Please Explain how Joseph Smith could have possibly authored the Book of Mormon.

[Sententia]

Yes, I also think the angel scenario is also a billion to one chance, and thus outside the realm of statistical probability. If I did not have a personal witness from God, I'd have no explanation for the data at all, and I'd have to write the whole thing off as a mystery.

Again, the data does not support an angel, or a miracle, but I believe it does support a genuine historical document.

I'll try one last time, FX: where does the burden of proof lie in a forgery case? Is the burden of proof on me to establish the article is genuine? Or is the burden on you to establish it's a fake?

In court, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution--that would be you. If you want to convince people the book was forged by Smith, you need actual evidence of a forgery, and you need enough to account for ALL the data.

Thats not true.

BalanceFX is satan. The world is round. God exists.

To prove Im not satan you also have to prove both that the world is round and that god exists?

I never claimed the entire BoM is false. Just most of it.

 

[Sententia]

I got a game to test. Anyone else want to try and explain this to FX?

Sure balance... depite that there is no evidence for god, jaredites or any archelogical evidence whatsoever... Deepshadow here believe the BOM to be a true and historically accurate account of mesoamerica.

These facts are backed the arguments of 20 abstract facts in the Bom found in order in one of 100 (possibly 1000s) of ancient hebrew texts by Dr Kurtz and some common names found in the BoM that are also found elsewhere.

Get it now? Do you FX? Its not a forgery! 20 Abstract ideas! 50 common names... Roads... Come now... This is joe... think he could write this or even know it?

Me: Sure... I dont see why not. You are painting your evidence in a biased point of view so that the person viewing your evidence could not conclude otherwise. Giving all the data in context, Im sure the majority would not be swayed in any convincing manner. In any event I am surely not. You have proven nothing to me, and seem to lack any evidence to do so. Thus I conclude your belief to be based on faith, and when every preacher, elder, reverend and father has told me it takes strength to maintain your faith I now know what they were talking about.

Im weak when it comes to faith. Very, very weak.

 

[DeepShadow]

It's that kind of snide post that makes me want to ignore you, but I'll try wone last time: where does the burden of proof lie in an accusation of forgery?

 

[Sententia]

It's that kind of snide post that makes me want to ignore you, but I'll try wone last time: where does the burden of proof lie in an accusation of forgery?

I dunno even what your arguing. I keep trying to get you to clarify it in some meaningful way.

Lets summarize...

Do you believe every word in the BoM to be true?

Do you believe the 1000s of edits made may have altered that truth?

Do you believe the story of the gold plates and their reason for disappearing?

Do you believe the Jaredites are not allegorical but are true?

Do you believe in god?

Do you believe SOME of the BoM to be true?

Do you believe Joe could have known everything needed to write the BoM without any supernatural means?

My answers.... scroll down... in case you dont want to cheat...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

My answers: No, Obviously, NO!, NO, NO, Yep, Of course.

 

[Apex]

FX, are you even paying attention to what Shadow is trying to explain to you? These last several pages are you ignoring the bulk of what he has been saying and pulling out random statements like "Joe could have known all this", or Shadow is biased therefore unreliable, etc..

 

[Sententia]

FX, are you even paying attention to what Shadow is trying to explain to you? These last several pages are you ignoring the bulk of what he has been saying and pulling out random statements like "Joe could have known all this", or Shadow is biased therefore unreliable, etc..

Yes. What am I ignoring?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

?!?

It's in reference to the post directly above it. Someone asked what the 20 points were, and I answered.

Thank you, BTW.

Note that it's not enough to find all 20 elements in a book, you have to find them in a farewell speech, and some of them in a specific order. The chances of doing that randomly are 20 factorial, or pretty slim.

If the probability of each element is independent, but I think you can see that they're not: some of the order and subject matter is just common sense: for example, you're not going to summon the people together at the end of your speech. There are only so many ways that the listed elements can be assembled for a speech that's coherent from beginning to end, which I think is a given for it to be presented in written form in the first place.

Also, I'm not sure why the order matters so much, since you mentioned that no actual example of a "Hebrew farewell speech" has every element you mentioned, and that they show some variation from the order you've given.

And BTW - several of the elements you mentioned referred to being Greek rather than Hebrew. Should they really be included in the list?

In the end, though, I'm not sure how compelling this sort of thing is. So portions of the Book of Mormon match an ancient literary form (though how well I think is debateable, based on what you've provided)... in a book of its size, I'd expect a few coincidental matches like this. We wouldn't put much weight to it when a novel gives coincidental matches to things like Aztec military tactics, Maori funerary rites, or other similar things... why should we put weight on this?

You keep saying "easy and realistic" as if your Merl scenario was actually logical. The chances of Joseph getting the information he needed to write this book--without any trace of evidence left behind--are billions to one!

