What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[Autodidact]

LDS Doctrine: Archeological Evidence for Reformed Egyptian Part 1

Now that i have your attention, how about responding to Posts 478 and 458 in the other thread? It should be an easy answer for you since you are supposedly a Psychologist.

from madhatter's source: While there is no "smoking gun" proof of the exact reformed Egyptian the Book of Mormon was written in.

And that's an LDS source. Even that source only talks about evidence for some other languages that can be called "Reformed Egyptian." The "Reformed Egyptian" that the BoM is supposed to have been written in does not exist. Every actual scholar of actual Egytpian who has looked at it has said it doesn't look anything like any kind of Egyptian they've ever seen, Reformed or otherwise.

As always, for any assertion I make, if you need me to provide sources, I am happy to do so; just say so.

 

[Autodidact]

Safety for the Soul

Are you going to explain why these event took place? Or, are you deliberately ignoring the post because you have nothing to rebut it with?

Cuz they were mistaken, obviously. Oh, that's assuming that your source is correct, itself highly doubtful.

 

[Autodidact]

you did not ask for proof, you asked for evidences, they are two different things.

Whenever a claim is made, you ask for evidences, when we provide evidences, you then ask for proof and ignore the evidences. Funny how that works.

As evidence, it's extremely weak. It's an LDS source, and it states right in it that there is no "proof" (actually, no evidence) for the "Reformed Egyptian" of the BoM. It certainly doesn't contain a shred of evidence for it, but only for other "Reforms" of Egyptian. If that's your evidence, I think we can all conclude that it's a made-up, bogus, non-existent play language.

 

[Autodidact]

I provided you the evidence, you then ignore it and ask for "proof"

Do you not know the difference between proof and evidences?

But there was no evidence in your evidence, which was from a biased, LDS source. Can you cite a single Egyptian scholar in the history of the world who has looked at the "Reformed Egyptian" of the BoM and concluded that it was any sort of Egyptian at all? Cuz don't you agree that's the kind of evidence that would be needed to support your claim?

 

[Autodidact]

You seem to have faith in the conjecture of scientists based on evidences without proof. Yet when it comes to religious matters of faith you dismiss it because there is no "proof" even though there are evidences.

Also, a lack of evidence or proof does not mean something is false.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, it sure doesn't mean it's true. That's your best argument? You have a lack of evidence?

Actually, we don't have a lack of evidence. We have the supposed script, and the Egyptian experts who've looked at, who say it looks like Reformed Baloney.

No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or a "reformed Egyptian" orthography as it has been described in Mormon belief. For instance, in 1966, John A. Wilson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, wrote, "From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America… In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian'."[8] Klaus Baer, another Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, called the characters of the "Caractors" document nothing but "doodlings".[9] [wiki]

So your problem isn't a lack of evidence, it's an abundance of evidence that there is no such thing.

 

[Autodidact]

You really must be daft, people have already posted plenty of evidences for the Book of Mormon.

In this thread? Can you draw our attention to them? Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

I never said Faith was the evidence. The evidences are what grant me the faith to believe in the Book of Mormon.

You must be really confused to believe evidences are the same as proof.

No, I'll settle for evidence. What do you have? Artifacts? No. DNA? No. Egyptian scholars? No. Gold plates? No.

 

[Autodidact]

I have a question for you: How do you respond to things that are considered modern miracles--for example, someone survives a car crash against what the laws of science dictate, or someone goes in and gets diagnosed with cancer, has proof of it on CT scans, blood work. Then, they go in an it is completely gone--they have no trace of cancer? That said, if certain things happen in life that are true but cannot be proved or explained, isn't it also possible that the Book of Mormon can be true as manifest by God?

1. I evaluate each case on its merits.
2. I rely on controlled, double-blind scientific research.
3. A certain percentage of people spontaneously recover from illness, including cancer.

That's your argument? There's no evidence but maybe it's true anyhow? Listen, I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale; are you interested?

Here's the problem. If millions of people had lived in America, and fought huge battles with chariots and swords, you would expect to find artifacts of that. For that to be possible, they would all have to have been vaporized afterward.

When you couple that with the suspicious story by a known treasure hunter, the credulity-straining "translation" method, the non-existent script it's written in, the confounding DNA evidence, the Book of Abraham scam, and the Kinderhook plates, it all adds up to a con. Who would buy such a silly, unsupported tale?

 

[Autodidact]

How could a man with practically no formal education create a text that is consistent with semetic language;

What are you talking about? It's written in fake Olde Englsih.

how could someone who has never been in battle so accurately describe the nature and happenings in war?

Easily.

There are many more things I could say to refute your claim, but the most important for me personally is that God has witnessed to me of it's truth. That is evidence enough for me. If that is not sufficient for you, meaning that God has the power to witness of divine truth to you, me and the whole world, then we are at an impasse--and that is okay.

God has also witnessed personally to me. He has told me personally it's utterly bogus. And I expect you to give that statement exactly as much weight as you expect me to give yours.

 

[Autodidact]

First of all, I said that Nephi had the writings of Isaiah, and that yes that is possible. And second, there have been LOTS of people that have lived on the earth that I suppose would fit into your category of "not existing" because what you are wanting in terms of proof or evidence. How do we know that Jesus healed the blind man?

We don't, and it seems highly unlikely that He did.

Do we evidence of his eye exam? You see where I am going with this. The written word and the testimony of the men who handled and saw the gold plates that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from are evidences themselves.

