If plates then God

[Marcus]

...I honestly believe that those that leave the church or become its critics are, in many cases, those that never had a testimony of Jesus Christ. Why? Because that seems to be one of the first things to go.

I think it was Morley who earlier asked of what use is the Book of Mormon…there’s nothing there to get too worked up about. Well, that’s untrue. It’s all about Jesus. It testifies of Him. It is a second witness of his status of God. It’s a solid witness that God works in the affairs of men in our day as in times of old.

What’s the alternative according to secular humanists/agnostics/atheists?

Death and extinction.

The recent responses are what one would expect from those that have reason to disconfirm the reality of Jesus as Son of God. This is a divide that seems unbridgeable in my experience. Only those that have a desire to come to Christ have eyes to see and ears to hear.

This thread has included enough conversation for those who have entered in out of a sense of curiosity to get a better understanding of the alternative views in regards to “If plates, then God”.

Again, I appreciate ALL the input. It clarifies the different views that believers and non believers have. I respect the views that nonbelievers have. I went through the ‘dark night of the soul’ for a long time....

This is a very telling comment. After all the discussion, you are still unable to contribute with any facts, history, or analysis (outside of your random links that never quite mean what you googled them for), so your final assessment is to rudely disparage those who do not believe as you believe. You frequently put yourself forward as an example of an LDS believer, but seriously, I hope you are not a typical Mormon. If so, the LDS church is in far worse shape than I ever thought.

[Physics Guy]

Word print studies are an example of a strategy that many apologetic arguments use. They invoke some method that has some accepted validity under certain conditions, and which for obvious reasons only works under those conditions. They present the method without considering what conditions it needs, though, as if it were a universally valid tool, and then apply it in a case where the conditions it needs do not hold at all. It's a lot like saying, "Of course the use of whittling knives is well established in carving, so here we apply a standard two-inch knife to carve this big chunk of granite."

Many authors write within some kind of loose pattern of favourite words, or kinds of words, or grammatical structures. Authors who follow any pattern too rigidly are likely to be too monotonous to keep much of an audience, but with a large enough sample of text produced by the same author, it can be possible to identify enough trends to consider the statistical patterns as a sort of authorial fingerprint.

You do need a lot of text, though—and it has to be text that the author produced in the same kind of style. Furthermore the method is inherently more effective in indicating that two different texts were written by the same author than it is in confirming that texts were not written by the same person. There are a lot of ways for individual styles to vary, and writers don't usually set out to imitate the styles of other writers, so if two writing patterns match closely, it's probably because the same person wrote them.

It's not true at all, though, that everybody has to have just one recognisable style that they are unable to change. The fingerprint analogy doesn't go nearly that far. Prolific professional authors often do maintain a consistent style over millions of words, but that's usually because they're doing just that on purpose. They've found a style that sells well, and they want to keep supplying what their customers (or their editors) want. Successful authors are supposed to have their own distinctive prose styles.

In fact people adapt their styles all the time. Using different kinds of language for different parts of a story—especially with narrators who are supposed to be different characters—is a standard technique in fiction. And on the other hand, inexperienced writers often vary their styles awkwardly and inadvertently, just because they haven't figured out what they want to do yet, and keep on trying new things.

So if different parts of the Book of Mormon really were written by a number of different authors, then statistical analysis of the different parts' language might provide indications of where the authorship changed. In no way at all, though, does this kind of analysis amount to evidence that the different parts of the Book probably were written by different people. It remains entirely likely that one person wrote it all, and simply drifted around in their style.

That totally happens. Word print analysis only works to identify separate authors if for some reason we can be sure that stylistic drift hasn't happened: the method is a knife to carve wood. With the Book of Mormon, we have no reason to rule out drift at all: as far as this wood-carving knife is concerned, we have a big lump of granite.

[I Have Questions]

You are by passing the what appears to be a miraculous creation of the text itself.

I know that I keep returning to this, but I’m at a loss to understand the miracle that you claim that is The Book of Mormon.