But what are the relative chances of this compared to the odds that a civilization would have arose in the Americas, had metal weapons and armour, and fought all-out wars without leaving any trace of evidence of that?

I'll try one last time, FX: where does the burden of proof lie in a forgery case? Is the burden of proof on me to establish the article is genuine? Or is the burden on you to establish it's a fake?

In court, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution--that would be you. If you want to convince people the book was forged by Smith, you need actual evidence of a forgery, and you need enough to account for ALL the data.

Personally, I'd say it depends on the situation. There is one burden of proof for someone who doesn't want to pay for his newly-acquired Picasso on the grounds it's a forgery, and another burden of proof for someone who announces that he just found a new Picasso that nobody knew about.

 

[DeepShadow]

I dunno even what your arguing. I keep trying to get you to clarify it in some meaningful way.

None of these questions is relevant to a scientific discussion. This is about burden of proof. Until you answer my question, find someone else's time to waste.

 

[DeepShadow]

Thank you, BTW.

No problem. I'm glad someone here is taking the science seriously.

If the probability of each element is independent, but I think you can see that they're not: some of the order and subject matter is just common sense: for example, you're not going to summon the people together at the end of your speech.

Excellent point! And of course, since all 20 are not required, the chance is considerably more likely than a straight factorial.

Also, I'm not sure why the order matters so much, since you mentioned that no actual example of a "Hebrew farewell speech" has every element you mentioned, and that they show some variation from the order you've given.

Because the order drastically increases the complexity, and thus the probability.

And BTW - several of the elements you mentioned referred to being Greek rather than Hebrew. Should they really be included in the list?

Well, the problem is, Kurtz isn't sure where these came in. He presumes they are Greek because he only found them after the Hellenization, but the Dead Sea Scrolls and many other documents have revealed that many elements formerly deemed Hellenic/Christian were actually Hebrew in origin.

At any rate, they are on the list in this instance because they are found in the King Benjamin speech. Some could argue that this is evidence of forgery: it's too perfect. The only problem is, what documents were available for Joseph to copy this pattern from?

In the end, though, I'm not sure how compelling this sort of thing is. So portions of the Book of Mormon match an ancient literary form (though how well I think is debateable, based on what you've provided)... in a book of its size, I'd expect a few coincidental matches like this. We wouldn't put much weight to it when a novel gives coincidental matches to things like Aztec military tactics, Maori funerary rites, or other similar things... why should we put weight on this?

Because coincidences are measureable. Wreck of the Titan had some astounding coincidences with the actual Titanic, but the t-score is still well within the range allowed by statistics. A coincidence that exceeds .095% exceeds the realms of science.

But what are the relative chances of this compared to the odds that a civilization would have arose in the Americas, had metal weapons and armour, and fought all-out wars without leaving any trace of evidence of that?

About the same, I'd wager, but note your assumptions: does the Book of Mormon say that they had metal armor? City of the Sacred Well cites stone and wooden armor for a mysterious group that predated the Mayans. We haven't found any of that armor, either, but we have statuary and paintings to show it existed.

We also have the painted walls at Bonampak illustrating conflicts between light and dark-skinned people, similar to the stories of the Book of Mormon. There's lots of evidence that is open to interpretation, so "no trace" is a little deceptive.

Personally, I'd say it depends on the situation. There is one burden of proof for someone who doesn't want to pay for his newly-acquired Picasso on the grounds it's a forgery, and another burden of proof for someone who announces that he just found a new Picasso that nobody knew about.

Absolutely, but in the second case, the article is of questionable origin until it is proven a forgery or proven genuine: there are two burdens of proof. Hence, I'm not trying to meet one of those burdens of proof, only rebutting people who fail to meet the other.

 

[DeepShadow]

Herman Melville and Joseph Smith lived at the same time in the same area (New York/New England in the 19th Century - Melville was a bit younger, but not by much). Melville did have a bit more formal education than Smith, but his schooling ended in preparatory school. IMO, except for whatever raw talent the two men had, they would have had approximately the same potential to write great literature.

So... here's what we can do: those of you believe that the Book of Mormon shows evidence of divine input, please list the characteristics of the Book of Mormon that should have been beyond a 19th-Century Upstate New Yorker with only moderate education: "megachiasmus", the points of a Hebrew farewell speech, etc... whatever you want, as long as these things actually occur in the Book of Mormon. Then, we'll look at Moby Dick and see how many of these characteristics can be found in it.

Great! Let's set up a thread!

 

[Sententia]

None of these questions is relevant to a scientific discussion. This is about burden of proof. Until you answer my question, find someone else's time to waste.

Thats not snide? Heh.

 

[Sententia]

I believe it does support a genuine historical document.