You mean like the one who admitted he had only seen them with his "spiritual eyes?"

And they give this evidence in court, under cross-examination?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm so sick of this thread and of people trashing my beliefs I could scream.

Why are Mormons so sensitive to people presenting the truth about their beliefs? Isn't this exactly what we're here for? If you don't want to debate the subject, well, just don't participate in those threads.

And pointing out an utter absence of supporting evidence is not trashing; it's debate.

 

[Humanistheart]

That said, if certain things happen in life that are true but cannot be proved or explained, isn't it also possible that the Book of Mormon can be true as manifest by God?

Not at all. Lightning used to be unexplainable. Then science began progressing and what do you know, it turns out to be a natural phenomina, not some message from the gods. Just because something doesn't currently have an explaination doesn't mean there isn't one. And we have an explanation for the BoM anyway. It was obviously created from the fertile imagination of Smith. The simplest explanation is usually the right one after all.

 

[Humanistheart]

And pointing out an utter absence of supporting evidence is not trashing; it's debate.

I agree. People call the search for truth trashing only when they don't like the answers.

 

[Humanistheart]

First of all, I said that Nephi had the writings of Isaiah, and that yes that is possible. And second, there have been LOTS of people that have lived on the earth that I suppose would fit into your category of "not existing" because what you are wanting in terms of proof or evidence. How do we know that Jesus healed the blind man? Do we evidence of his eye exam? You see where I am going with this. The written word and the testimony of the men who handled and saw the gold plates that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from are evidences themselves.

We don't know that jesus healed the blind man. In fact we don't even have proof that he lived. There's enough evidence that the experts feel it's quite probable that he lived, but few will use the term 'proof' in relation to him.

The only person to offer any evaluation of the gold plates outside the church (and he only saw a copy that Harris braought him) flat out said they were a mixture of greek, hebrew, latin and other languages. There was nothing to indicate they were 'reformed' egyptian. However the church leaders lied anyway and said they recieved a signed affidavid confirming this historians testimony to it's accuracy. This came to a great surprise to the man when he later found out, and made sure several letters were printed explaining what actually happened. The early church members were liers, and the testimony of uneducated followers of smith mean nothing.

 

[Autodidact]

Truth lifts people up. You drag people through the mud.

Please cite anything I have posted which is not true.

Some people value truth, some do not. I value truth.

How odd. Yet you defend slander.

Your reputation is not fine as evidenced by you recently misreading my posts and the number of people who have you on ignore.

Some people can't handle the truth.

So I take it you don't want to poll the thread to determine the truth of falsity of your statement?

 

[Autodidact]

The LDS are Christians like any other group of Christians.
The Book Of Mormon Is indubitably unique to them, and whilst I have read it, I am unconvinced by it. However it does contain some logical and well thought out thoughts on faith and the nature of souls, the past, the present and the future of our being.
I would not care to ridicule it simply because there is no proof that it is true in its entirety.
The same can be stated about sacred works of all the great religions .

Yup. They pretty much all mixt truth an untruth liberally.

The argument seems to be, that posters think, because some parts are seemingly wrong in their eyes, The whole is wrong. ..That defies the laws of logic.

Well it certainly doesn't bode well for its veracity.

I would be the first to say not all the Bible is either true or accurate. However I totally have faith in Jesus Teachings.

I would be second. However, thousands of American Christians would disagree, and deny that you are a Christian as a result.

 

[Humanistheart]

Your reputation is not fine as evidenced by you recently misreading my posts and the number of people who have you on ignore.

Everyone that put Auto on ignore did so because they could not defend against the facts she presented. If she was extreamly rude like some posters (for example clear or jayhawk, who prefer to debate with insults rather than facts) and was put on the ignore list that would be different, but I've yet to read a post on this thread from her that was anything less than direct and factual.

 

[Autodidact]

Exactly. You don't know.

Neither does anyone else, since the question is speculative. That's the point.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Meh. I am now mooting compiling everything into a 'criticisms of mormonism' in some sort of academic analysis. As I have posted before, it is not in order to demonstrate proof of the Book of Mormon, but to showcase the viable arguments on each side. I don't expect it to come out particularly favourably. If anyone can add anything to this skeleton I'll be getting to work soon. Though I anticipate it to be a fairly long term project:


Parallel events in history – Other religious groups started/ history of the area Mormonism sprang from/ Works and concepts of the time available to Smith

Joseph Smith – his upbringing up to the restoration of the church, key personal events during, occult practices , (necromancy salamander letters)

The restoration and book of Mormon at face value (first vision/translation/what the Book of Mormon is)

The evolution of the first vision story

The translation of the book of Mormon (process, those involved, 114 pages)

Other translation experiences (kinderhook plates, book of Abraham, revelatory translation)

The content of the Book of Mormon (plagiarism, mistakes, alterations, parallels with KJV Bible and View of the Hebrews)

DNA and the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican history
Polygamy

Unfulfilled prophesy/difficulties of the early church

A church divided (major dissenters and alternative branches)

Blacks and the priesthood.

 

[Humanistheart]

Meh. I am now mooting compiling everything into a 'criticisms of mormonism' in some sort of academic analysis. As I have posted before, it is not in order to demonstrate proof of the Book of Mormon, but to showcase the viable arguments on each side.

While that sounds like a nice idea, I'm curious what viable argument there is for the book of mormon? As has been established on this thread, there does not seem to be one single viable argument for the BoM, so what are you reffering to?