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

[spiritually inclined]

Do you know which elements or how many were not Biblical?

James

 

[Muffled]

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?

This is further proof that the BoM can't be a transaltion from golden plates. It is in the history that J. Smith took the tablets to experts revealing that J. Smith did not know how to translate them himself.

 

[SoyLeche]

This is further proof that the BoM can't be a transaltion from golden plates. It is in the history that J. Smith took the tablets to experts revealing that J. Smith did not know how to translate them himself.

Just curious - do you have any idea what you are talking about?

 

[Katzpur]

Just curious - do you have any idea what you are talking about?

LOL! Clearly, no.

 

[Apex]

This is further proof that the BoM can't be a transaltion from golden plates. It is in the history that J. Smith took the tablets to experts revealing that J. Smith did not know how to translate them himself.

Please provide verifiable sources and references to back this claim up.

 

[DeepShadow]

This is further proof that the BoM can't be a transaltion from golden plates. It is in the history that J. Smith took the tablets to experts revealing that J. Smith did not know how to translate them himself.

So, you agree that Joseph had gold plates, but you don't think he translated them himself?

 

[Katzpur]

So, you agree that Joseph had gold plates, but you don't think he translated them himself?

I love the way you think, DS. Why do I always miss the obvious?

 

[Halcyon]

This is further proof that the BoM can't be a transaltion from golden plates. It is in the history that J. Smith took the tablets to experts revealing that J. Smith did not know how to translate them himself.

I thought nobody but Joseph Smith saw the plates, and that even the eye witnesses were only ever permitted to feel them through a covering?

 

[SoyLeche]

I thought nobody but Joseph Smith saw the plates, and that even the eye witnesses were only ever permitted to feel them through a covering?

No - the 3 witnesses saw the plates (along with the Angel and various other artifacts).

The 8 witnesses saw and were able to handle the plates.

There may have been a couple others who saw them (I've heard something about the wife of one of the Whitmers seeing them, but I can't verify that at the moment).

Others (such as Joseph's mother and wife) only ever handled them through a covering.

 

[Sententia]

No - the 3 witnesses saw the plates (along with the Angel and various other artifacts).

The 8 witnesses saw and were able to handle the plates.

There may have been a couple others who saw them (I've heard something about the wife of one of the Whitmers seeing them, but I can't verify that at the moment).

Others (such as Joseph's mother and wife) only ever handled them through a covering.

And someone wrote that they saw it and you believe it. Where are these gold plates?

 

[SoyLeche]

And someone wrote that they saw it and you believe it.

Yes, they wrote what they saw, and yes, I believe it. I don't believe it because they wrote it, or even because they saw it though.

Where are these gold plates?

 

[Sententia]

Yes, they wrote what they saw, and yes, I believe it. I don't believe it because they wrote it, or even because they saw it though.

Do you believe as a matter of faith?

 

[SoyLeche]

Do you believe as a matter of faith?

In part.

I'm sure the questions you are going to bring up now have been dealt with many times already, so I'm going to leave it at that. This particular tangent isn't all that relevant to the topic of the thread anyway.

 

[Sententia]

In part.

I'm sure the questions you are going to bring up now have been dealt with many times already, so I'm going to leave it at that.

No, I always try not to question faith. Its your faith and your beliefs and if your not knocking on my door or infringing on the freedoms of others then they truly are your beliefs and your welcome to them.

I generally have a problem with people who say there is scientific proof or evidence for their faith when there is none. Thats dishonest. Even if you really, really believe it you have no evidence and to tell me you know. You can tell me you believe this and this is why and I have no problem with that but you cant tell me you know. Thats lying and immoral. People who come to my door and claim they know the truth are arrogant as there is *NO* way they could know. Again if they want to tell me this is what they believe then I have no problem.

 

[SoyLeche]

No, I always try not to question faith. Its your faith and your beliefs and if your not knocking on my door or infringing on the freedoms of others then they truly are your beliefs and your welcome to them.

I generally have a problem with people who say there is scientific proof or evidence for their faith when there is none. Thats dishonest. Even if you really, really believe it you have no evidence and to tell me you know. You can tell me you believe this and this is why and I have no problem with that but you cant tell me you know. Thats lying and immoral. People who come to my door and claim they know the truth are arrogant as there is *NO* way they could know. Again if they want to tell me this is what they believe then I have no problem.

I can accept that. I will tell you, though - that I do in fact know, and I do not have any evidence that will convince you. I am able to accept evidence that you would likely reject. If you must believe that I am dishonest in saying that, then so be it.

Again, though - not the purpose of this thread. This thread is here for you and others to present alternative theories about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

As we currently stand we have the unbelievable story that Joseph told and a couple other unbelievable theories (it all came out of his head and he just happened to get so much right, for example). If all we've got to go with is a bunch of unbelievable theories, then I don't see why yours is any better than mine.