Besides the opinion of a few relatively small groups of restorationist Latter-day Saints, where is the value? The book has no unique theology—any of that that exists in Mormonism was introduced later. It has little literary merit—if it did, it would be studied in American Literature courses throughout the US. It’s not a guide for anthropologists or archaeologists who are looking at pre-Columbian civilizations. Its espoused historical narrative doesn’t line up with anything we know about immigration to the Americas. It gives us nothing we can use in sociology, pre-Columbian biology, politics, military strategy, or DNA studies. It didn’t pioneer any area of social justice or moral philosophy. Outside of being a catalyst for Mormonism, where is the value? What is the miracle?

I’m asking seriously.

Did you ever get a response to this Morley?

[I Have Questions]

I’m pleased to note that, in the introductory material of each of these books published by the renowned Oxford University Press, the authors clearly declare their belief in a historically authentic Book of Mormon. Thus, for example, Richard Bushman:

“A logical path for a Latter-day Saint growing up in the modern world, especially one who became a historian, would be to grow out of my childhood beliefs. The plates would be spiritualized and their meaning made allegorical. But my life did not follow that course. The plates have continued to have a hold on me, and the same is true for other Mormons. Polls show that more than three-quarters of American Mormons believe that “the Book of Mormon is a literal, historical account,” a likely indicator of belief in the plates. This makes a big difference in one’s outlook on the world. With the plates comes an angel and divine intervention in ordinary human lives. The plates imply a world where God is an active agent in human affairs in opposition to the skepticism that has eroded religion for the past two hundred years.”

Does this also strike anyone else as a profoundly weak and embarrassing argument? Coming from someone as well regarded as Bushman?

I don't think Bushman is making an argument, so much as expressing his personal belief. The only historical support for the plates being real is the Joseph-Smith-written testimony of 11 of his closest friends and family, and the contents of the Book of Mormon. I don't think the total of those has impressed any non-invested scholar or any non-invested department of historical research. Why not? Bernie Madoff provided more testimony and documentary evidence of investment performance than that. The Church also cannot tell a straight story about the plates. In the introduction page the Church declare them as "gold plates". Not golden, not gold-coloured, gold. But everyone examining the situation goes to great lengths to make the case for them not being gold. They were originally the story of the literal ancestors of the native Americans. Then they were the story of the principal ancestors of the native Americans. Now they're the story of some people who were among the ancestors of the native Americans. This constant walking back from the original position is not the hallmark of robust evidence. Even the current Church doesn't believe the original narrative. If Scientoilogisists had a story of gold plates with evidence as per Mormonism, Mormons would be among the first to laugh it out of town. Do Mormons believe any other religions' claim of things akin to Joseph's gold plates tale?

Here's an excerpt from the Book of Mormon that supposedly is evidence of God:

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 5?lang=eng

If Gold Plates = Book of Mormon = God, then God is a racist, as are those people who testify as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the plates. Bushman is therefore complicit in promoting racism.

[MG 2.0]

...I honestly believe that those that leave the church or become its critics are, in many cases, those that never had a testimony of Jesus Christ. Why? Because that seems to be one of the first things to go.

I think it was Morley who earlier asked of what use is the Book of Mormon…there’s nothing there to get too worked up about. Well, that’s untrue. It’s all about Jesus. It testifies of Him. It is a second witness of his status of God. It’s a solid witness that God works in the affairs of men in our day as in times of old.

What’s the alternative according to secular humanists/agnostics/atheists?

Death and extinction.

The recent responses are what one would expect from those that have reason to disconfirm the reality of Jesus as Son of God. This is a divide that seems unbridgeable in my experience. Only those that have a desire to come to Christ have eyes to see and ears to hear.

This thread has included enough conversation for those who have entered in out of a sense of curiosity to get a better understanding of the alternative views in regards to “If plates, then God”.

Again, I appreciate ALL the input. It clarifies the different views that believers and non believers have. I respect the views that nonbelievers have. I went through the ‘dark night of the soul’ for a long time....

