Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Bazooka]

You seem to be suggesting that, for the parts of the Book of Mormon identical to parts of the KJV Bible, Joseph stopped using the rock in the hat/Urim & Thummim and simply dictated the relevant parts from the Bible he owned. Is that what you are suggesting?

Yep

To my knowledge, the idea you suggest was never stated or alluded to by anyone who was involved with the translation process. Why is this? Or am I ignorant of statements made by Joseph, Oliver, Emma or anyone else who was close to Joseph Smith stating this is how it happened?

To my knowledge, Water Dogs assumption is contrary to Church doctrine, contrary to the official witness statements, contrary to the statements of any of the people who acted as scribe, and contrary to this official statement of the sources the Book of Mormon came from:

The Book of Mormon is a sacred record of peoples in ancient America and was engraved upon metal plates. Sources from which this record was compiled include the following:

The Plates of Nephi, which were of two kinds: the small plates and the large plates. The former were more particularly devoted to spiritual matters and the ministry and teachings of the prophets, while the latter were occupied mostly by a secular history of the peoples concerned (1 Nephi 9:2–4). From the time of Mosiah, however, the large plates also included items of major spiritual importance.
The Plates of Mormon, which consist of an abridgment by Mormon from the large plates of Nephi, with many commentaries. These plates also contained a continuation of the history by Mormon and additions by his son Moroni.
The Plates of Ether, which present a history of the Jaredites. This record was abridged by Moroni, who inserted comments of his own and incorporated the record with the general history under the title “Book of Ether.”
The Plates of Brass brought by the people of Lehi from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. These contained “the five books of Moses, … and also a record of the Jews from the beginning, … down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah; and also the prophecies of the holy prophets” (1 Nephi 5:11–13). Many quotations from these plates, citing Isaiah and other biblical and nonbiblical prophets, appear in the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon comprises fifteen main parts or divisions, known, with one exception, as books, usually designated by the name of their principal author. The first portion (the first six books, ending with Omni) is a translation from the small plates of Nephi. Between the books of Omni and Mosiah is an insert called the Words of Mormon. This insert connects the record engraved on the small plates with Mormon’s abridgment of the large plates.

The longest portion, from Mosiah through Mormon chapter 7, is a translation of Mormon’s abridgment of the large plates of Nephi. The concluding portion, from Mormon chapter 8 to the end of the volume, was engraved by Mormon’s son Moroni, who, after finishing the record of his father’s life, made an abridgment of the Jaredite record (as the book of Ether) and later added the parts known as the book of Moroni.

In or about the year A.D. 421, Moroni, the last of the Nephite prophet-historians, sealed the sacred record and hid it up unto the Lord, to be brought forth in the latter days, as predicted by the voice of God through His ancient prophets. In A.D. 1823, this same Moroni, then a resurrected personage, visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and subsequently delivered the engraved plates to him.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/explanation?lang=eng

Perhaps it is Water Dogs intention to derail the thread, so I will post this as a thread in it's own right.

[_Chap]

Choosing just one point from this wall of text:

In terms of setting the goal posts and "winning" or "losing" the debate, critics have the burden of conclusively proving the Book of Mormon false, if not comprehensively, then at least within an extremely high probability.

Er, no. Outside the tiny universe of Mormonism, people feel no more obliged to prove the Book of Mormon false than they feel obliged to prove Malory's Morte d'Arthur false.

[_Equality]

He's certainly not the first to have unrealistic expectations going into a blessing.

Gee, I wonder where he got those unrealistic expectations. I guess he spent too much time reading and believing the Mormon scriptures and words of the so-called prophets, eh?

Now, care to answer the very simple questions that chap and I have put forward in the other thread?

[_Tim the Enchanter]

To my knowledge, the idea you suggest was never stated or alluded to by anyone who was involved with the translation process. Why is this? Or am I ignorant of statements made by Joseph, Oliver, Emma or anyone else who was close to Joseph Smith stating this is how it happened?

You could be right, don't know, what is the relevance?

Previously in this thread, you stated with 99% certainty that the Late War makes a rigid translation of the Book of Mormon impossible. You agreed with the proposition that Joseph Smith, when he got to certain parts in the translation, put down the hat and picked up the Bible. The relevance is that there are quotes from people close to the translation process (the quotes from Emma Smith and David Whitmer I've mentioned more than once now) that describe the translation as a rigid translation or a word-for-word translation, or whatever you want to call it, while there is a lack of evidence from people close to the translation that it happened in the way you suggest (putting down the hat and picking up the Bible). Wouldn't the people close to the translation have been in the best position to know how it took place? Why is a theory that contradicts what eyewitnesses like Emma Smith and David Whitmer said a better theory for how the translation took place when they were much better positioned to know how it happened and described it clearly? If Joseph Smith put down the hat and picked up the Bible at certain points, why is this never mentioned by anyone close to the translation?

