smith wasn't really reading the words of an ancient Nephite record off a magic rock. He was pretending to do this for the benefit of his credulous audience, just like mentalists continue to do today. We also have nothing but Joseph Smith's say-so that the Book of Mormon narrative did not substantially exist prior to the timeframe he claims. You have to believe the faith-promoting narrative to accept the alleged timeframe.

That's it? Whatever.

I'd be interested in how others do a work around in regards to my two questions. How does The Late War influence theory dovetail with the rock in the hat and the limited time window for translation? Something other than a one paragraph 'shrug it off' answer.

Regards,
MG

Yes, indeed, mentalgymnast. The evidence DOES NOT dovetail into the faith-promoting narrative, which means the faith-promoting narrative is not true, but "whatever" indeed. I'm sure you would be willing to give 10% of your income to anything else that had the same evidentiary foundation as your religion.

The reason you're getting a one paragraph shrug off answer is that's all your question deserves. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, you see (I don't really think you see that). For someone who is evaluating a claim in light of evidence, instead of evaluating evidence in light of a claim, there is no "work around."

Again, mentalgymnast, if you think simply asserting the faith-promoting narrative is somehow equal to or superior to the state of the evidence, then answer my questions about Uri Geller and Sylvia Brown. That way everyone can know you're not nakedly engaged in special pleading.

[Guest]

You say "fraud", or might even allow "pious fraud", but you will not allow the possibility that Joseph Smith actually believed in himself as a prophet. That would allow him to do things and say things that are offensive to the world but not to those who believe. That would allow Joseph Smith to be obedient to a higher authority that I gather you do not even believe exists....

You seem to be saying that you believe Joseph was a fraud, but he himself didn't realise he was a fraud.
Is that what you're saying, is that your actual position on Joseph Smith?

[_Maksutov]

You say "fraud", or might even allow "pious fraud", but you will not allow the possibility that Joseph Smith actually believed in himself as a prophet. That would allow him to do things and say things that are offensive to the world but not to those who believe. That would allow Joseph Smith to be obedient to a higher authority that I gather you do not even believe exists....

Oh please. Why won't you allow the possibility that Joseph Smith, Jr was pious AND a fraud? Just like all the pious scammers that fleece the saints every day of the week. The evidence is overwhelming to any objective person. Unless you're going to deny the sincere religiosity of the rip off artists and cons, which you can speculate on but not know. The hypocrisy of the religious is one of the contributing factor to the unchurching of modern society. And it should be. Religious BS is still BS. Polishing and perfuming a turd does not change its character.