What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[Watchmen]

No, I don't refuse at all. I'm happy to look at any evidence, and went on to do so. However, if the primary, obvious, most likely evidence already disproves the book, then there is no need to resort to speculative, subjective, literary criticism that paints the bullseye around the arrows. We only have to resort to that sort of evidence if we don't have first class, strong, objective, clear, well-documented evidence. Which we do.

I'm confident that if we look through the BoM, we can find passages that resemble Robert Frost and Robert Heinlein. As 9/10 points out, sheer random chance is going to give you some resemblance to something.

Let's try it from your angle, since you refuse to look at anything where the book is set (because it utterly disproves it.): If the BoM were an ancient Hebrew book, we would expect...fill in the blank.

I'll go first. We would expect it to be written in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek or possibly Babylonian, probably on parchment, papyrus, stone or clay plates. We would expect it not to make the same mistakes as the King James Edition. We would expect it not to plagiarize Shakespeare or other more modern authors.

What would you expect?

Who made you the authority of what's first-class, strong, objective evidence? Again - you're simply dismissing out of hand because you disagree with it.

 

[Watchmen]

Actually that just makes it more peculiar. If you look at it from the perspective of a Supreme Deity who is concerned about restoring the truth of a gospel to all of the nations this seems like an insincere, unimpressive way to go about it.

If GOD wanted to go about just choosing just one spokesperson (instead of working with a group of professional translators) for these all-important revelations, I think it would be easier to forgo the whole aspect of the golden plates and translations and give the understanding to Joseph Smith in his native speaking language. This would have eliminated any misunderstanding about where the plates came from or went to, how he translated them or what language they were in. The fact that Joseph Smith did not have the intellect to understand the plates or the capability to translate the plates without sticking his head in a hat and deciphering the symbols with an Urim and Thummim does not support a Holy or Divine uniqueness to his mission but just places Joseph Smith (and the LDS organization) in a light of perpetual skepticism (which I do not believe would be a relevant part of God’s plan or purpose for enlightenment).

As I have mentioned earlier, my first introduction to Joseph Smith was through a publication dealing with alien encounters and gleaning from what we know from current and past alien encounters, a lot of the messages given to contactees (people who are constantly kept in contact by alien beings) is prominently confounding. Researchers have even claimed that some of these alien visitors can come off as cosmic pranksters. The more I investigate Joseph Smith, the more I research about LDS history and the UFO phenomenon and the more I know about GOD, it would seem that Joseph Smith (in a spectacular display of faith) may have been a victim of such trickery.

Yes - we know better than God.

 

[Watchmen]

Well, it looks like there's nothing more to be said since the haters have proven my point. Thanks to all.

 

[Autodidact]

Who made you the authority of what's first-class, strong, objective evidence? Again - you're simply dismissing out of hand because you disagree with it.

You disagree? For example, when investigating a claim that people X lived in place Y and spoke Z language, you wouldn't consider artifacts, ruins, DNA and the language spoken to be strong, objective evidence of the existence of people X? As opposed to literary criticism that the book about people X had a passage that seemed to follow the same form as the people who wrote a different book sometimes used?

Let's use a non-Mormon example. The hypothesis is that the people of Hawaii descended from polynesian immigrants from the Marquesas and Society Islands. If that were true, what kind of evidence would we look for?

Or the hypothesis that Native Americans did not descend from ANE people, but people from Siberia many thousands of years ago. What evidence would we look for to confirm this?

Or, as I said, if the BoM were an ancient Hebrew work, what would you reasonably expect to find in it? This is playing on your turf, making it easy for you. What would you predict? What would you reasonably expect to see--and not see--that would be evidence of that? It would go something like: Ancient Hebrew works tend to ..... They have...

 

[Autodidact]

Well, it looks like there's nothing more to be said since the haters have proven my point. Thanks to all.

I'm sure you find it convenient to blame the problem on our bias rather than yours, but as I pointed out at length, people with no axe to grind at all never seem to come out with results that match the BoM. Never. And that is dispositive.

Also I'm sure you enjoy feeling victimized and persecuted, but no one has said anything to that effect. We have been pointing out that the BoM is not factual. That's not prejudice or discrimination--that's reality.

Unfortunately, reality seems to have a decidedly anti-Mormon prejudice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, it looks like there's nothing more to be said since the haters have proven my point. Thanks to all.

Wait one minute. I for one haven't dismissed any evidence out-of-hand. In fact, I alluded to what I would consider good evidence:

For an investigation of something like "ancient literary styles" in the Book of Mormon to be of value, here's what I think you'd have to do:

- come up with a well-supported list of the styles that you would expect to find.
- find out the rate that they occur in the Book of Mormon.
- either find out the rate that they occur in other comparable (but definitely not ancient Judaism-derived) books or estimate the rate that would be expected based on random chance.
- demonstrate that the occurance rate in the BoM is significantly higher than what would be expected if the book really was written by Joseph Smith.
- if a statistically significant rate is found in the BoM, come up with other possible explanations for this effect and demonstrate that all other explanations are implausible.

Do you know of any evidence that fits this bill?

