The Book of Mormon proves the supernatural exists

[drumdude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqHlq1F9S6A

In this video, Brian offers up a whirlwind 45 minute tour of how impossible it was for Joe to be able to create the Book of Mormon. He ends with this gem:

In closing, I think we've all had family or friends loved ones who have recently left the faith. They've been stalwart and then they just, they leave. And my experience is that as they leave, they they usually just give up the supernatural world almost totally. The natural world becomes their only world. And they may retain some belief in the supernatural but it isn't a supernatural that's going to get involved in their lives. Or demand anything. As long as they're not ax murderers that kind of a thing.

And the reason that I mention this is that I think the origin of the Book of Mormon is is a pretty strong evidence of the existence of the supernatural. And I don't think the natural world is ever going to deliver a plausible explanation for how Joseph Smith created that stream of words. In fact, my belief that it's pretty strong evidence. I'm not alone: in the doctrine and covenants the lord reviews the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and then he says "this is proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age."

And again the reason I mention that is as we look at all of the different supernaturalisms. If somebody wants to believe in the supernatural, there's all kinds of flavors right? There's religions, cosmologies, there's mysticisms. But then I think the best description of the supernatural is what we find inside the Book of Mormon. It may not be complete but I believe that it is the best description because it tells us that there is a god and life has a purpose. And I also think it's the best because I believe it is true. Thank you

[dastardly stem]

So he thinks if someone can't find a way Joseph did it to his satisfaction, that means there's something supernatural?

People write books. How hard is that to imagine? How hard would it be to imagine there are plenty of possibilities on how it came naturally. Joseph could have written it. he wasn't an idiot and while it seems likely he couldn't have written given his education, it's still possible. Also, he wasn't alone when the text was generated. Also, he could have found someone else's writing that has been lost. To claim "well nobody really knows knows...so it must have been supernatural" feels silly. We don't know know much of anything. But that doesn't make any possible explanation all equally probable.

[Physics Guy]

Yikes. The Quran is supposed to be impressive like that, in Arabic—a long lyrical poem so arrestingly beautiful that one has to think twice about whether a mortal could possibly write it. The effect is acknowledged to be much reduced in translation, and I can attest to that much. In English, even in the much-lauded Pickthall interpretation, a lot of the Quran comes across as a tedious rant. It has legitimate gems even in English, though, passages that do sound like something that might be revealed by a God who was both infinitely remote from humanity and closer to each of us than our own neck veins.

The Book of Mormon is not a Quran. So far from impressing me as something that would have been very hard for Joseph Smith to make up, it strikes me as just exactly what someone like Smith would make up, to the point where I find it hard to imagine how the heck Mormons can be so impressed by it. Where the Quran can be eery, the Book of Mormon never does better than hokey, for me.

[doubtingthomas]

People write books. How hard is that to imagine? How hard would it be to imagine there are plenty of possibilities on how it came naturally. Joseph could have written it. he wasn't an idiot and while it seems likely he couldn't have written given his education, it's still possible.

I agree, but putting your face in a hat, "translating" for three months, using 16th century English, and having no visible notes or books is very impressive to the apologists.

[drumdude]

People write books. How hard is that to imagine? How hard would it be to imagine there are plenty of possibilities on how it came naturally. Joseph could have written it. he wasn't an idiot and while it seems likely he couldn't have written given his education, it's still possible.

I agree, but putting your face in a hat, "translating" for three months, using 16th century English, and having no visible notes or books is very impressive to the apologists.

Of course many of these points are debated. Apologists try to make Joseph look like he was dumber than he really was. They try to make it seem like he finished it in less time than he really had. And they say there’s no evidence of notes, but we all know how good Joseph was at keeping secrets, even from his wife Emma…

[Doctor Steuss]

For me, the world will never deliver a plausible explanation for Tolkein’s Middle-earth.

The more I learn about the languages, the names, etc., the more I think, maybe it was truly translated from ancient historical manuscripts...



(Partially serious... it's bonkers how much there is there.)

[drumdude]

The most published works by one author is 1,084 by L. Ron Hubbard (USA) whose first work was published in February 1934 and the last in March 2006.


I think that is a real miracle and proves that Scientology is the one true religion. Dan Peterson struggles to write one book a decade!

[Kishkumen]

Yikes. The Quran is supposed to be impressive like that, in Arabic—a long lyrical poem so arrestingly beautiful that one has to think twice about whether a mortal could possibly write it. The effect is acknowledged to be much reduced in translation, and I can attest to that much. In English, even in the much-lauded Pickthall interpretation, a lot of the Quran comes across as a tedious rant. It has legitimate gems even in English, though, passages that do sound like something that might be revealed by a God who was both infinitely remote from humanity and closer to each of us than our own neck veins.

The Book of Mormon is not a Quran. So far from impressing me as something that would have been very hard for Joseph Smith to make up, it strikes me as just exactly what someone like Smith would make up, to the point where I find it hard to imagine how the heck Mormons can be so impressed by it. Where the Quran can be eery, the Book of Mormon never does better than hokey, for me.

And yet you know so little about it. Not that you need to know much about it, of course. I agree with you inasmuch as I never quite understood why it was necessary for Mohammed or Joseph Smith not to write the works that they wrote. Homer invoked the Muse and credited her with his song. Mohammed and Joseph Smith invoked angels. Of course, they were the authors of their works, and their works all have been treated as special in their own way. Certain texts become oracular for the communities that adopt them, and as such they communicate more to the community than could possibly be intentionally constructed by the author. In this way they become the source of divine communication for those who put faith in them.

And this is not really a matter of your aesthetic judgment. If you don’t understand it, perhaps you should study these matters in greater depth.

With the Book of Mormon I think the answer is pretty simple. The text instructs the reader to test it as an oracle. Those who follow that guidance and believe it worked for them join the community that considers the text oracular.

The sadly humorous thing is that we have regressed to the point where we have no clue how to deal with these things. It is as if they cannot possibly exist. A text can only convey facts about the world or be made up. So two dimensional, but here we are. Porphyry wrote a profound commentary on a passage in Homer, drawing out meanings Homer could not have possibly dreamed of. But we are all too smart for that and why waste your time on Porphyry’s imagination. Right, Mr. Dawkins?

[bill4long]

I keep wondering...

1) What is a "curelom"?
2) Did the Seer Stone display "curelom" when Joe uttered this word to his scribe?
3) What did Joe see on the Seer Stone when he uttered "horses", "oxen", "goats" and "asses" to his scribe?
4) Why won't the current "prophets, seers and revelators" answer these simple questions and clear up the matter?
5) Why won't Jeff Holland (are you reading?) answer these simple questions and clear up the matter?

Okay, that last one was just a bonus for funzies. (I don't expect him to reply.)

Warmest regards
Bill/Mike/Fine-Business-Operator... the Unholy Trinity

[dastardly stem]

I agree, but putting your face in a hat, "translating" for three months, using 16th century English, and having no visible notes or books is very impressive to the apologists.

Yes. And that's what religious people do. They treat mundane things as if they are magnificent, or they treat miracles as if they could not easily be explained in other ways.