Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Res Ipsa]

And that’s fine with me. by the way, your phrasing “taking God out of the picture” is a good example of question begging.

Yeah, I’m not a ‘pro’ on recognition of logical fallacies unless A.I. points it out. Even then, apparently, we still need a ‘pro’ to make the final determination .

Regards,
MG

The A.I. response was interesting, because it treated an assumed premise as question begging. An accurate criticism would have been something like “unsupported major premise.” I’d love to know the process by which the A.I. arrived at the wrong answer. in my opinion, recognizing something as question begging is tricky. I guess it’s nice to know the A.I. overlords aren’t ready to take over yet.

[I Have Questions]

As I see it there are only two pieces of testable evidence available to us for the notion that The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. 1. First hand accounts by the people who were there. 2. The contents of The Book of Mormon itself.

In terms of the first point, what people say is highly unreliable. That’s already been demonstrated. The apologists will say that this is the best evidence in favour of the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Which is a highly suspect thing to say when there is a tangible item available to examine objectively - the book itself.

So to the second point. The content of the book itself. The book’s contents are testable. Here is what the book is claimed to be.

THE Book of Mormon
AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng
The last entry in the book is dated AD421. For the book to be what it claims to be, it shouldn’t contain any content that dates to a time later than that. That’s a very basic minimum evidence threshold to require it to meet. Anything in there from a later date means we have no need to look any further. It isn’t what it claims to be.

So, does The Book of Mormon contain content that dates from more recent than AD421?

The KJV of 1769 contains translation variations which also occur in the Book of Mormon. A few examples are 2 Nephi 19:1, 2 Nephi 21:3, and 2 Nephi 16:2. The Book of Mormon references "dragons" and "satyrs" in 2 Nephi 23:21-22, matching the KJV of the Bible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of ... ames_Bible

Spelling it out, that’s content from 1,348 years later.

The Book of Mormon contains a version of the Sermon on the Mount, which some authors have claimed to be "the Achilles heel of the Book of Mormon."[5] One author makes the point that certain portions of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew 5–7 do not agree with the KJV of the text, and concludes that the Book of Mormon version of the sermon should not contain text similar to the KJV.

Oops! More content from 1,348 years after the Book of Mormon was supposedly finished and sealed up.

There are many words and phrases which, when found in the Book of Mormon, exist only in a KJV context, suggesting that the words were not part of the author's daily vocabulary, but were used only in borrowings from the KJV. For example, "fervent" and "elements" each appear twice, both times together in the same phrase, and in the same context as 2 Peter 3:10 (3 Nephi 26:3, Mormon 9:2). Also, "talent" is used only once, in the same context as Matthew 25:28 (Ether 12:35).[19]

Yep, content from 1,348 years later.

There’s a plethora of examples that show the Book of Mormon was written later than AD421, which demonstrates that whatever else the book might or might not be, it’s not “ AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI”

1. The Book of Mormon claims to have been written before AD421
2. The Book of Mormon contains content written in AD1769
3. Therefore the Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be

[malkie]

That’s a reasonable way to approach it, although my experience has shown me that the ‘smoking gun’ evidence hasn’t been found on either side of the faith debate or the plates/Book of Mormon debate. I’m not expecting things to change much in the here and now or the near future.

Regards,
MG

Smoking gun evidence is kind of unicorn, in my opinion. Mostly, you’re looking at finding the story that best fires the evidence. In addition, it’s is also possible for a collection of evidence to be as definitive as a smoking gun.

It seems to me that it's the claimant's side, and not the critic's side, that is most in need of a smoking gun.

[Valo]

Is this from the Book of Mormon?

It's from Father.

Everyone who is not a tare has at least a portion of Christ’s spirit in them. It's the talent, the currency, given by Father Christ for us to use to create our own identity with Christ. The Dark seed is in us too. Whichever seed we water and nuture, will grow until it has taken over your whole body and you become one with it.

Choose wisely.

[Valo]

As I see it there are only two pieces of testable evidence available to us for the notion that The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. 1. First hand accounts by the people who were there. 2. The contents of The Book of Mormon itself.

In terms of the first point, what people say is highly unreliable. That’s already been demonstrated. The apologists will say that this is the best evidence in favour of the historicity of The Book of Mormon. Which is a highly suspect thing to say when there is a tangible item available to examine objectively - the book itself.

So to the second point. The content of the book itself. The book’s contents are testable. Here is what the book is claimed to be.

THE Book of Mormon
AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... tures/Book of Mormon/Book of Mormon-title?lang=eng
The last entry in the book is dated AD421. For the book to be what it claims to be, it shouldn’t contain any content that dates to a time later than that. That’s a very basic minimum evidence threshold to require it to meet. Anything in there from a later date means we have no need to look any further. It isn’t what it claims to be.

So, does The Book of Mormon contain content that dates from more recent than AD421?