This is a very telling comment. After all the discussion, you are still unable to contribute with any facts, history, or analysis (outside of your random links that never quite mean what you googled them for), so your final assessment is to rudely disparage those who do not believe as you believe. You frequently put yourself forward as an example of an LDS believer, but seriously, I hope you are not a typical Mormon. If so, the LDS church is in far worse shape than I ever thought.

The typical LDS believer is one that bears testimony of Jesus Christ. Those such as yourself that are opposed to the work of the CofJCofLDS will find that foreign and/or unintelligible. The Book of Mormon being a second witness of Christ will be anathema to the work of an atheist or secular person. It goes against the very principles of belief/non belief that are at the very core of their being.

Alma 27:21-22
And now, my brethren, what natural man is there that knoweth these things? I say unto you, there is none that knoweth these things, save it be the penitent. 22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God...

At the end of the day this discussion reaches an impasse. Those that have eyes to see and ears to hear and a willingness to follow Christ will seek that which is light. Those that chose to not seek Christ will wander in darkness at noonday. That is NOT meant as a disparaging remark as you might interpret it. By darkness I mean simply a lack of knowledge/meaning/purpose beyond that which you create on your own…whatever that might be.

You are not able to offer hope or purpose in meaning beyond that which you create from your own mind and experience. Reaching toward something greater and with vastly more knowledge/power/glory than yourself is a foreign and unacceptable concept. You are left solely unto yourself. No hope for continued existence and progress beyond this world/life. That’s walking in darkness.

Jesus and his position of God provides us with the meaning/purpose of life. Progression, knowledge, and joy not only in this life but for eternity. That’s BIG.

And you have absolutely nothing to offer that supersedes that message of hope and eternal life. Salvation in a kingdom of God.

You are locked in, because of your worldview, into a limited view of possibilities and connections with others. Here and now, but no hereafter.

The Book of Mormon is that modern day witness which testifies of Christ and his mission/atonement for all of mankind. And in the meantime the skeptics debate his very existence and status as God.

It’s the age old question, “Whom do you say that I am?”

Marcus, I ask you as I have asked others, what do you have to offer that is grander and more meaningful than the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

This is a very telling comment. After all the discussion, you are still unable to contribute with any facts, history, or analysis (outside of your random links that never quite mean what you googled them for), so your final assessment is to rudely disparage those who do not believe as you believe. You frequently put yourself forward as an example of an LDS believer, but seriously, I hope you are not a typical Mormon. If so, the LDS church is in far worse shape than I ever thought.

...Those that have eyes to see and ears to hear and a willingness to follow Christ will seek that which is light. Those that chose to not seek Christ will wander in darkness at noonday. That is NOT meant as a disparaging remark as you might interpret it. By darkness I mean simply a lack of knowledge/meaning/purpose beyond that which you create on your own…whatever that might be.

You are not able to offer hope or purpose in meaning beyond that which you create from your own mind and experience. Reaching toward something greater and with vastly more knowledge/power/glory than yourself is a foreign and unacceptable concept. You are left solely unto yourself. No hope for continued existence and progress beyond this world/life. That’s walking in darkness.

Jesus and his position of God provides us with the meaning/purpose of life. Progression, knowledge, and joy not only in this life but for eternity. That’s BIG.

And you have absolutely nothing to offer that supersedes that message of hope and eternal life. Salvation in a kingdom of God.

You are locked in, because of your worldview, into a limited view of possibilities and connections with others. Here and now, but no hereafter....

But, this is "NOT meant as a disparaging remark..."


Anyway, back to the topic...

Does this also strike anyone else as a profoundly weak and embarrassing argument? Coming from someone as well regarded as Bushman?