 

[Sententia]

I can accept that. I will tell you, though - that I do in fact know, and I do not have any evidence that will convince you. I am able to accept evidence that you would likely reject. If you must believe that I am dishonest in saying that, then so be it.

Again, though - not the purpose of this thread. This thread is here for you and others to present alternative theories about the origin of the Book of Mormon.

As we currently stand we have the unbelievable story that Joseph told and a couple other unbelievable theories (it all came out of his head and he just happened to get so much right, for example). If all we've got to go with is a bunch of unbelievable theories, then I don't see why yours is any better than mine.

That the point really... He got most of it wrong. Talking at each other isn't a discussion. Have read any of my earlier posts or even this link which I will post again: Secular Web Kiosk and Bookstore :: Three Strikes, You're Out!--The Quick and Dirty Case Against Mormonism

I listened, read up on chiasmus, spoke with a mormon friend to clarify my view and he says its a matter of faith and I agree with him.

Now I do want to correct you. You said you have evidence but the evidence you have is hear say. Someone said something or wrote something down and thats your evidence. You accept that. Which is fine. The correction is accepting your evidence still does not prove to anyone that you can KNOW it. Where is the proof? You still just believe based on faith. You don't know for sure that what you believe is certain. To claim you do know is what I find dishonest.

Mormon's, like most religious folk, always think they are good people and their religion can do no harm. History teaches otherwise of course, but as I have brought up Mormons currently have a very repressive doctrine towards sexuality, espcially homosexuality and it is incumbent on me from a moral stand point to speak against that. Now its just one repressive belief. Mormon's in particular dont believe R rated movies should be viewed by adults... Its incumbant on me again to point out this censorship. Even if its self enforced and you can break the rules it keeps the general mass out of touch with reality. Many important issues are not G rated.

Mormons go door to door spreading their theory as truth. I disagree with this. You have a theory and thats what you should be telling people if your honest. To spread your theory as absolute truth door to door is dishonest. You may not intentionally try to be dishonest but if a man accidentally kills someone because he was driving drunk and really didn't see that pedestrian because he had passed out he still commited the crime of murder and mormons who tell me they know the truth and start their tirade of celestial and telestial heavens and gold plates that were magically spirited away are being dishonest. And I have no problem telling them that online or face to face. To wit, some LDS members agree with me. Some Non-LDS members disagree with me. Thats your and their right.

I'm not going to argue against the mormon religion as a whole... I may argue against all religion as a whole or to be more honest most religion but thats for another thread.

You equate your fantastical story which includes 1000 pound gold plates, angels and past prophets reappearing to give Joe the... the word escapes me... whatever the power and right to baptize others truely to a realistic alternative that does not include gods, angels and other fantastic and unproven events.

Such to me is lunacy. They are obviously not equal in terms of reality and only someone who is prone to believe is such things would agree with you. If I went to school and told the teacher I didn't do my homework because I was up all night digging up gold plates that were the word of god and then could not produce such plates with the story of an angel that appeared and spirited them away, I doubt in my public school, not private, catholic or otherwise, she or he would believe such.

The content of the BoM is equally fake unless it is taken allegorically or as a fictional tale of morals much like Aesops. There is no DNA or Archelogical proof for the work as a whole and no amount of poetry found in the book will change that. Again read the link I sent you and you have a response I will listen and respond.

 

[Tyr]

drugs or some kind of hallucinigin taken by a man who may have already had a weak mind

 

[SoyLeche]

Now I do want to correct you. You said you have evidence but the evidence you have is hear say. Someone said something or wrote something down and thats your evidence.

No, actually, it's not. That isn't my evidence at all. That wouldn't be anywhere near enough.

 

[Starfish]

That the point really... He got most of it wrong. Talking at each other isn't a discussion. Have read any of my earlier posts or even this link which I will post again: Secular Web Kiosk and Bookstore :: Three Strikes, You're Out!--The Quick and Dirty Case Against Mormonism

I listened, read up on chiasmus, spoke with a mormon friend to clarify my view and he says its a matter of faith and I agree with him.

Now I do want to correct you. You said you have evidence but the evidence you have is hear say. Someone said something or wrote something down and thats your evidence. You accept that. Which is fine. The correction is accepting your evidence still does not prove to anyone that you can KNOW it. Where is the proof? You still just believe based on faith. You don't know for sure that what you believe is certain. To claim you do know is what I find dishonest.

Mormon's, like most religious folk, always think they are good people and their religion can do no harm. History teaches otherwise of course, but as I have brought up Mormons currently have a very repressive doctrine towards sexuality, espcially homosexuality and it is incumbent on me from a moral stand point to speak against that. Now its just one repressive belief. Mormon's in particular dont believe R rated movies should be viewed by adults... Its incumbant on me again to point out this censorship. Even if its self enforced and you can break the rules it keeps the general mass out of touch with reality. Many important issues are not G rated.

