son of Ishmael wrote:There have been lots of con-artist that have dupes lots of smart people, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Bernie Madoff, etc.
These hoaxes are of a lesser category, right? When people in each of these cases made it to the outside, they saw the lie for what it was. In Mormonism's case, many of the key people who made it to the outside still believed that everything they saw was absolutely true.
canpakes wrote:And we aren't even considering that whatever Joseph 'translated' does not necessarily have to be whatever was eventually presented to the printer. There is no verifiable chain of custody of any transcript. A substitution is the easiest scenario of all to set up.
This is a really important point here. This is such a huge assumption that even many non-believers can be guilty of making this assumption. I did for sometime.
This would then put it in category two that I listed above (Certainly Oliver would have recognized major differences between what he wrote and what made it into the Book of Mormon). You run into the problem of the witnesses being in on the hoax but still 'preaching' that what they saw was true even when faced with negative consequences.
Gorman wrote:I'm clearly not explaining myself well... All I am saying is that the arguments against the Book of Mormon are not the 'slam dunk' many seem to believe.
You can make that assertion. But you are also then left explaining why 'rock in hat' makes a better case.
I don't think I'm saying the 'rock in hat' makes a better case. I'm just pointing out that neither makes a very good case. If either one feels like a 'slam dunk' to you, then you were already leaning toward that answer beforehand.
In other words, I'm pointing out that if you think this question is a 'no contest', then it just shows your bias.
canpakes wrote:Are you a member of Islam or Catholicism? If not, would you consider adherents to either to be duped? There's a few billion folks right there, if so.
I do not consider Catholics or Muslims to be duped.
canpakes wrote:I cannot put myself into your shoes to comprehend what makes a fabrication scenario uncomfortable, when every option related to it seems so easily accomplished.
This is not just fabrication. Many/most key players left the church, but still believed the translation account of the Book of Mormon. You cannot just create a hoax and get that kind of result. The only comparable instances I can think of have to do with religion, and even most of those don't have defectors still believing wholeheartedly. You have to argue that the religious experience is a special way to pull the wool over a person's eyes - something that no other method can come close to. (I'm sure the previous sentence resonates with many of you). If you believe this is the case, then belief in God is the difficult step.
Looking back at how we got off on this tangent, I'm not saying the thought that the Book of Mormon translation story might still be true even after I hypothetically become an unbeliever is what keeps me in the church. I was just listing this as one potential uncomfortable point among many, but none are as big as the idea that a god speaks or does not speak to me as an individual. What brought me to this point was that I simply could not deny I truly thought God was speaking to me. Everything else is based on that issue.
canpakes wrote:Drop the requirement that creation of the Book must be dictation by memory and things get even easier.
Correct. This is what I was trying to say. Dictation from memory is a relatively difficult position to hold. Hidden manuscripts are easier.
I don't know if you are aware or not, but this is a frequent erroronous claim made by members who themselves have performed memorization feats equal to what is claimed (or even more difficult) than what Joseph Smith must have done to produce the Book of Mormon.
I served my mission in South America in the 1970's. At that time we spent two months in the MTC (back then it was the LTM) during which time most of us learned enough of a brand new foreign language to be able to give at least the first few discussions, discussions that were memorized word for word in that foreign language. Some of us (myself included) were able to recite all eight of the discussions by memory at the end of our two months, word for word, in a language we did not speak two months earlier. The amount of memorization necessary for Joseph Smith to have done is not only doable, it is easily doable. Throw in the fact he had spent years leading up to that point creating the stories found in the Book of Mormon and having told them to his family over and over again, having to memorize ten pages of material with which you are very familiar is an easy feat. Having to memorize five pages of discussions (about what we averaged) in a foreign language with all new material, now that's impressive.
The memorization feats arguments by the faithful for J.S., if in fact that is how he did it, are nothing special.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
son of Ishmael wrote:There have been lots of con-artist that have dupes lots of smart people, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Bernie Madoff, etc.
These hoaxes are of a lesser category, right? When people in each of these cases made it to the outside, they saw the lie for what it was. In Mormonism's case, many of the key people who made it to the outside "said they" still believed that everything they saw was absolutely true.
They are not of a lesser category. The only real difference from Joseph Smith and David Koresh is that Joseph Smith lived long ago.
I also fixed your statement above for you.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude
Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just god when he's drunk - Tom Waits
Gorman wrote:This would then put it in category two that I listed above (Certainly Oliver would have recognized major differences between what he wrote and what made it into the Book of Mormon).
Not necessarily, but it doesn't change the FACT that we do not have a verifiable chain of custody of any documents. You are still making huge assumptions, and underestimate human abilities like manipulation, slight of hand, gullibility, and easier sell to believers then skeptics. That said I do think Oliver is a good candidate to be in on it. I don't think the others need be. Joseph was already educated in duping people.
You run into the problem of the witnesses being in on the hoax but still 'preaching' that what they saw was true even when faced with negative consequences.
While I don't think any need be, I disagree about negative consequences. People can still go with the fraud even after a lot of negative consequences. I also don't know what consequences you are referring to. Remember my examples of the two bank robbers and why the one would not out the other. Also keep in mind memory problems and manipulation as people try to justify to themselves their own behaviors.
I would add the reason I think Oliver makes a good candidate is he was the principle scribe. He helped prepare and fix the document before it was sent to the printer. He was also with Joseph on the claimed visitations of John the baptist and later Peter James and John. Mind you the later event was not brought up until well after and I believe Peter whitmer accused them of making it up after the fact.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.