Let's try a different approach. (Secular Web Kiosk and Bookstore :: Three Strikes, You're Out!--The Quick and Dirty Case Against Mormonism)

In case you do not want to read... I will highlight a few things.

the BoM makes many mundane claims as well, and these fall into spheres such as archaeology, anthropology, biology and linguistics, which are the province of empirical investigation The BoM is essentially a thousand year history of peoples on the American continent

The Book of Mormon claims the following tools existed in ancient MesoAmerica: chariots, steel swords, bellows for blacksmithing, and silk. None of these were in the Americas until the Columbian exchange.

The BoM describes a vast civilization of millions who inhabited cities for hundreds of years, yet no ruins from even a single BoM city have ever been identified. No BoM place-names were in use when Europeans arrived in the New World.

The BoM peoples had a seven-day week, but no Mesoamerican calendar matches this.

The BoM refers to animals and crops that did not exist in America until Columbus arrived: ***, bull, calf, cattle, cow, domestic goat, horse, ox, domestic sheep, sow, swine, elephants, wheat, and barley.

The BoM says that the Native Americans descended from Hebraic (Semitic) origins. However through archaeology and DNA testing, we know that Native Americans descend from Asiatic origins.

There are no examples of "reformed Egyptian" in Mesoamerican history. And no Native American language is related to either ancient Egyptian or Hebrew, whereas a relationship does exist between Native American languages and Asian (Siberian) languages.

As shown in the Mormon South Park Episode, a woman stole a "translation" from Joseph Smith, and demanded that he replace it with an exact copy saying, "If this be a divine communication, the same being that revealed it to you can easily replace it." Smith refused, and wrote the same manuscript from a different point of view.

Joseph Smith was given real egyptian from an ancient Egyptian burial to translate (this was pre-Rosetta stone, and Egyptian could not be read). Modern day scholars agree that his translation is entirely manufactured and incorrect.

I'm not ignoring this... I am not focusing on the supernatural... I've replied to this before... A genuine historical document can be debunked based on the fact that there is no archelogical evidence. We don't have to discuss burden of proof because none is offered that it is legitimate.

As I said... I consider it an allegorical tale of a fantasy race. Floating across the ocean on little boats strikes me as fantasy. Just as being in the belly of whale....

What I don't get is how you rationalize all that away because if we consider its a megachiasmus, that there is 20 common abstract ideas that appear in two texts and 50 common names we can now see that it is a genuine historical document...

I have elaborated on the 20 common abstract ideas.... You yourself said by itself it proves nothing. I would also point out the pointlessness of assigning a chance that joe could have done this on accident as the ideas are both abstract and after 100s of texts, Dr Kurtz here choose this one farewell speech to make a point. I digress...

The 50 common names I have also addressed but as I said I'm not doing a lot of research here... the door is wide open to be slammed shut on this... There were not 50 names unless we make the assumptions you make. (Not you in particular but the article your quoting) As I said why not list your argument in detail.

And megachiasmus... I get chiasmus but google finds only you, here, talking about megachiasmus. What are you talking about? Seriously... do you want to expand on this? Where do you get your research?

I did discover another amusing tid bit... Mitt Romney had a great, great Grandpa. Mr Parley Pratt who had 12 wives. Mr Pratt was murdered because he married a woman who was already married to another man. The other man was none too happy. (still not justified.) But Pratt had a prophesy:

I will state as a prophecy, that there will not be an unbelieving Gentile upon this continent 50 years hence; and if they are not greatly scourged, and in a great measure overthrown, within five or ten years of this date, then the Book of Mormon will have proved itself false.

 

[Halcyon]

As I said... I consider it an allegorical tale of a fantasy race. Floating across the ocean on little boats strikes me as fantasy. Just as being in the belly of whale....

Erm, why? The Vikings did it, and there is some evidence the Egyptians did it, there is nothing implausible about Jews doing it too.

 

[Sententia]

Erm, why? The Vikings did it, and there is some evidence the Egyptians did it, there is nothing implausible about Jews doing it too.

Ahh the book of "Ether". A fantastical tale where teeny tiny boats, with holes in the bottom, cross the ocean bringing not only Jewish families but their pigs, flocks and herds. A year of food for everyone... animals... family... and fresh water.

It is the presentation that strikes me as a tale similar to living in the belly of whale.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because the order drastically increases the complexity, and thus the probability.

My point was that if the order is variable in the historical examples Kurtz used, then why would the order you gave be the "official" one? If the actual ancient Hebrew farewell speeches didn't always use that order, where does that order come from?

Well, the problem is, Kurtz isn't sure where these came in. He presumes they are Greek because he only found them after the Hellenization, but the Dead Sea Scrolls and many other documents have revealed that many elements formerly deemed Hellenic/Christian were actually Hebrew in origin.

At any rate, they are on the list in this instance because they are found in the King Benjamin speech. Some could argue that this is evidence of forgery: it's too perfect. The only problem is, what documents were available for Joseph to copy this pattern from?

