Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[I Have Questions]

Can be, but not always.

How ya’ gonna know Bucky? Throw all the rotten bums out? Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Regards,
MG

Eyewitness misidentification contributed to approximately 71% of the more than 300 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence.

https://www.newenglandinnocence.org/eye ... tification
How is DNA evidence working out for the Book of Mormon?

[I Have Questions]

How ya’ gonna know Bucky?

What are you, 7?

[MG 2.0]

How ya’ gonna know Bucky?

What are you, 7?

What can I say? I worked with kids for too long. I never grew up.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I think that it is for people like you that Joseph went ‘full stop’ with the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.

…and by copying bits of the KJV Bible verbatim and ripping off story lines from The Pilgrims Progress (amongst other materials).

There are "people like you", IHQ?

Who and where are they, and why have you never told us this before?

[I Have Questions]

…and by copying bits of the KJV Bible verbatim and ripping off story lines from The Pilgrims Progress (amongst other materials).

There are "people like you", IHQ?

Who and where are they, and why have you never told us this before?

Malkie, these people are my literal ancestors…wait, no…these people are my principal ancestors…wait,no…these people are among my ancestors…

[I Have Questions]

Back to Peterson’s disingenuous response…

1. Eyewitness testimony, says the critic (whom we’ll call Bucky), is notoriously unreliable. 2. But, says Bucky, the buffoonish Dan Peterson claims that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony, therefore, according to Peterson, 3.the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is a kind of evidence that is notoriously unreliable.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... or-it.html

Point 1. I do not “say” eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I’ve done some research and the reported data from studies and analysis concludes eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Peterson provides not such data in rebuttal. He provides entirely made-up anecdotes.

Point 2. Peterson does not put forward evidence to suggest that there is better evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon than they eye witness testimony of the plates. So he must agree with Point 2. Note that I didn’t mention him, nor call him a buffoon. He is deliberately misleading his audience into thinking it’s simply another personal attack on him. Which it isn’t. It is again highly interesting that, when we have the actual product available for examination, Peterson still does not put forward it’s contents as better evidence of it’s authenticity than eye witness testimony of an object.

Point 3. Is not “according to Peterson”. That’s another made-up interjection designed to make himself the object of the discussion, to distract his audience into thinking that it is he under scrutiny. But it’s not. It’s simply the logical conclusion of considering Points 1 & 2.

He’s used an awful lot of words to write a blog post which includes the misrepresented contents of my signature line. If it’s such a silly thing, why waste so much time responding to it? Why go to the extent of making stuff up to try and tell your audience it’s a silly argument instead of using actual data and examples? Why be so childish in how you present it?

I guess it got up his nose. Oh well, <shrug>
It’s a shame that Peterson couldn’t put forward a better rebuttal than the nonsense he posted. I’m left concluded that that’s the best he can offer on it. Which suggests he knows it’s on the money.

[I Have Questions]

Here is Peterson’s concluding example. Which again is utterly disingenuous.

Or, alternatively, imagine Bucky himself filing a complaint with the police. Arnold, says Bucky, systematically demolished Bucky’s car with a sledgehammer.

“How do you know that it was Arnold who did it”? asks the police officer.

“Because I saw him do it,” responds Bucky. “With my own eyes.”

“But,” the police officer returns, “do you have any corroborating evidence?”

“Yes! I certainly do!” replies Bucky. “Eleven of my neighbors stood on their lawns and on the sidewalk and watched him do it!”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... or-it.html

The corroborating evidence would be the car and the sledgehammer. Where are the plates? And in Joseph’s situation, it wasn’t 11 independent neighbours each giving a separate accounting of what happened. It was 11 of his closest family and friends that signed a witness statement that he wrote and subsequently got them to sign. Oh and the event was supposedly supernatural.

So the comparable anecdote would be:
“Bucky says an Angel came down from heaven and systematically smashed my car up with a golden sledgehammer.”
“How do you know it was an Angel that did it?” Asks the police officer.
“Because I saw the angel do it” responds Bucky “with my own eyes.”
“But..” the police officer returns, “do you have any corroborating evidence, such as the car and the sledgehammer?”
“Yes I do!” replies Bucky, “11 of my close family and friends have signed these statements that I subsequently wrote about the incident which says they saw it too. Although some of them think they might have seen it with what they call their spiritual eyes…”
“Okay” says the Police Officer, “show me the damage to the car and we can dust the sledgehammer for fingerprints…”
<awkward silence>

[Marcus]

We only hear of the plates because: But three witnesses.

The Book of Mormon has the consensus of entire disciplines arrayed against it. The Book of Mormon doesn't stack up in history, anthropology, linguistics, biology, physics, archeology, or geology, There is no measure in which there is any evidence of it being what it's purported to be.

Oh, I forgot: But three witnesses.

The plates came first. The thread I linked you to spent a whole lot of time and effort on my part to defend that point. Successfully in my opinion. Not going back there.

If you want to start with witnesses as though the plates didn’t exist, fine. I can’t stop you.

I don’t have the time, energy and motivation to go through all that again...

I'm not surprised at all. Embarrassing yourself as badly as you did in that thread must have been exhausting!

No worries, your efforts were summarized exceptionally well:

I would imagine that at the end of the day you would also chuckle under your breath at those that believe Jesus died but then lives again in the heavens.

You miss the point for at least the second time this morning. I don't chuckle under my breath at resurrection myths or plates myths. I chuckle out loud at you personally MG, for your embarrassing reasoning to justify the plates and your arrogance about the whole thing. Instead of just having faith, you return time and time again to the barn for a fresh shovel-full of horse crap, thinking this next time you're bringing the good stuff.