Mormons go door to door spreading their theory as truth. I disagree with this. You have a theory and thats what you should be telling people if your honest. To spread your theory as absolute truth door to door is dishonest. You may not intentionally try to be dishonest but if a man accidentally kills someone because he was driving drunk and really didn't see that pedestrian because he had passed out he still commited the crime of murder and mormons who tell me they know the truth and start their tirade of celestial and telestial heavens and gold plates that were magically spirited away are being dishonest. And I have no problem telling them that online or face to face. To wit, some LDS members agree with me. Some Non-LDS members disagree with me. Thats your and their right.

I'm not going to argue against the mormon religion as a whole... I may argue against all religion as a whole or to be more honest most religion but thats for another thread.

You equate your fantastical story which includes 1000 pound gold plates, angels and past prophets reappearing to give Joe the... the word escapes me... whatever the power and right to baptize others truely to a realistic alternative that does not include gods, angels and other fantastic and unproven events.

Such to me is lunacy. They are obviously not equal in terms of reality and only someone who is prone to believe is such things would agree with you. If I went to school and told the teacher I didn't do my homework because I was up all night digging up gold plates that were the word of god and then could not produce such plates with the story of an angel that appeared and spirited them away, I doubt in my public school, not private, catholic or otherwise, she or he would believe such.

The content of the BoM is equally fake unless it is taken allegorically or as a fictional tale of morals much like Aesops. There is no DNA or Archelogical proof for the work as a whole and no amount of poetry found in the book will change that. Again read the link I sent you and you have a response I will listen and respond.

The claims of Joseph Smith and the BoM are no more unbelievable than returning from the dead, global floods and parting seas. There is no proof for what's in the Bible either.
Door-to-door proselyting has brought thousands into the gospel. They are very grateful for that knock on their door. Being a member of the LDS church has brought me tremendous comfort, protection, and happiness. Why would I not want to share that?
We do believe it's true. We believe it as much as we believe you exist. But we never ask anyone to take our word for it. You know that.

 

[Sententia]

The claims of Joseph Smith and the BoM are no more unbelievable than returning from the dead, global floods and parting seas. There is no proof for what's in the Bible either.

Agree. I don't believe in the fantastical tales in the bible either.

Door-to-door proselyting has brought thousands into the gospel. They are very grateful for that knock on their door. Being a member of the LDS church has brought me tremendous comfort, protection, and happiness. Why would I not want to share that?
We do believe it's true. We believe it as much as we believe you exist. But we never ask anyone to take our word for it. You know that.

I know you believe its true... I don't question your belief or your right to proclaim it just don't tell me you know its true when there is no evidence to support such a claim. Its not dishonest to proclaim your belief... it is dishonest to claim something as scientific and historical when there is no evidence to support this claim. Even if you believe it. If you want to be honest you will say you have faith that it is true, or you know it in your heart, or you really believe it. To say you know it as fact or as something any rational person should accept is dishonest and insulting. I know not all religious people do it, nor am I catering that statement towards LDS exclusively.

I am also not denying that some people think religion has been a powerful guiding force for their lives and appreciate being part of that community. You sound like your happy as an LDS. Yet there are things I can not morally say I support or advocate and I stated some of those items in my last post.

I guess there is a difference between having a duty to your fellow humans and to humanity and having a duty to a god. I'm not saying you can't have both but there is a subtle problem perhaps. Religion, in general not JUST LDS, has been used to promote a stagnate state of lets maintain what we have and our beliefs. And argubly they cant even do that as their beliefs are always then used to justify this or that one year and then the next not this or that but whatever. It seems to prevent us or not prevent... but hinder... us on an intellectual level. I mean there are some very intelligent people arguing and debating pointless and theological myths for which there are no solutions. Those people could be debating, arguing for humanities sake. This is part of what hitchens goes into for morals and the neccesity of atheism which is interesting but I think it also has this other side of the coin. Another way religion has historically stunted the growth if intellectuals is through censorship, book banning and of a general nature to silence anyone who disagrees. I think this is less now a days but in LDS they preach and encourage you not to watch movies that are Rated R as I argued earler, I disagree with this. On a number of levels for a number of reasons I think its just a very bad and disheartening practice.

I think you could also argue it hinders us on a moral level. Look at how immaculate these churches are and how much wealth is drained into the church... There is a moral obligation to use that wealth not for ivory walls and gold crosses but to help those in need. I'm still thinking about that argument but I think there is a point to be made there. There is also this view of let gods will happen and that has an overall tendency of making people feel as if they can't enact change. If they just settle now then they will be rewarded later.

I think this is all a sidetracked philosphical discussion really. The question of how Joe could have written the BoM and I would argue for a realistic answer that could not include angels or gods as these are just unproven myth and likely did not include gold plates as these have never been found and can not be independently verified. There is also the question of whether or not Joe could have even translated the text.

Further the content is fantastical with clear false hoods (As pointed out and which I am sure you are familiar with but have somehow rationalized away) and of the things that might be true there is no archelogical evidence for the realistic items and of course no conclusive evidence for any super-natural conclusions.