Hang on... so these elements aren't in Hebrew farewell speeches generally, but they're in the speech in the Book of Mormon? If that's the case, then why is their inclusion in the Book of Mormon evidence of a link with Hebrew farewell speeches?

Because coincidences are measureable. Wreck of the Titan had some astounding coincidences with the actual Titanic, but the t-score is still well within the range allowed by statistics. A coincidence that exceeds .095% exceeds the realms of science.

About the same, I'd wager, but note your assumptions: does the Book of Mormon say that they had metal armor? City of the Sacred Well cites stone and wooden armor for a mysterious group that predated the Mayans. We haven't found any of that armor, either, but we have statuary and paintings to show it existed.

It does describe them having swords, and in some cases describes those swords being "made bright" by various things. I know that obsidian knives were common enough in ancient Central and South America, but there's quite a bit of difference between a small blade of sharpened rock and a full sword. Also, obsidian's as black as... well... obsidian. It's not the sort of thing that could be "made bright".

We also have the painted walls at Bonampak illustrating conflicts between light and dark-skinned people, similar to the stories of the Book of Mormon. There's lots of evidence that is open to interpretation, so "no trace" is a little deceptive.

Judging by the photo series I found, it looks like the walls at Bonampak depict conflicts between very dark-skinned people and people of varying skin tone from dark to very dark.

Absolutely, but in the second case, the article is of questionable origin until it is proven a forgery or proven genuine: there are two burdens of proof. Hence, I'm not trying to meet one of those burdens of proof, only rebutting people who fail to meet the other.

Ah. Fair enough, I guess.

Great! Let's set up a thread!

I'll post something tomorrow, but you can go ahead if you feel like it.

Hmm... it looks like I'll be reading Moby Dick again. I hope I haven't bitten off more than I can chew. :cover:

 

[Sententia]

In court, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution--that would be you. If you want to convince people the book was forged by Smith, you need actual evidence of a forgery, and you need enough to account for ALL the data.

In all seriousness where do you get off? You want me to prove that the BoM is a forgery when there is no evidence that its not to begin with?

The earth is round, the sky is filled with spirits and god is a sheep, thats invisible and undetectable and lives in peru and that sheep says the BoM is a fairy tale. The sheep will answer your questions if you baa at night and only if you do so sincerly and honestly. Ask of the sheep yourself and you will see he is true.

Now your the prosecution... prove my invisible sheep is wrong. What court would hear this case anyways? Judge judy?

I'm the prosecution? I disagree. Im the defense for reason. You are arguing common names and poetry to prove a point archeological and dna evidence clearly disproves.

 

[Katzpur]

One question for you, Balance... Why do you believe that archeological evidence is more compelling and more valid than linguistic evidence? Among scholars, one would carry no more weight than the other.

 

[gnostic]

The only problem is, what documents were available for Joseph to copy this pattern from?

The Bible.

Erm, why? The Vikings did it, and there is some evidence the Egyptians did it, there is nothing implausible about Jews doing it too.

The problem here, is that the Israelites were never a sea-faring nation, like their neighbour, the Phoenicians. There are no evidences whatsoever that the Hebrews built any ship capable of travelling such distance.

Also the last group of Israelites, to migrate over the New World, the Ephraimites didn't have land on the coast, so how would they know what to construct sea-worthy ships? There is big difference to design of the ship to travel the sea, then boats for rivers and lakes to catch fishes. The only thing noticable about the port city of Joppa was ferrying timbers from Tyre to the city. Nothing to indicate that their ships could travel through the open sea of the Mediterranean, or the Atlantic Ocean.

As to the Vikings, they did belonged to sea-faring people.

You are comparing apple and lemon.

 

[Sententia]

One question for you, Balance... Why do you believe that archeological evidence is more compelling and more valid than linguistic evidence? Among scholars, one would carry no more weight than the other.

I think its clear that the liguistical evidence presented can not - nor is intended to show the BoM as a historically accurate work.

If a person writes a paper describing perpetual motion, lingustic evidence could be used to identify a number of things, none of course would be able to show this concept of perpetual motion to be real.

Its not a question of weighting. Linguistic evidence will not make archeological evidence appear. Linguistics will not show the Native Americans descended from hebraic origins when we now know that Native Americans descended from Asiatic origins. It could show examples of "reformed Egyptian" in Mesoamerican history.... but it doesn't.

Linguistical evidence of what? Lingusitcal evidence also has shown Joe's translation of real egyptian to be false, what am I to make of his puported translation of "Reformed Egyptian" on the magical disappearing secret gold plates?

 

[DeepShadow]

The Bible.

Exactly! And thus we have to wonder, how did he manage to include elements that were not in Biblical farewell speeches?