We've strayed somewhat from discussing the Late War, feel free to respond in a different thread if you wish.

[_Spanner]

And no offense to anybody, but there are many here below the level at which this conversation has reached.

Water Dog, there is a discussion of the Interpreter article here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31983&hilit=interpreter

You have raised many points in your post, many of which need their own thread. Could I suggest you break out talking points and start new threads.

The onus IS on believers to prove that their claims about the Book of Mormon are true. No one is expecting you to go around collecting evidence against Dianetics or the Koran. While it is all good to claim you just need faith, the thing is that the Book of Mormon makes historical claims. Not only is there no evidence FOR many of them, there is evidence AGAINST many of them. So it is not a matter of faith. A believing Mormon who has honestly looked at the evidence must choose to believe in something that is false.

To look at one issue that is relevant to the Late War, what evidence do you have that Joseph thought the whole Book of Mormon story happened in Mesoamerica? All the evidence I have seen indicates that he thought the climactic wars occurred in Heartland USA.

[_Runtu]

FYI, given the "how could Joseph have known? he must have had a library of books!" turn Water Dog has taken, I'll just point to a piece I wrote years ago.

http://runtu.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/v ... -evidence/

Despite what people claim, many of the claims the Book of Mormon makes about ancient American culture were not unknown at the time. Most of it conforms quite nicely to the moundbuilder mythology of early 19th-century North America. The newspapers and taverns were filled with the kinds of "bullseyes" we're supposed to imagine Joseph Smith could not have known about.

[_Chap]

Choosing just one point from this wall of text:

In terms of setting the goal posts and "winning" or "losing" the debate, critics have the burden of conclusively proving the Book of Mormon false, if not comprehensively, then at least within an extremely high probability.

Er, no. Outside the tiny universe of Mormonism, people feel no more obliged to prove the Book of Mormon false than they feel obliged to prove Malory's Morte d'Arthur false.

And yet here you are. :)

Yup.

Here I am, on a thread whose main point is that yet another piece of supposed evidence for the Book of Mormon being a genuine ancient text (the presence of English reflecting Hebraic structures) falls to bits when you look at closely - because quite a few early 19th C American texts deliberately parodying the KJV show similar features.

Mormons have assumed the burden of proof that the Book of Mormon is genuine. And in that, they have failed yet again.

[_Themis]

So in that sea of misinformation with bits of truth floating around, Joseph Smith connected all the dots and also managed to ignore the lore that would later prove false with time? With time the body of archaeological and anthropological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon has only increased.

LOl You sure like to make the worst assertions without providing any support for them. I suspect like your other ones people have asked you to support you won't support these either. It seems something I remember Will and DCP liked to do a lot back in the day when they had the balls to post here openly.

[_Chap]

Theists rely much more heavily on their own minds and intellect than atheists do. When you try to prove the Book of Mormon false, that's not what you're really doing. You're trying to convert me to your religion, telling me to abandon my faith for yours. You are no different than a missionary knocking on a door.

1. Mormons have assumed the burden of proving that the Book of Mormon is true. On this thread, as on many others, they are shown to have failed yet again.

2. Since there is no reason to think the Book of Mormon is true, nobody needs to attempt to prove it is NOT true, any more than it is necessary to prove that the Morte d'Arthur is not true.

3. This thread is not about trying to prove the Book of Mormon is not true; it is about Mormon failure to prove it is true. Can't you see the difference?

4. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Similarly, not believing in a deity is not a religion.

5. Atheist missionaries do not knock on doors trying to convert people. Religious people do that. You are here to try to convert me to your religion. I am explaining why I refuse to accept the reasons you use to try to convert me. I am not asking you to join any other religion.

Anything above that you don't understand?

[_Runtu]

A misleading assertion. Of course they were known, but by whom? The knowledge you talk about wasn't common place, and it also didn't exist in whole, but in pieces as lore part of a much larger body of lore and mythology. So in that sea of misinformation with bits of truth floating around, Joseph Smith connected all the dots and also managed to ignore the lore that would later prove false with time? With time the body of archaeological and anthropological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon has only increased.

Misleading? Nah. People in those days read newspapers, but even if they didn't, there's a strong oral tradition of moundbuilder myths, which again dovetail nicely with the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith didn't need to connect any dots; he just told a story that would make sense to his audience. I am unaware of any later-proven-false lore he avoided, so perhaps you could give some examples. And the idea that there is a growing body of supporting archaeological and anthropological evidence in support of the Book of Mormon is, well, silly. As you know, the piece I was responding to was John Clark's attempt to summarize the support for the Book of Mormon; that it all turns out to be garden-variety moundbuilder myths says something about the evidence.

Some may remember that our friend beastie corresponded with Clark about his article, and even he has backed off from his assertions.