I don't think Bushman is making an argument, so much as expressing his personal belief. The only historical support for the plates being real is the Joseph-Smith-written testimony of 11 of his closest friends and family, and the contents of the Book of Mormon. I don't think the total of those has impressed any non-invested scholar or any non-invested department of historical research. Why not? Bernie Madoff provided more testimony and documentary evidence of investment performance than that. The Church also cannot tell a straight story about the plates. In the introduction page the Church declare them as "gold plates". Not golden, not gold-coloured, gold. But everyone examining the situation goes to great lengths to make the case for them not being gold. They were originally the story of the literal ancestors of the native Americans. Then they were the story of the principal ancestors of the native Americans. Now they're the story of some people who were among the ancestors of the native Americans. This constant walking back from the original position is not the hallmark of robust evidence. Even the current Church doesn't believe the original narrative. If Scientoilogisists had a story of gold plates with evidence as per Mormonism, Mormons would be among the first to laugh it out of town. Do Mormons believe any other religions' claim of things akin to Joseph's gold plates tale?

Here's an excerpt from the Book of Mormon that supposedly is evidence of God:

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 5?lang=eng

If Gold Plates = Book of Mormon = God, then God is a racist, as are those people who testify as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the plates. Bushman is therefore complicit in promoting racism.

[MG 2.0]

But, this is "NOT meant as a disparaging remark..."

No, it wasn’t. I was setting up and delineating the demarcation lines that separate us. You’re in one place and I’m in another. It’s just a fact.

You are confident that you’re in the right ‘place’ as am I. I respect your position as a position having been chosen by a thinking/reasoning human being with free choice to believe what you want to.

If I’ve misrepresented the beliefs and/or intentions that you have on your part, please elucidate.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

But, this is "NOT meant as a disparaging remark..."

No, it wasn’t. I was setting up and delineating the demarcation lines that separate us. You’re in one place and I’m in another. It’s just a fact.

You are confident that you’re in the right ‘place’ as am I. I respect your position as a position having been chosen by a thinking/reasoning human being with free choice to believe what you want to....

If you respected other people you would stop disparaging other people. You can explain your approach without "delineating [what you and only you think is] the demarcation." Just because you do it passive aggressively and pretend you are stating facts (lol) doesn't mean they are 'facts,' and it doesn't mean that you aren't trying to be disparaging.

Back to the topic. Here's another great one:

Word print studies are an example of a strategy that many apologetic arguments use. They invoke some method that has some accepted validity under certain conditions, and which for obvious reasons only works under those conditions. They present the method without considering what conditions it needs, though, as if it were a universally valid tool, and then apply it in a case where the conditions it needs do not hold at all. It's a lot like saying, "Of course the use of whittling knives is well established in carving, so here we apply a standard two-inch knife to carve this big chunk of granite."

Many authors write within some kind of loose pattern of favourite words, or kinds of words, or grammatical structures. Authors who follow any pattern too rigidly are likely to be too monotonous to keep much of an audience, but with a large enough sample of text produced by the same author, it can be possible to identify enough trends to consider the statistical patterns as a sort of authorial fingerprint.

You do need a lot of text, though—and it has to be text that the author produced in the same kind of style. Furthermore the method is inherently more effective in indicating that two different texts were written by the same author than it is in confirming that texts were not written by the same person. There are a lot of ways for individual styles to vary, and writers don't usually set out to imitate the styles of other writers, so if two writing patterns match closely, it's probably because the same person wrote them.

It's not true at all, though, that everybody has to have just one recognisable style that they are unable to change. The fingerprint analogy doesn't go nearly that far. Prolific professional authors often do maintain a consistent style over millions of words, but that's usually because they're doing just that on purpose. They've found a style that sells well, and they want to keep supplying what their customers (or their editors) want. Successful authors are supposed to have their own distinctive prose styles.

In fact people adapt their styles all the time. Using different kinds of language for different parts of a story—especially with narrators who are supposed to be different characters—is a standard technique in fiction. And on the other hand, inexperienced writers often vary their styles awkwardly and inadvertently, just because they haven't figured out what they want to do yet, and keep on trying new things.

So if different parts of the Book of Mormon really were written by a number of different authors, then statistical analysis of the different parts' language might provide indications of where the authorship changed. In no way at all, though, does this kind of analysis amount to evidence that the different parts of the Book probably were written by different people. It remains entirely likely that one person wrote it all, and simply drifted around in their style.

