B.H. Roberts again on the worst religious text ever:
“If from all that has gone before in Part 1, the view be taken that the Book of Mormon is merely of human origin... if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view.
“In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an underdeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency.”
- Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B.H. Roberts, p. 251
This.
The contents of the book itself give the game away. Which is why apologists want you focussed on the unfalsifiable nature of witness hearsay, rather than contemplating things like why parts of a KJV Bible have been plagiarised, verbatim, including errors that were made in the 17th Century. Or the plot hole of the land that was promised to be kept from all nations for the Nephites, being first settled by Jadeites and then Mulekites.
A book with credible contents would not need witnesses. It would stand on its own merit.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
B.H. Roberts again on the worst religious text ever:
“If from all that has gone before in Part 1, the view be taken that the Book of Mormon is merely of human origin... if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view.
“In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an underdeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency.”
- Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B.H. Roberts, p. 251
This.
The contents of the book itself give the game away. Which is why apologists want you focussed on the unfalsifiable nature of witness hearsay, rather than contemplating things like why parts of a KJV Bible have been plagiarised, verbatim, including errors that were made in the 17th Century. Or the plot hole of the land that was promised to be kept from all nations for the Nephites, being first settled by Jadeites and then Mulekites.
A book with credible contents would not need witnesses. It would stand on its own merit.
I read B.H. Robert's "Studies" years ago. He was looking at all the arguments that had been brought up against the Book of Mormon up to that time. An interesting factoid is that many of these concerns have been either answered partially or completely since that time. I think you folks know that. What is more interesting, however, is that B.H. Roberts lived before many of the Book of Mormon 'evidences' came forth.
Specifically, stylometry analysis and Welch's discovery of chiasmus.
I had to chuckle yesterday when Wang was cut and pasting and cut and pasting and cut and pasting from 'Studies' as though these cut and pastes proved the Book of Mormon to be simply a product of the 19th century.
I responded to a few of his cut and pastes but didn't receive any follow up from him.
B.H. Roberts again on the worst religious text ever:
“If from all that has gone before in Part 1, the view be taken that the Book of Mormon is merely of human origin... if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view.
“In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an underdeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency.”
- Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B.H. Roberts, p. 251
This.
The contents of the book itself give the game away. Which is why apologists want you focussed on the unfalsifiable nature of witness hearsay, rather than contemplating things like why parts of a KJV Bible have been plagiarised, verbatim, including errors that were made in the 17th Century. Or the plot hole of the land that was promised to be kept from all nations for the Nephites, being first settled by Jadeites and then Mulekites.
A book with credible contents would not need witnesses. It would stand on its own merit.
Exactly. Roberts' comments about Smith's mental state as a young immature person are especially telling.