So again, as I’ve said multiple times now, “How wide the divide”.

The only possible divide here is those capable of basic logic (us) and those who aren't (you). The fact that you believe isn't that big of a deal. The problem is your awful argumentation, lack of self-awareness, and nearly complete obliviousness to how insignificant Mormonism is to the rest of the world.

What I don’t fully understand...doing stuff here what almost seems 24/7 (a bit of exaggerating). You would think that she, you, and others would find time better well spent doing so many other things rather than dissing the church, its prophets, and its members to some extent.

There are lots of things that you don't understand in even the most rudimentary way let alone fully. That something can't be explained to you isn't disturbing to anyone in the least...

[Marcus]

Here is Peterson’s concluding example. Which again is utterly disingenuous.

Or, alternatively, imagine Bucky himself filing a complaint with the police. Arnold, says Bucky, systematically demolished Bucky’s car with a sledgehammer.

“How do you know that it was Arnold who did it”? asks the police officer.

“Because I saw him do it,” responds Bucky. “With my own eyes.”

“But,” the police officer returns, “do you have any corroborating evidence?”

“Yes! I certainly do!” replies Bucky. “Eleven of my neighbors stood on their lawns and on the sidewalk and watched him do it!”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... or-it.html

The corroborating evidence would be the car and the sledgehammer. Where are the plates? And in Joseph’s situation, it wasn’t 11 independent neighbours each giving a separate accounting of what happened. It was 11 of his closest family and friends that signed a witness statement that he wrote and subsequently got them to sign. Oh and the event was supposedly supernatural.

So the comparable anecdote would be:
“Bucky says an Angel came down from heaven and systematically smashed my car up with a golden sledgehammer.”
“How do you know it was an Angel that did it?” Asks the police officer.
“Because I saw the angel do it” responds Bucky “with my own eyes.”
“But..” the police officer returns, “do you have any corroborating evidence, such as the car and the sledgehammer?”
“Yes I do!” replies Bucky, “11 of my close family and friends have signed these statements that I subsequently wrote about the incident which says they saw it too. Although some of them think they might have seen it with what they call their spiritual eyes…”
“Okay” says the Police Officer, “show me the damage to the car and we can dust the sledgehammer for fingerprints…”
<awkward silence>

Lol, so, no angel's fingerprints? But 'we saw him!' is the comeback. That's as bad as Trump's defense that he knew immigrants were eating people's pets in Ohio. How did he know? "People were saying it on the tv!" Sigh.

It's pretty embarrassing to read DCP's Trump-like examples. He really has lost it. I am reminded of an experience I wrote about a while back...

...Yes, the plates are no longer accessible…remote and unseen… but the Book of Mormon readily available to handle and read its contents...

... The response I emphasized with bolding reminds me of a recent experience online. My SO is into birding, and this summer we have been watching the story unfold as the dept of fish and wildlife is holding hearings to determine whether the Ivory-billed Woodpecker should be officially ruled extinct. The battle is more fierce than you would expect, if you aren't a birder!

In a Facebook group dedicated to the cause of fighting the IBWO status change, people regularly post their opinions, pro and con, about various possible sightings. One memorable poster gave a very convincing story, with many details, about how she has repeatedly seen one in her yard, which is located in a very rural area not far from where the last sightings of the bird were documented about 80 years ago.

She then said she had pictures and would post them. people were very excited and encouraged her to do so, asap! Finally the pictures went up, to the confusion of the group members. One person politely posted, "I'm not seeing any birds in your pictures, just background. Are you sure these are the correct photos?"

The woman wrote back, "oh no, these are the right pictures. They show the location where the bird was when I saw it..."

the existence of the Book of Mormon Smith wrote is not evidence of any plates.

[Gadianton]

The bird sighting is a good example; if only the witnesses were even witnesses in the sense of people who saw that bird -- or the folks who signed a letter attesting to seeing the longer Spaulding document. While I'm no expert, I did a few years back put more time into reading what was available about the three witnesses, and it's not remotely clear what on earth they were attesting to seeing. Lucy Mack Smith moving the plates to clean is about the closest hit to an actual witness. There's no indication the three witnesses saw anything at all, even by their own words, when the sight of the thing was only made possible by the power of the holy ghost. If that lady on Facebook would have said she didn't have pictures, and only saw the bird by the power of God and not of man, then do you want to say she's really a witness? Would you have been continuing the conversation? It goes well beyond the witness statement itself. Where the plates were always was a mystery -- what were they? Were they setting on the desktop in the living room or off in the forest somewhere lurking? There is no 'claim' about the plates in an ordinary sense, about what the plates were or where they were at. Trying to comprehend the very claim of the plates is like watching the dream sequence from one of those psychedelic postmodernists movies from the 70s.

Eyewitness testimony is obviously a horrible thing to rely on and the apologists will only rely on it with such faith for their own unique purposes. At jury duty, judges complain that people's expectations are too high because of crime drama's, but you could also say that having to make a choice when it's he-said-she-said that will ruin lives is a terrible position to be in. At the end of the day, we don't have a choice but to make certain life-affecting decisions on eye witness testimony. Eye witnesses testimony has taken on a weirdly privileged status in courtrooms where photographic evidence is discounted. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily for those who fear technological tyranny. If you've ever been hit with a red-light photo or victim of an automated speed trap, which are both more accurate than a cops eyes on a frustrating morning, yet if no eye-witness was there to see it, then the evidence is questionable within the legal realm. Res or somebody might slice that apart and correct it, but the legal realm of witnesses has become sort of its own animal. Anyone who relies on courtroom analogies to prove their case rather than normal evidential discussion is attempting to engage is special pleading for the adequacy of their own views.