That totally happens. Word print analysis only works to identify separate authors if for some reason we can be sure that stylistic drift hasn't happened: the method is a knife to carve wood. With the Book of Mormon, we have no reason to rule out drift at all: as far as this wood-carving knife is concerned, we have a big lump of granite.

[honorentheos]

The Book of Mormon being a second witness of Christ will be anathema to the work of an atheist or secular person. It goes against the very principles of belief/non belief that are at the very core of their being.

...Those that have eyes to see and ears to hear and a willingness to follow Christ will seek that which is light. Those that chose to not seek Christ will wander in darkness at noonday. That is NOT meant as a disparaging remark as you might interpret it. By darkness I mean simply a lack of knowledge/meaning/purpose beyond that which you create on your own…whatever that might be.

I disagree. I'd even argue belief is irrelevant in so far as belief in God or Christ does not objective affect their virtue. It only affects their religiosity. We have entire thread where we demonstrated you regularly conflate the two but are mistaken in doing so, as it usually equals your calling religious expression "good" and the lack of religious expression, "darkness" with a poorly considered attempt to mask the disdain that worldview demands.

MG, let me assure you I had a testimony and did not find leaving the church my first choice. I served in bishoprics, taught and served in Sunday School leadership, priesthood leadership, taught family history, and I don't imagine there is a tier apart from what I experienced. But the evidence against it being what it claimed to be left the choice between allegiance and integrity. You may see it differently but it's how I read your comments - you sacrifice integrity for allegiance when you claim to seek balance.

I also feel my life has purpose beyond what you seem to perceive, perhaps more than when I was a believing member as I see what I do bearing fruit in meaningful ways. Choices have more real, tangible consequences for which I am accountable to myself and those impacted by me. As a believer I spent a good deal of time investing In outcomes I thought I understood but which are really poorly defined. For example, I made a goal to go to temple every week after I returned from the mission field and did so for four years with few exceptions. What did I hope to achieve? A more godly perspective, moving closer to God and how God thought, felt, and perhaps behaved. It was a worthy goal in intention. But what did it really entail? I look at it as being distracted by narrative that I hadn't investigated with sufficient skepticism to understand it. I think that's a really challenge for your position as it makes the valuable tool of skepticism an enemy to your goals. And thereby preventing the growth and understanding it makes available.

[Gadianton]

The plates, the Book of Mormon, the restoration…that’s all peripheral to Jesus. It’s easy to lose sight of that at times.

for those who have entered in out of a sense of curiosity to get a better understanding of the alternative views in regards to “If plates, then God”.

Since it's peripheral to Jesus, what does it matter other than being a distraction? You like to run in circles.

he Book of Mormon being a second witness of Christ will be anathema to the work of an atheist or secular person. It goes against the very principles of belief/non belief that are at the very core of their being.


What’s the alternative according to secular humanists/agnostics/atheists?

Death and extinction.

Major yawn. First of all, MG, all of those you're bantering with have been dyed-in-the-wool believers for much of their lives. Including me. It's not like we can't understand the believing position. I could come onto this board with a sock puppet and have you convinced that I'm a deeply believing and thoughtful member of the Church. It would be child's play. On the other hand, you don't understand the skeptical position at all. You would not be able to register an atheist sock puppet and convince me that you know what you're talking about in the slightest.

Your biggest issue though is that atheists aren't your only critics, or even your most vocal critics, your fellow believers in God who are non Mormon will typically have deeper negative views about the Book of Mormon than atheists do. Believing in eternal life and in Jesus is more likely to make your "second witness of Christ" more "anathema" than not believing in God at all. What do you say to Physics Guy, who is a fellow theist?

For the average person who believes Jesus is their savior, the more they believe in Jesus, the less they believe in the Book of Mormon.

Finally, you're really beating down the plates as an epistemic bad if you must resort to salvaging belief in them by chaining them to hope in eternal life.