Heck- I'll settle for any evidence that a particular literary style occurs at a higher rate in the Book of Mormon that can be explained by random chance... i.e that its occurance in the Book of Mormon is statistically significant.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Further demonstration that those opposed to Mormonism

I'm not "opposed to mormonism".....(only)...I oppose them all. But that's just me. Even if I oppose a religion that's beside the point.

fixate on one thing (e.g. archeology)

Sucks for you huh...? Look, the BoM makes claims. Claims that are not supported by history, archeology, or even DNA. Archeology is a great place to start. It's much better than starting with "literary styles"..

 

[cardero]

Yes - we know better than God.

But if GOD wanted us to know better, would this be the way to go about it?

From my knowledge of current LDS prophets, I do not think that any of them had to endure the same procedures that Joseph Smith had to go through to receive God's revelation and understanding.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm sure you find it convenient to blame the problem on our bias rather than yours, but as I pointed out at length, people with no axe to grind at all never seem to come out with results that match the BoM. Never. And that is dispositive.

Also I'm sure you enjoy feeling victimized and persecuted, but no one has said anything to that effect. We have been pointing out that the BoM is not factual. That's not prejudice or discrimination--that's reality.

Unfortunately, reality seems to have a decidedly anti-Mormon prejudice.

But Watchmen is the only Mormon I have heard to even hint that "certain" stories in his book are allegorical. When he raised this issue in the thread he started he received various replies from fellow mormons who take the stories literally.. This is why I said he may not be the one who should be attempting to defend the book. For me, if they want to shun the DNA and archeology in an attempt to have us focus on trivial matters (e.g. Literary Styles) then I say their case is weak. There's way to much "supposed history" in the BoM for it not to be matched with current history. If their history is out of sync with the classical knowledge of history then it's most likely not true.

 

[Watchmen]

It's true - I am not the one who should be defending the "literalness" of the BoM. However, I think it a bit pretentious (did I spell that wrong?) of people to declare victory in a debate where neither side has budged one iota.

It's not an open and shut issue - I think that's clear. I'm sure everyone will disagree.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

It's true - I am not the one who should be defending the "literalness" of the BoM. However, I think it a bit pretentious (did I spell that wrong?) of people to declare victory in a debate where neither side has budged one iota.

It's not an open and shut issue - I think that's clear. I'm sure everyone will disagree.

The fact that no one has change their mind is hardly the criteria for deciding a debate. :faint:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's true - I am not the one who should be defending the "literalness" of the BoM. However, I think it a bit pretentious (did I spell that wrong?) of people to declare victory in a debate where neither side has budged one iota.

I certainly am not claiming victory just waiting on a "literalist" to post some evidence...but I won't hold my breath....

 

[Watchmen]

The fact that no one has change their mind is hardly the criteria for deciding a debate. :faint:

It demonstrates that both sides are losing.

 

[Watchmen]

I certainly am not claiming victory just waiting on a "literalist" to post some evidence...but I won't hold my breath....

Evidence was presented.

 

[Humanistheart]

Evidence was presented.

Watchmen, we've been through this before. You claim evidence has been presented. We ask you what evidence? You avoid listing any and make a snide remark that we must be closed minded or what not for not looking at the evidence you haven't listed. You see the problem? For us to look at this evidence you have to specify what it is. Then actually respond to the critique's against said evidence with something more than 'you just don't like mormonism so you don't get it' or some such avoidance.

 

[parlotonesdude]

just because it's easier to read does not mean it is right.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Evidence was presented.

No. Opinions were presented. What you consider evidence has been dealt with. I'm not interested in opinion from an apologist.

If the people you present are accredited scholars, archeologist and anthropologist etc. then I'm all ears, but know, their findings should be reviewed and scrutinized by their colleagues in their field. This would mean that if you present and LDS scholar or Archeologist then we should find agreement from their peers.

For now the LDS have supposed know it alls representing them but it appears their work isn't peer reviewed. To me that's a problem.

"Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." John E. Clark, Professor of anthropology, BYU, Director of NWAF, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, No. 2, 2005 p.42 The entire article is titled "Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" published by FARMS 2005."


There is no way you guys should be letting people like this speak for you. FARMS - Peer review and scholarly credentials

 

[cardero]

Even if all the evidence necessary to confirm the history of the Book Of Mormon were found one would still have to prove (like the Bible) the testament and appearance of Jesus and whether the authors were "divinely" inspired.

 

[Autodidact]

It's true - I am not the one who should be defending the "literalness" of the BoM. However, I think it a bit pretentious (did I spell that wrong?) of people to declare victory in a debate where neither side has budged one iota.

It's not an open and shut issue - I think that's clear. I'm sure everyone will disagree.

To know who "won," you would need to start with an audience and poll them before and after.

It may make a difference why people haven't budged. In my case, it makes no difference to my life whether Native Americans originated in Siberia, the Middle East or Baltimore. If it turned out that the facts supported this aspect of the BoM, I would be happy to grant that and move on to whatever other argument I might have. If the evidence seemed to support LDS theology, I would be Mormon. I'm all about empiricism, have complete faith in reality, and go wherever the evidence leads.

Mormons, OTOH, believe their eternal salvation depends on their ability to actively resist any facts that conflict with the belief system ingrained into them as children.

So I don't think the two sides are equivalent.

 

[Autodidact]

Evidence was presented.

Actually, Katz said there was some, but never actually cited it.