The KJV of 1769 contains translation variations which also occur in the Book of Mormon. A few examples are 2 Nephi 19:1, 2 Nephi 21:3, and 2 Nephi 16:2. The Book of Mormon references "dragons" and "satyrs" in 2 Nephi 23:21-22, matching the KJV of the Bible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of ... ames_Bible

Spelling it out, that’s content from 1,348 years later.

The Book of Mormon contains a version of the Sermon on the Mount, which some authors have claimed to be "the Achilles heel of the Book of Mormon."[5] One author makes the point that certain portions of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew 5–7 do not agree with the KJV of the text, and concludes that the Book of Mormon version of the sermon should not contain text similar to the KJV.

Oops! More content from 1,348 years after the Book of Mormon was supposedly finished and sealed up.

There are many words and phrases which, when found in the Book of Mormon, exist only in a KJV context, suggesting that the words were not part of the author's daily vocabulary, but were used only in borrowings from the KJV. For example, "fervent" and "elements" each appear twice, both times together in the same phrase, and in the same context as 2 Peter 3:10 (3 Nephi 26:3, Mormon 9:2). Also, "talent" is used only once, in the same context as Matthew 25:28 (Ether 12:35).[19]

Yep, content from 1,348 years later.

There’s a plethora of examples that show the Book of Mormon was written later than AD421, which demonstrates that whatever else the book might or might not be, it’s not “ AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF Mormon UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI”

1. The Book of Mormon claims to have been written before AD421
2. The Book of Mormon contains content written in AD1769
3. Therefore the Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be

Almost every holy book contains ideas that came before. There are many repeated themes and stories of the same event or entity but told from the perspective and the understanding of the writer. These ideas repeat themselves in holy text because they are fundamental truths.

Many writers of scriptures have quoted or used the words of others who came before to describe an idea.

[I Have Questions]

Almost every holy book contains ideas that came before. There are many repeated themes and stories of the same event or entity but told from the perspective and the understanding of the writer. These ideas repeat themselves in holy text because they are fundamental truths.

Many writers of scriptures have quoted or used the words of others who came before to describe an idea.

The problem here is that this particular holy book (The Book of Mormon), contains content from AFTER it was supposedly written. Which is impossible if it was written when it claims to have been written.

[Valo]

Almost every holy book contains ideas that came before. There are many repeated themes and stories of the same event or entity but told from the perspective and the understanding of the writer. These ideas repeat themselves in holy text because they are fundamental truths.

Many writers of scriptures have quoted or used the words of others who came before to describe an idea.

The problem here is that this particular holy book (The Book of Mormon), contains content from AFTER it was supposedly written. Which is impossible if it was written when it claims to have been written.

It was interpreteded after it was written.

[Res Ipsa]

Smoking gun evidence is kind of unicorn, in my opinion. Mostly, you’re looking at finding the story that best fires the evidence. In addition, it’s is also possible for a collection of evidence to be as definitive as a smoking gun.

It seems to me that it's the claimant's side, and not the critic's side, that is most in need of a smoking gun.

I think that's true. MG is the one making a claim. He carries the burden of proof/persuasion. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm saying, let's gather up all the evidence we have and do our best to find the explanation that best fits the evidence.

But I don't think he understands how hard his task is. If we apply Bayesian reasoning to the witness statement that there were plates (however defined), we first have to form a prior based on all the evidence we have other than the witness statements. So, we have a guy that claims discovery of an object of great significance -- perhaps world changing. For whatever reason, he goes to significant effort to conceal the object from everyone, even his wife. He never produces the object for inspection. Is that pattern of events more consistent with an important object that exists or one that doesn't exist.

Then let's look for similar examples. My guess is that the overwhelming number of examples we find will be of con men and that we'll find few, if any, examples where the object is, at some point, shown to exist. In other words, MG is starting out with a vanishingly small prior. To move the needle, he either needs a smoking gun or a very large quantity of strong evidence. And the problem with the witnesses statements is that they were prepared and made under conditions more consistent with deception than accuracy.

[Res Ipsa]

Almost every holy book contains ideas that came before. There are many repeated themes and stories of the same event or entity but told from the perspective and the understanding of the writer. These ideas repeat themselves in holy text because they are fundamental truths.

Many writers of scriptures have quoted or used the words of others who came before to describe an idea.

The problem here is that this particular holy book (The Book of Mormon), contains content from AFTER it was supposedly written. Which is impossible if it was written when it claims to have been written.

You have to use apologetic reasoning. God told his prophet what the translation was going to say.

[Valo]

"God is a fish in water."

"Elohim swims in the ocean as a fish."

"The fish of the sea swims."

"In the ocean wide, the Spirit moves and dwells."

All of these sentences express the same basic idea.
If I came across a sentence I needed to translate and I understood the idea, I could pick from any one of those already written descriptions and use it to express the idea contained.